Amanda J. Smith Bsc (Hons)
Campsite impact monitoring in the temperate eucalypt forests of Western Australia: An integrated approach
This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Murdoch University
2003
Submitted by
Amanda J. Smith BSc (Hons)
School of Environmental Science Division of Science and Engineering Murdoch University Perth, Western Australia
Supported by CRC for Sustainable Tourism and Dept of Conservation and Land Management (Western Australia)
DECLARATION
I declare that this thesis is my own account of my research and contains
as its main content work which has not previously been submitted for a
degree at any tertiary educational institution.
Amanda J. Smith
Abstract
This study assessed the social and biophysical impacts of camping in the eucalypt forests of southwestern Western Australia. This was an integrated study examining both biophysical and social impacts in designated, developed and informal recreation areas used for camping. Four existing and proposed national parks and a Reserve, comprised of 110 designated and 12 informal campsites, provided the study sites. Previous research has focused on backcountry campsites and trails in wilderness areas in United States.
A combined survey approach using multiple indicator ratings and measures was used to assess the biophysical impacts of camping. Adjustments to monitoring procedures used in backcountry areas were made so that the indicators were applicable to designated, developed campsites where a management footprint has been imposed. Visitors were surveyed at the designated campsites to establish how existing recreation opportunities were being used. Further, potential indicators and standards were identified to determine what kinds of social and resource conditions were acceptable to visitors and managers. A rating system was then developed combining biophysical and social indicators of importance to visitors and managers with their perceptions of acceptable change obtained from the surveys.
Based on the indices derived from the rating system and results for a suite of associated indicators, designated campsites were significantly less impacted than informal ones. For both campsite types the amount of tree damage and litter exceeded the standards set by 50% of visitors and managers. Both visitors and managers were generally more concerned about biophysical impacts than they were about social ones, although site cleanliness was of concern. Both were generally satisfied with the size and number of groups encountered, in contrast to study findings from the United States.
This study has developed and successfully applied an integrated approach to monitoring the impacts of recreational use on forested campsites in southwestern Australia. This system effectively and efficiently uses a combination of multiple indicator ratings and measures to produce an impact index, plus social surveys to provide information on conditions, indicators and standards of importance to managers and visitors. It also provides a means for the first time, of objectively monitoring designated, developed campsites where it is inappropriate to judge impacts against an undisturbed control.
Table of Contents
Page ABSTRACT...... TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... I List of Figures vi LIST OF TABLES ...... LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS...... X LIST OF APPENDICES ...... XI ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... XII PUBLICATIONS ...... XIII
PART I: INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 2 STUDY AREAS 14
2.1. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITIES ...... 15 2.2. RATIONALE FOR SITE SELECTION ...... 20 2.3. STUDY PARK 1 – LANE POOLE RESERVE...... 30 2.3.1. Climate ...... 32 2.3.2. Topography, Geology & Soils...... 32 2.3.3. Flora & Fauna ...... 33 2.3.4. Legislation and Management...... 34 2.3.5. Historical Recreation Use of the Park...... 35 2.3.6. Recreation Opportunities & Facilities...... 36 2.3.7. Current Recreation Use ...... 42 2.4. STUDY PARK 2 – WELLINGTON FOREST, HONEYMOON POOL ...... 46 2.4.1. Climate ...... 48 2.4.2. Topography, Geology & Soils...... 48 2.4.3. Flora & Fauna ...... 48 2.4.4. Legislation & Management...... 50 2.4.5. Historical Recreation Use of the Park...... 51 2.4.6. Recreation Opportunities & Facilities...... 52 2.4.7. Current Recreation Use ...... 56 2.5. STUDY PARK 3 – WARNER GLEN RECREATION AREA...... 59 2.5.1. Climate ...... 61 2.5.2. Topography, Geology & Soils...... 61 2.5.3. Flora & Fauna ...... 62 2.5.4. Legislation & Management...... 62 2.5.5. Historical Recreation Use of the Park...... 63 2.5.6. Recreational Opportunities & Facilities...... 64 2.5.7. Current Recreation Use ...... 67
-i-
2.6. STUDY PARK 4 – SUES BRIDGE RECREATION AREA...... 69 2.6.1. Climate ...... 72 2.6.2. Topography, Geology & Soils...... 72 2.6.3. Flora & Fauna ...... 72 2.6.4. Legislation & Management...... 73 2.6.5. Historical Recreation Use of the Park...... 74 2.6.6. Recreation Opportunities & Facilities...... 74 2.6.7. Current Recreation Use ...... 77 2.7. STUDY PARK 5 – WARREN NATIONAL PARK ...... 79 2.7.1. Climate ...... 81 2.7.2. Topography, Geology & Soils...... 81 2.7.3. Flora & Fauna ...... 81 2.7.4. Legislation & Management...... 82 2.7.5. Historical Recreation Use of the Park...... 83 2.7.6. Recreation Opportunities & Facilities...... 84 2.7.7. Current Recreation Use ...... 89 2.8. THE STUDY PARKS AS A FOCUS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH...... 92
PART II: BIOPHYSICAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
CHAPTER 3 ASSESSING BIOPHYSICAL IMPACTS 93
3.1. INTRODUCTION ...... 93 3.2. IMPACTS OF RECREATION AT CAMPING AREAS AND DAY USE SITES ...... 94 3.2.1. Type of Recreation Impact ...... 95 3.2.1.1. Soil impacts ...... 97 3.2.1.2. Vegetation impacts ...... 97 3.2.1.3. Loss of coarse woody debris ...... 100 3.2.1.4. Intensity and spatial extent of impact ...... 101 3.2.2. Amount of Use...... 101 3.2.3. Effect or Influence of Visitor and Site Management Actions ...... 104 3.2.4. Change Over Time ...... 104 3.2.5. Improvement of Methods...... 105 3.3. MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF BIOPHYSICAL CONDITION ...... 105 3.3.1. Use of Indicators and Standards...... 106 3.3.2. Monitoring of Campsites...... 109 3.3.2.1. Photographic assessment ...... 111 3.3.2.2. Condition class ratings...... 112 3.3.2.3. Multiple indicator ratings ...... 114 3.3.2.4. Multiple indicator measurements ...... 119 Fixed radial transect method ...... 121 Variable radial transect method...... 123 Geometric figure method ...... 125 Estimation of campsite area ...... 126 3.3.2.5. Combined systems...... 126 3.3.2.6. Firewood collection associated with camping areas...... 128 3.4. THE NEED FOR RESEARCH IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA ...... 131
-ii-
CHAPTER 4 INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIOPHYSICAL COMPONENT: TEMPERATE EUCALYPT FORESTS OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA 133
4.1. INTRODUCTION ...... 133 4.2. FIELD METHODOLOGY...... 134 4.3. UNDISTURBED CONTROL SITES...... 140 4.4. PILOT SURVEY ...... 140 4.5. VOLUNTEER TRAINING ...... 141 4.6. TIMING OF BIOPHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS ...... 141 4.7. CAMPSITE DATA FORM...... 142 4.7.1. Campsite area ...... 145 4.7.2. Human damage to trees ...... 146 4.7.3. Root exposure...... 147 4.7.4. Coarse woody debris – (firewood collection) ...... 148 4.7.5. Impacts to mineral soil - soil penetrometry ...... 150 4.7.6. Human activities that contribute to soil erosion at campsites ...... 151 4.7.6.1. Tent ditching...... 152 4.7.6.2. Drainage channels...... 153 4.7.7. Cleanliness (Pieces of human sourced litter and toilet paper)...... 153 4.7.8. Multiple Indicator Ratings ...... 154 4.8. DATA ANALYSIS ...... 158 4.9. MEASUREMENT ERROR...... 160 4.10. FIELD SURVEY RESULTS ...... 161 4.10.1. Campsite Inventory Indicators...... 161 4.10.1.1. Proximity to other campsites, access road, water and other adjacent campsites ...... 161 4.10.1.2. Condition of vegetation at perimeter ...... 164 4.10.1.3. Mature trees ...... 165 4.10.1.4. Facilities present and development...... 166 4.10.2. Campsite Impact Indicators ...... 169 4.10.2.1. Campsite area ...... 169 4.10.2.2. Tree seedlings ...... 173 4.10.2.3. Human damage to trees ...... 175 Severity rating ...... 175 Number of trees damaged ...... 178 Number of trees with fresh scars...... 179 Percentage of trees damaged ...... 180 4.10.2.4. Root exposure...... 182 Severity rating ...... 182 Number of trees with root exposure...... 185 4.10.2.5. Firewood provision and coarse woody debris ...... 187 4.10.2.6. Impacts to mineral soil ...... 192 4.10.2.7. Evidence of human activities that contribute to soil erosion ...... 195 4.10.2.8. Cleanliness...... 199 4.10.2.9. Social trails ...... 202 4.10.3. Multiple Indicator Ratings ...... 204 4.10.4. Efficiency of Methods...... 206 -iii-
4.11. DISCUSSION ...... 208 4.11.1. Describing the Impacts of Visitor Use ...... 208 4.11.1.1. Area disturbance ...... 209 Campsite area ...... 209 Social trails...... 211 Firewood provision and coarse woody debris...... 213 4.11.1.2. Soil and groundcover damage ...... 215 Root exposure...... 215 Tree seedlings...... 216 Impacts to mineral soil ...... 217 Evidence of human activities that contribute to soil erosion ...... 219 4.11.1.3. Tree damage ...... 220 4.11.1.4. Social ...... 222 Vandalism...... 222 Cleanliness ...... 223 4.11.2. Multiple Indicator Ratings ...... 225 4.11.3. Developing a Monitoring Program for Campsites ...... 227 4.12. CONCLUSION...... 231
PART III: SOCIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
CHAPTER 5 ASSESSING SOCIAL IMPACTS & CONSIDERATIONS 232
5.1. INTRODUCTION ...... 232 5.2. SOCIAL IMPACTS FROM RECREATION IN NATURAL AREAS ...... 232 5.2.1. Visitor Outcomes...... 236 5.2.2. Characteristics (Use and User) ...... 236 5.2.3. Recreation Conflict ...... 237 5.2.3.1. Inter-group encounters and conflicts ...... 237 5.2.3.2. Intra-group encounters and conflicts ...... 238 5.2.3.3. Inappropriate uses and behaviours ...... 239 5.2.3.4. Off-site intrusions ...... 239 5.2.4. Evaluating Management Outcomes ...... 240 5.2.4.1. Visitors’ preferences for proposed management actions...... 241 5.2.5. Perception of Resource Impacts...... 242 5.2.5.1. Defining indicators and standards ...... 243 5.2.6. Social Values...... 245 5.3. ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING OF SOCIAL CONDITIONS...... 246 5.3.1. Counting Visitors ...... 247 5.3.2. Questionnaires and Personal Interviews ...... 248 5.3.3. Site-based Surveying (convenience or judgement sampling)...... 250 5.3.4. Observing Visitors...... 251 5.4. CONCLUSION...... 252
-iv-
CHAPTER 6 INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE SOCIAL COMPONENT: TEMPERATE EUCALYPT FORESTS OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA 253
6.1 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES...... 253 6.2. THE SAMPLING STRATEGY...... 254 6.2.1. Recreation and Tourism Visitor Survey ...... 254 6.2.2. Recreation and Tourism Survey for Managers ...... 255 6.3. QUESTIONNAIRE STRUCTURE AND CONTENT...... 255 6.4. PILOT SURVEY ...... 257 6.5. DISTRIBUTION AND ANALYSIS ...... 258 6.6. SOCIAL SURVEY RESULTS...... 260 6.6.1. Social Survey Response Rates...... 260 6.6.2. Visit Characteristics...... 261 6.6.2.1. Visit characteristics...... 261 6.6.2.2. Activities...... 267 6.6.3. Visitor Characteristics ...... 269 6.6.4. Reasons for Visiting ...... 270 6.6.5. Visitor Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Existing Environmental Conditions and Management Preferences ...... 272 6.6.5.1. The indicators ...... 272 6.6.5.2. The standards for potential indicators ...... 277 Biophysical standards...... 277 Social standards...... 279 6.6.5.3. Encountering other groups...... 280 6.6.5.4. Potential management actions...... 284 6.6.6. Management Actions...... 287 6.7. DISCUSSION ...... 290 6.7.1. Visit and Visitor Characteristics...... 291 6.7.2. Potential Indicators...... 294 6.7.3. Social Encounters ...... 297 6.7.4. Potential Standards...... 299 6.8. POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 306 6.9. CONCLUSION...... 309
PART IV: INTEGRATION AND CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 7 AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO MONITORING AND STUDY CONCLUSIONS 311
7.1. INTRODUCTION ...... 311 7.2. AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO MONITORING ...... 311 7.2.1. An Overview...... 311 7.2.2. Using Standards to Determine Acceptable Impacts...... 316 7.3. CONCLUSIONS...... 320 7.4. STUDY CONTRIBUTIONS...... 332
REFERENCES ...... 334
-v-
List of Figures
Page Figure 1. 1 Conceptual diagram of research framework...... 12 Figure 2. 1 Recreation Master Plan – Loop Track Recreation Area Design...... 26 Figure 2. 2 Designated Campsites...... 28 Figure 2. 3 Informal Campsite – Denny Road Informal Campsite near Sues Bridge...... 29 Figure 2. 4 Lane Poole Reserve, Charlie’s Flat Recreation Area showing layout of campsites, formal walk trails and toilet facilities ...... 39 Figure 2. 5 Lane Poole Reserve, Tony’s Bend Recreation Area showing layout of campsites, walk trails and toilet facilities ...... 40 Figure 2. 6 Lane Poole Reserve, Yarragil Recreation Area and Informal campsites showing layout of designated campsites, walk trails and toilet facilities, and location of informal campsites...... 41 Figure 2. 7 Total number of visitors per year (1973 to 2002, Lane Poole Reserve) ...... 42 Figure 2. 8 Total number of visitors per month year (2001/2002, Lane Poole Reserve)...... 43 Figure 2. 9 Wellington Forest, Honeymoon Pool Family (HP01 to HP24) and Group Camping Areas (A-C), showing campsite location, formal walk trails and toilet facilities...... 55 Figure 2. 10 Total number of visitors per year (1999 to 2002 Wellington Forest) ...... 56 Figure 2. 11 Total number of visitors per month (2001/2002 Wellington Forest)...... 57 Figure 2. 12 Warner Glen Recreation Area, Group Camping Area...... 65 Figure 2. 13 Warner Glen Recreation Area, Individual Camping Area showing location of campsites, formal walk trails and toilet facilities ...... 66 Figure 2. 14 Total number of visitors (Warner Glen Recreation Area) ...... 67 Figure 2. 15 Sues Bridge Recreation Area showing location of campsites, day use area, formal walk trails and toilet facilities...... 76 Figure 2. 16 Total number of visitors (Sues Bridge Recreation Area)...... 77 Figure 2. 17 Warren National Park, Camping Area 1, Individual Area showing location of campsites, toilet facilities and location of day use area...... 87 Figure 2. 18 Warren National Park, Camping Area 1, Group Area showing location of campsites, toilet facilities and day use area...... 88 Figure 2. 19 Total Visitor Numbers (Warren National Park, 1998 to 2002) ...... 90 Figure 2. 20 Total Monthly Visitor Numbers (Warren National Park, 2001/2002)...... 91 Figure 3. 1 Temporal pattern of impact – impact on recreation sites occurs within the first few years after the site is open ...... 102 Figure 3. 2 The fixed radial transect method used in Eagle Cap Wilderness...... 123 Figure 3. 3 The variable radial transect method used for determining campsite size ...... 124 Figure 3. 4 Geometric figure method for measuring campsite area...... 125 Figure 3. 5 Design of sampling plot...... 129 Figure 3. 6 Diagram of layout for measuring woody material within three concentric circles around campsite centre-point ...... 130 Figure 4. 1 Human damage to trees – severity rating for tree damage...... 147 Figure 4. 2 Root exposure – severity rating for root exposure...... 148 Figure 4. 3 Example of line intersect layout showing equilateral triangle positioning at campsite perimeter ...... 149 Figure 4. 4 Diagram of layout for measuring penetrometry at campsites...... 151 Figure 4. 5 Tent ditching at Charlie’s Flat in Lane Poole Reserve ...... 152 Figure 4. 6 Drainage channel at Tony’s Bend in Lane Poole Reserve...... 153 Figure 4. 7 Development at designated recreation areas...... 167 Figure 4. 8 Percentage of campsites at recreation areas with human damage to trees...... 176 Figure 4. 9 Percentage of campsites at recreation areas with human damage to trees - repeat measurements...... 177
-vi-
Figure 4. 10 Percentage of mature trees damaged at recreation area campsites – initial and repeat survey ...... 181 Figure 4. 11 Percentage of campsites at recreation areas with root exposure...... 183 Figure 4. 12 Percentage of campsites with root exposure in study recreation areas– repeat measurements...... 184 Figure 4. 13 Percentage of recreation area campsites with evidence of firewood collection or delivery...... 188 Figure 4. 14 Distance to firewood source from campsites in study recreation areas...... 189 Figure 4. 15 Mean penetrometry (kN/cm2) for study recreation areas...... 193 Figure 4. 16 Mean impact scores derived for study campsites ...... 205 Figure 4. 17 Water puddling on surface of informal campsite in Wellington Forest, Honeymoon Pool...... 219 Figure 4. 18 Vandalism of facilities (fire ring) at designated campsites...... 222 Figure 6. 1 First visit to a particular study park ...... 262 Figure 6. 2 Year of first visit to study park ...... 263 Figure 6. 3 Number of previous visits to study park...... 263 Figure 6. 4 Number of visits per year to study park...... 264 Figure 6. 5 Length of stay at study park during most recent visit...... 265 Figure 6. 6 Seasons likely to visit study park...... 265 Figure 6. 7 Type of group with whom respondents visited study park...... 266 Figure 6. 8 Size of group with whom respondents visited study park ...... 267 Figure 6. 9 Usual place of residence of survey respondents ...... 269 Figure 6. 10 Age of survey respondents...... 270 Figure 6. 11 Very/Extremely important reasons for respondents to visit study park...... 271 Figure 6. 12 Not/minor important reasons for respondents to visit study park...... 272 Figure 6. 13 Number of groups seen per day during most recent visit to a particular study park...... 281 Figure 6. 14 How visitors felt about the number of groups seen per day during most recent visit to a particular study park...... 281 Figure 6. 15 Number of groups visitors would prefer to see per day when visiting a particular study park...... 282 Figure 6. 16 Size at which other groups become too large and begin to detract from visitors experience when visiting a particular study park ...... 283 Figure 7. 1 Camping at the original designated campsites (1998) in Warren National Park ...... 314 Map 2. 1 Location of five study parks...... 24 Map 2. 2 Recreation areas of Lane Poole Reserve, showing location of river, Park boundary and recreation and conservation zones, and River Road entry station...... 31 Map 2. 3 Wellington Forest showing recreation areas, location of Collie River and Wellington Dam...... 47 Map 2. 4 Warner Glen Recreation Area showing recreation areas, Blackwood River and Chapman Pool, Warner Glen Road and bordering private property and national park...60 Map 2. 5 Sues Bridge Recreation Area showing Blackwood River, Sues Road and surrounding land use ...... 70 Map 2. 6 Sues Bridge Recreation Area and Informal Campsites along Denny Road showing Blackwood River, Sues Road, Denny Road and surrounding land use...... 71 Map 2. 7 Warren National Park showing recreation facilities, Warren River, Heartbreak Trail, Old Vasse Road and surrounding land use...... 80
-vii-
List of Tables
Page Table 2. 1 Features of study parks and the study recreation areas ...... 21 Table 2. 2 Study recreation areas including number and type of campsites ...... 22 Table 2. 3 Site descriptions for study parks ...... 23 Table 2. 4 Site management responsibilities in relation to recreation in Lane Poole Reserve...... 35 Table 2. 5 Facilities at recreation areas in Lane Poole Reserve ...... 37 Table 2. 6 Facilities at recreation areas in Wellington Forrest...... 53 Table 2. 7 Facilities at recreation areas in Warner Glen Recreation Area ...... 64 Table 2. 8 Facilities at recreation areas in Sues Bridge Recreation Area...... 75 Table 2. 9 Facilities at recreation areas in Warren National Park ...... 86 Table 3. 1 Major research themes in determining biophysical impacts associated with recreation use of campsites* ...... 95 Table 3. 2 Impacts from the use of camping areas in natural environments ...... 96 Table 3. 3 Advantages and disadvantages of campsite assessment approaches...... 110 Table 3. 4 Condition class for monitoring campsites in natural areas...... 113 Table 3. 5 Condition class system applied at Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, USA...... 113 Table 3. 6 Criteria and rating factors used for camp area inventory in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, USA...... 116 Table 3. 7 The criteria, rating and weight used for the evaluation of recreational impact on campsites...... 118 Table 3. 8 Indicators used in multiple indicator measurement systems ...... 120 Table 4. 1 Indicators used in campsite data form for temperate eucalypt forests in southwest Western Australia...... 136 Table 4. 2 Resource and inventory indicators for monitoring campsite impacts from visitor use for temperate eucalypt forests in southwest Western Australia...... 144 Table 4. 3 Human damage to trees – Impact ratings ...... 146 Table 4. 4 Root exposure in campsites – Impact ratings...... 147 Table 4. 5: Ratings for tent ditching and drainage channels ...... 152 Table 4. 6 Cleanliness ratings applied at campsites in study recreation areas ...... 154 Table 4. 7 The criteria, rating and weight used for the evaluation of recreational impact on campsites in the study recreation areas ...... 157 Table 4. 8 Distance to nearest campsite and number of adjacent campsites in recreation areas...... 162 Table 4. 9 Distance to main access road and water source from campsite...... 163 Table 4. 10 Condition of vegetation at perimeter of campsite ...... 165 Table 4. 11 Mean number of mature trees at campsites...... 166 Table 4. 12 Development at campsites in study recreation areas...... 168 Table 4. 13 Example of GPS area calculation measurements taken at Warner Glen Campsite 1...... 170 Table 4. 14 Estimated total area of campsite and barren core area ...... 171 Table 4. 15 Comparison of means of campsite area for designated, informal and newly developed campsites...... 172 Table 4. 16 Mean number and standard deviation of tree seedlings recorded at the perimeter of campsites in study recreation areas...... 174 Table 4. 17 Comparison of means of tree seedlings for designated, informal and newly developed campsites...... 174 Table 4. 18 Mean and significance for the amount of tree damage (none to severe) and the total percentage of mature trees damaged at campsites in recreation areas ...... 178
-viii-
Table 4. 19 Mean number and standard deviation of tree damage and trees with fresh scars at campsites in recreation areas...... 179 Table 4. 20 Mean and significance for root exposure at study recreation areas...... 185 Table 4. 21 Mean number and standard deviation of trees with root exposure at study recreation areas...... 186 Table 4. 22 Mean number of coarse woody debris contacts by diameter class for study recreation areas...... 190 Table 4. 23 Means and significance for coarse woody debris...... 192 Table 4. 24 Means and significance for soil penetrometry (kN/cm2)...... 194 Table 4. 25 Percentage of recreation area campsites with tent ditching and drainage channels...... 196 Table 4. 26 Severity rating for tent ditching and drainage channels at campsites in study recreation areas (negligible to high)...... 197 Table 4. 27 Means and significance for human activities that contribute to soil erosion (e.g. tent ditching and drainage channels), negligible to high severity rating...... 198 Table 4. 28 Mean and standard deviation of the number of pieces of human sourced litter at recreation areas...... 199 Table 4. 29 Means and significance of human sourced litter (none to >6 pieces) ...... 200 Table 4. 30 Percentage of campsites with toilet paper in the study recreation areas ...... 201 Table 4. 31 Mean and significance of the presence of toilet paper (none to >6 pieces) ...... 202 Table 4. 32 Number of social trails leading from campsites for study recreation areas ...... 203 Table 4. 33 Mean and significance of the number of social trails radiating from campsites in study recreation areas...... 203 Table 4. 34 Mean and significance for mean impact classes for study parks...... 206 Table 4. 35 r-squared values for indicators in designated recreation areas using initial survey data to show correlation between indicators ...... 207 Table 4. 36 Groupings of indicators for camping impacts ...... 209 Table 4. 37 Campsite area for selected parks and wilderness areas...... 210 Table 5. 1 Major research themes in determining social impacts associated with recreation use ...... 235 Table 5. 2 Visitor monitoring data uses, advantages and disadvantages...... 247 Table 6. 1 Example question from Recreation and Tourism Visitor Survey ...... 257 Table 6. 2 Activities participated in while visiting study park...... 268 Table 6. 3 Mean, Standard Deviation and p-value for influence on quality of visitor experience while visiting a study park, visitors and managers – very negative, negative, no, positive, very positive influence...... 275 Table 6. 4 Additional park specific environmental impacts noticed by survey respondents...... 276 Table 6. 5 Standards and means for potential biophysical indicators in the study parks .....278 Table 6. 6 Standards and means for potential social indicators in the study parks ...... 280 Table 6. 7 Respondents attitudes towards potential management actions, visitors and managers ...... 286 Table 6. 8 Management actions that have been put in place to decrease social and biophysical impacts in the study parks in the last 5 years...... 288 Table 6. 9 Increase/Decrease in depreciative behaviour in the last 5 years ...... 290 Table 7. 1 Indicators applicable to integrated monitoring...... 316 Table 7. 2 Existing campsite condition versus standards for potential biophysical indicators...... 317 Table 7. 3 Existing campsite condition versus standards for potential social indicators .....318
-ix-
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
CALM Department of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia
LAC Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) wilderness management planning framework
MPRS Multiple Parameter Rating System
NBTAC Nature Based Tourism Advisory Committee
NPNCA National Parks and Nature Conservation Authority, now the Conservation Commission
RFA Regional Forest Agreement
ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
TOMM Tourism Optimisation Management Model
VERP Visitor Experience Resource Protection
VIM Visitor Impact Management
-x-
List of Appendices
Appendix 1: Campsite Data Form
Appendix 2: Campsite Area Maps
Appendix 3: Efficiency of Methods – Scatter Plots
Appendix 4: Recreation and Tourism Visitor Survey
Appendix 5: Recreation and Tourism Survey for Managers
Appendix 6: Respondents’ Reasons for Visiting a Particular Study Park
Appendix 7: Factors or Conditions Influencing the Quality of the Visitor Experience for Study Parks
Appendix 8: Respondents’ Attitudes Towards Potential Management for Particular Study Parks
-xi-
Acknowledgments
I would firstly like to thank the CRC for Sustainable Tourism for providing financial support throughout this Doctor of Philosophy study and the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM), Western Australia for in-kind support. Without the financial assistance and the considerable contribution from the staff at CALM this study would not have been possible. Further, I would like to thank my supervisors, Dr David Newsome and Dr Sue Moore, Environmental Science, Murdoch University, Western Australia for their support, encouragement, enthusiasm and guidance throughout this Doctor of Philosophy study.
I would like to thank and make special mention of certain staff and management at the Department of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia. In particular, I would like to make special thanks to Wayne Schmidt and Daryl Moncrieff for their continuous support, encouragement and guidance. I would further like to mention Peter Morris, Scott Hunter, Mark Moore, Steve Raper, Rod Annear, Jeremy Spencer, Denam Bennetts, Melissa Robinson, Allison Driscoll, Clare Forward, Luisa Liddicoat and Kate Hassall all of whom have greatly assisted me during this study. Further, I would like to thank Ray Connew, Senior Cartographer, from AAM Surveys, Perth, Western Australia for his time spent plotting the campsite area maps. I am indebted to all those that have helped me to achieve my goals and complete my study.
Further I would like to thank the individuals that gave up their time as volunteers to assist me in the field with special mention to: Nick Wood, Michelle Davies, Matt Wardell, Jan Smith and Peter Smith. Their contribution and tireless efforts assisted me greatly by providing moral support, feedback and enthusiasm, making the field component of my research more enjoyable and the journey of a PhD less lonely.
Lastly I would like to make special thanks to my partner Nick, my mother, Jan, and my brother and sister-in-law, Peter & Elaine for their undivided support, encouragement and guidance throughout this study. I would also like to thank both friends and family who provided moral support and encouragement throughout this Doctor of Philosophy study.
-xii-
Publications
The following papers relevant to the research presented here have been published:
Smith, A.J. and Newsome, D. (2002). An integrated approach to assessing, managing and monitoring campsite impacts in Warren National Park, Western Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10(4), 343-359.
Moore, S.A., Smith, A.J. and Newsome, D.N. (2003). Environmental performance reporting for natural area tourism: Contributions by visitor impact management frameworks and their indicators. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11(4), 348-375.
Three poster papers have been presented at National Conferences and one paper presented at an International Conference:
Smith, A.J. (2001). Nature Tourism in the Temperate Eucalypt Forests of Western Australia. Presented at the 2001 Australian Academy of Science Fenner Conference on Nature Tourism and the Environment (3-6 September 2001), Canberra, Australia and presented again at the ATRi Tourism Outlook Conference (30-31 October 2001), Hobart, Tasmania, Australia where second prize was won for best poster.
Smith, A.J. (2002). Nature Tourism in the Temperate Eucalypt Forests of Western Australia: An Integrated Approach to Monitoring. Presented at the 9th ISSRM conference in Bloomington, Indiana, USA (June 2002) also presented at the Aldo Leopold Research Institute, Missoula, Montana, USA and members from the forestry faculty of University of Montana also attended.
A paper was also presented as a finalist for the CRC Beginner Researcher Award:
Smith, A.J. (2002). Nature Tourism in the Temperate Eucalypt Forests of Western Australia: An Integrated Approach to Monitoring. Presented at the ATRi Tourism Outlook Conference (16-17 October 2002), Sydney, Australia. A poster was also presented at this conference.
-xiii-
PART 1: INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1 Introduction
Tourism is a major international industry with tourism and recreation in natural areas, including nature based tourism and ecotourism, experiencing rapid growth with the attraction being provided by relatively undisturbed natural environments
(Buckley and Pannell, 1990). The International Ecotourism Society (2000) reported that tourism overall has been growing at an annual rate of 4%, with natural area tourism increasing at an annual rate between 10% and 30%.
Natural area tourism and recreation often takes place in protected areas such as nature reserves, wilderness areas, national parks, protected landscapes, natural monuments, habitat/species management areas and protected landscapes/seascapes
(McNeely, 1990; Newsome et al., 2002a). Parks and protected areas have been established by almost all countries and cultures around the world, with the value of these natural areas being to conserve nature and biological diversity as well as to offer humans opportunities for recreation, inspiration, education and understanding
(Woodley, 1993; Newsome et al., 2002a). The natural attributes and availability of these protected areas for recreation, inspiration, education and understanding is a key determinant for people choosing these areas as tourism and recreation destinations.
In Australia, there is an increasing demand for tourism. The Tourism Forecasting
Council expects around 10.4 million visitors per year to be coming to Australia by
2012. This represents a doubling of the current annual number of international visitors. Additionally, domestic tourism is expected to grow by 20 per cent over the
A.J. Smith Introduction 1
same period (Dept of Industry Tourism and Resources, 2002). Features of Australia’s natural environment are perceived to be one of the main generators of demand for tourism and recreation in Australia (Huybers and Bennett, 1997). People are attracted to the clean environment, wildlife, spectacular scenery, unique flora and fauna, cultural heritage and other natural environment related attributes (Huybers and
Bennett, 1997; Dept of Industry Tourism and Resources, 2001). Of all natural resources, forests have been recognised world wide as major contributors to recreation and tourism and Australia is no exception (Cole and Marion, 1988;
Gomez-Limon and de Lucio, 1994; Bostedt and Mattsson, 1995; Obua, 1997; Sun and Walsh, 1998).
The visitation rates to forests in Australia relative to our total population are much higher than Canada or the United States (Westcott, 1993). In Australia, forest-based recreation is provided for in national parks, state forests and state recreation areas.
These areas are increasingly important for nature based tourists. An estimated 60% of the Australian population and some 42% of international tourists visit parks and reserves each year (Dept of Industry Tourism and Resources, 1998). Visitor trips to forests have been predicted to increase from 812,500 in 1996 to between 1.28 and
1.33 million by the year 2018 (Regional Forest Agreement, 1998b).
In Western Australia, karri (Eucalyptus diversicolor), marri (Corymbia calophylla) and jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) forests are internationally recognised attractions that draw significant numbers of tourists because they are endemic species with limited distributions. These forests are found within the Southwest Botanical
Province, which is considered a biodiversity hotspot with high levels of endemism
A.J. Smith Introduction 2
(Myers et al., 2000). The southwest of Western Australia has the eighth highest number of endemic species, when compared with regions throughout the world and is thus of international importance due to the richness and uniqueness of flora and the number of flora that are rare or threatened (Atkins, 1998a). These unique attributes make the forests one of the cornerstones of tourism and nature conservation in the southwest of Western Australia.
It is necessary to distinguish between tourism, recreation and day tripping as there are important links and overlap in terms of the activities and experiences that each entail. Recreation can be defined as the range of social, cultural, sporting and other activities undertaken in leisure time through choice which bring enjoyment or satisfaction to the participants (Regional Forest Agreement, 1998b; CALM, 2003a).
Although not all recreation activities are classified as tourism, tourism can be defined as “…the activities of persons travelling to, and staying in places outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes” (Industry Commission, 1996; Regional Forest Agreement, 1998b). CALM
(2003c) further defines tourism as “recreational activity undertaken by people who have travelled more than 40 kilometres and/or are staying one night or more away from their usual place of residence”. Tourism includes both domestic tourists who travel within their own country both interstate and intrastate, and international visitors. Day trippers may also be considered as tourists when they travel more than
50 kilometres from their immediate environment for tourism or recreational activities but return within the same day (Regional Forest Agreement, 1998b).
A.J. Smith Introduction 3
The similarities in the definitions, as described above, highlight that both tourism and recreation share the same resources, use the same facilities, exert similar impacts when the same activity is undertaken and produce common social and psychological outcomes for participants (McKercher, 1996). Making a distinction between tourism and recreation therefore serves no practical management purpose as tourists and recreationists are part of the broader visitor management issue and management focus must be the management of acceptable park uses (McKercher, 1996). For this reason, tourism, recreation and day tripping will be considered together and herein discussed in this dissertation as recreation.
The figures previously reported highlight that the demand for natural area recreation is increasing, however, the area of the resource remains largely static. The rapid growth of tourism can create impacts on the socio-cultural, economic, psychological and biophysical components of the environment (Moncrieff, 1998). It is therefore important that informed management decisions are made to minimise the impact from increasing recreation pressure. As the tourism industry grows, challenging situations and opportunities for managers will arise and it is often the case in recreation areas that impacts are poorly documented and regulations regarding tourist behaviour may be insufficient or unenforced (Haysmith and Hunt, 1995).
In Australian forests, recreational activity is often concentrated in relatively small areas near road heads and other entrances with access normally gained through the use of cars and four-wheel-drive vehicles (Buckley and Pannell, 1990; Smith and
Newsome, 2002). Recreational activities undertaken in leisure time in forested environments include: bush walking, pleasure driving, camping, picnicking, horse
A.J. Smith Introduction 4
riding (at selected sites only), canoeing, fishing, bike riding, orienteering, four-wheel driving, swimming and caving. The rapid growth of nature based tourism and recreation in Australia has increased the demand for commercial and private recreational use of forested areas. Of the experiences sought, camping is often among the most popular of all recreational activities and usually involves highly concentrated use. The provision of permanent campsites and day use areas also attracts school groups, outward-bound courses and retreats, and organised members of groups such as orienteering, walking, canoeing and four-wheel-drive clubs.
Specific sites such as old growth forests, look out trees that can be climbed, riverbanks and wildflowers are additional focal points of interest particularly for the nature based tourism industry in Australia (Smith and Newsome, 2002).
A central issue in natural area management is the impacts users can have on environmental conditions and the quality of the experience of other visitors (Stankey et al., 1990; Morin et al., 1997). Much of the existing research has been conducted on backcountry campsites and trails in wilderness areas in United States (e.g. Bratton et al. 1978, 1979; Parsons and MacLeod, 1980; Cole 1983b, 1986a, b, 1993; Cole and Hall, 1992; Hall and Shelby, 1994; Marion, 1994; Marion and Leung, 1996,
1997, 2001; Leung and Marion, 1999a, 1999b; Boyers et al., 2000; Marion and
Farrell, 2002). Backcountry camping can be defined as camping in minimally developed areas not reached by roads (Lucas, 1990a). These camping areas may have individual campsites that are clustered together or as individual campsites that are separate from other campsites. The majority of campsite studies have focused on campsites that have developed over time in a natural environment and impacts are compared to an undisturbed area in close proximity to the campsite. Very few studies
A.J. Smith Introduction 5
deal with developed1, designated campsites, accessed by motor vehicles, where the campsites have been intentionally cleared of natural vegetation, with roads and car bays included, and tent pads constructed by pushing soil onto the campsite.
One of the few studies to examine the impacts of recreation on motor vehicle accessed, developed, designated campsites and nature trails was by Obua and
Harding (1997) in Kibale National Park, Uganda. These sites were cleared of ground cover vegetation to establish campsites and impacts were determined by comparison with nearby undisturbed, un-cleared areas. Such an approach is problematic because the study was dealing with already cleared areas. Including indicators such as vegetation loss may bias the data and give a higher impact rating than was actually occurring to assess the amount of campsite degradation by visitors.
Providing designated recreation areas, such as campsites grouped in a camp area, thus concentrating visitor activity is an effective means of reducing the total area of disturbance as a result of recreation. Designated recreation areas are provided to avoid or minimise recreation related impacts by containing use and allowing site management in sustainable areas (Marion and Farrell, 2002). Very few studies have evaluated the relative effectiveness of management strategies to concentrate use such as providing facilities (Farrell and Marion, 2000). For example picnic tables, fire rings, tent sites and the provision of shelters provide a focus for visitor activity because visitors are attracted to such facilities and tend to spend more time in specific activity areas thus decreasing trampling and other impacts in peripheral areas
1 In developed, designated campsites a “managerial footprint” is created by managers through the deliberate clearing and construction of facilities including access roads, parking bays and cleared tent pads. In contrast informal sites have been developed by users, not managers and no facilities are provided. Most of the US work addresses the latter not the former. A.J. Smith Introduction 6
(Bratton et al., 1978; Cole, 1983a; Cole, 1992; Marion, 1995; Marion and Leung,
1997; Marion and Farrell, 2002). For many visitors, areas of concentrated use such as designated campsites represent their natural area experience.
A rapid means of surveying and then monitoring campsite condition and impacts at these designated recreation areas is required so that managers can prioritise management actions and maintenance. Monitoring is necessary so that conditions in these concentrated use areas remain functional and aesthetically pleasing for visitors.
Further recreation area management is then not necessary until visitation increases to a point where a campsite is degraded beyond the desired experience or “managerial footprint”. It is necessary that information about the ecological and social impacts of recreation are provided, so that informed management decisions are made using a sustainable approach. Flexible and efficient monitoring protocols are required so that management agencies can adopt and sustain monitoring over time (Leung and
Marion, 2000a). Further it is necessary to develop and test the most simple and straightforward means of data collection possible because experience has shown that when sophisticated equipment and complicated analyses are required, the probability is high that the method will not be maintained in the field by management personnel
(Krumpe, 2000).
To enable managers to make effective decisions in regards to minimising impacts and ensuring that both designated and informal recreation areas remain functional and aesthetically pleasing for visitors, a range of parameters need to be collected to provide detailed information on the recreation environment and its visitors. These parameters include: biological, physical and social data, attraction of and threats to a
A.J. Smith Introduction 7
site, existing impacts, and opportunities which would enhance visitor satisfaction while promoting conservation and ecological sustainability at a site (Regan, 1996).
From these parameters the challenge for managers is to determine how much change is acceptable and to intervene as necessary to protect both the natural environment and the visitor experience within the bounds of acceptable change (Roggenbuck et al., 1993). An integrated approach to monitoring and management meets these requirements because social factors are considered in combination with biophysical measurements.
Monitoring information is also necessary to determine environmental performance.
Measurement of environmental performance is increasingly demanded across all sectors of society and natural area management is no exception (Hockings et al.,
2000). Performance reporting, where monitoring data are made publicly available, is one way of meeting public requirements for accountability. In Western Australia, many government agencies and statutory authorities are required to monitor and report on key performance indicators in their annual report to Parliament. The
Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) is also required to include performance indicators in their annual reports and management plans and are required to report annually on the extent of implementation. Key performance indicators, particularly for management plans, need to be tested in the field for time and cost efficiency and also need to be effective in identifying biophysical and social impacts as a result of recreation.
Recreational use of forested areas inevitably results in changes to ecological and social conditions. In contrast to the extensive database in relation to North American
A.J. Smith Introduction 8
protected areas, only limited studies of the ecological and social impact of recreation and tourism in Australia have been published. One percent of the total studies relate to Australian conditions and these are limited to coastal, wet tropics, alpine and sub- alpine environments (Sun and Walsh, 1998; Bentrupperbaumer and Reser, 2002).
Further, there are numerous studies worldwide where biophysical assessments have been conducted, however, these have been addressed as separate components of research. This study integrates social and biophysical assessment to examine the impacts in both designated and informal camping areas. Further, this study has adapted methods designed for backcountry campsites to monitor developed, designated campsites that are accessed by motor vehicles.
This study was guided by the following research questions and associated research objectives:
1. What are the biophysical impacts of recreational use of campsites in the
temperate eucalypt forests of southwestern Australia?
The associated objectives were to –
i) Develop a hybrid/new ratings and quantitative measurement system for
monitoring and assessing biophysical impacts at developed campsites in
contrast to most previous work where the focus has been on undeveloped,
backcountry sites; and
ii) Describe and compare the impacts at developed and informal campsites using
the above techniques.
A.J. Smith Introduction 9
2. What are the social characteristics and impacts of recreational use of
campsites in the temperate eucalypt forests of southwestern Australia?
The associated objectives were to -
i) Fully describe the characteristics and activities of visitors using the surveyed
campsites;
ii) Identify the conditions, indicators and standards associated with use of these
areas;
iii) Identify the management preferences of these visitors; and
iv) Explore the implications of preferred versus acceptable standards for
campsite monitoring.
3. How can integrated assessments of campsites be undertaken to provide
managers with information that can be used to manage biophysical and social
impacts in an integrated way?
The associated objectives were to -
i) Draw on indicators and standards identified by visitors to identify the “most
important” biophysical indicators and the level at which these impacts
become unacceptable; and
ii) Develop an index/rating system for campsites that integrates biophysical
indicators of importance to managers and visitors with their perceptions of
acceptability.
A.J. Smith Introduction 10
4. How can these impacts be effectively and efficiently surveyed and monitored?
The associated objectives were to -
i) Explore the efficiency and effectiveness of the new/hybrid approach for
developed and informal campsite monitoring.
The significance of the above research questions can be explained in the following conceptual diagram (Fig. 1.1). It is the intent of this research to address biophysical and social impacts of recreational use in campsites. The information obtained in the monitoring and assessment of biophysical and social impacts will provide managers with information that can be used to manage biophysical and social impacts in an integrated way. Designated, developed campsites are the focus of this research. The conditions on these campsites will be compared to newly developed campsites.
Newly developed campsites serve as a control for designated campsites to determine the amount of change from the original management footprint imposed on the natural environment. Informal campsites are more similar to backcountry campsites in that they have developed over time by users. In comparing developed, designated campsites to informal campsites, the success or failure of providing developed campsites can be assessed. The outcome of the analysis of these campsites will be an integrated monitoring program that provides recommended management actions for sustainable developed, designated campsite use (Fig. 1.1).
A.J. Smith Introduction 11
What are the biophysical impacts What are the social characteristics of recreational use of campsites in and impacts of recreational use of the temperate eucalypt forests of campsites in the temperate southwestern Australia? eucalypt forests of southwestern Australia?
How can integrated assessments of campsites be undertaken to provide managers with information that can be used to manage biophysical and social impacts in an integrated way?
Designated CAMPSITES campsites
Newly developed campsites* Informal campsites
*control for designated campsites
Integrated monitoring program and recommended management actions for sustainable designated campsites use.
Figure 1. 1 Conceptual diagram of research framework
This thesis is divided into four parts. Part I provides an introduction to the thesis and is divided into two chapters. The first chapter provides an introduction to the study and the study objectives while the second chapter provides information about the study areas and rationale for site selection. The literature review, results and
A.J. Smith Introduction 12
discussion part of the thesis is presented as three parts: the biophysical component, the social component and finally an integrated component. Each of these three areas contains a relevant literature review, results, discussion and conclusion. Part II titled biophysical monitoring and assessment is divided into two chapters. In the third chapter, the biophysical component of the study, titled assessing biophysical impacts, discusses and includes a review of literature relating to impacts and methods employed in other studies. This is followed by the fourth chapter, titled investigations into the biophysical component: temperate eucalypt forests of Western
Australia. This chapter presents the field objectives, methods, results and discussion for this section of study. Part III titled social and monitoring and assessment is also divided into two chapters. The fifth chapter, the social aspect of this study, titled assessing social impacts and considerations, provides a literature review of social impacts and methods employed in other studies, The sixth chapter, titled investigations into the social component: temperate eucalypt forests of Western
Australia presents the social survey objectives, methodology, results and discussion for this section of study. The details and outcomes from both the visitor surveys and management surveys are included in this chapter. Finally, Part IV titled integration and conclusion, includes the seventh chapter. In this chapter an integrated discussion is given, titled an integrated approach and implications for management and monitoring combining information from both the social and biophysical components in this study and providing a conclusion to the thesis.
A.J. Smith Introduction 13
Chapter 2 Study Areas
The setting aside of land as protected areas is a central part of nature conservation strategies for most countries. A fundamental aim is to maintain essential ecosystem processes and species diversity and to preserve wild genetic resources (Woodley,
1993; Pouliquen-Young, 1997). In many countries, large areas of naturally forested public lands are controlled by state and national forestry agencies (Buckley, 2000).
For example, in the USA, the Forest Service manages large areas of public land
(Buckley, 2000).
Australia shares a history of European colonialism and land reservation for conservation with other countries such as South Africa, New Zealand and Canada in which the protected area system is well developed (Pouliquen-Young, 1997). In
Australia, traditionally areas were established as recreation parks close to larger capital cities and for the protection of watersheds servicing urban areas. Many reserves were created for the direct enjoyment of the public and were chosen for their recreational and scenery amenities (Pouliquen-Young, 1997). This is common throughout much of the world in that parks and protected areas have been managed as large-scale tourism areas since their inception (Woodley, 1993; Wearing and Neil,
1999). In Australia, in addition to creating reserves for recreational pursuits, pressure from large scale clearing for agriculture and urbanisation were important factors in stimulating the protection of natural areas at the beginning of the 20th century.
However, in most states, the governmental agencies in charge of parks and reserves were not in place until the second half of the 20th century (Pouliquen-Young, 1997).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 14
2.1. Management Structure and Responsibilities
In Australia, protected areas such as national parks, marine reserves and state forests are generally designated via state rather than national legislation. As such, management responsibilities generally rest with state government agencies rather than national ones (Bates, 1995; Pouliquen-Young, 1997).
In Western Australia, forests are restricted to the southwest of Western Australia and forested lands managed by CALM currently cover an area of 2.3 million hectares,
53% of the total forested area of the southwest (Regional Forest Agreement, 1998a).
The tourism industry is a major contributor to Western Australia’s economy and forests form a significant part of the nature based package that Western Australia has to offer (Dowling, 1995; Regional Forest Agreement, 1998b). Forests play an integral part in attracting visitors to the southwest region of Western Australia due to forest-based attractions and the unique flora and fauna found in the region (Regional
Forest Agreement, 1998b). As mentioned previously, a 60% increase in tourism to
Western Australian forests over a 20 year period has been predicted. It is expected that the majority of growth in tourism in the southwest region over this 20 year period will be Western Australians travelling within their own state and day trippers
(Regional Forest Agreement, 1998b).
Forests in the southwest of Western Australia are protected under various reservation categories. Reservation categories of land and water in Western Australia include: national parks, conservation parks, regional parks, nature reserves, state forest, timber reserves and miscellaneous reserves. These land and water categories are vested in the Conservation Commission of Western Australia while marine parks and
A.J. Smith Study Areas 15
marine nature reserves are vested in the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority. The
Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) carry out management of these areas for these two authorities (CALM, 2003a).
The CALM is responsible for conserving and managing Western Australia’s wildlife and public lands and water (CALM, 2003a). In accordance with the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 (Section 33), the Department is required to manage land covered by the Act in accordance with a management plan. The Department prepares management plans on behalf of the Conservation Commission and the
Marine Parks and Reserves Authority. Management plans are prepared in consultation with the community; they identify and guide long-term management directions and strategies for a protected area. Regional plans are prepared for each of the eleven regions administered by CALM while more detailed management plans are prepared for certain high value or high conflict areas e.g. some national parks, or for certain exploited or endangered species. The time frame for management plans is ten years, although review and restatement of some policies may be necessary during this period (CALM, 1987b). CALM has developed five main types of plans for management of its land. Their hierarchical relationship is shown as follows:
A.J. Smith Study Areas 16
corporate plan (includes strategic plan) | regional management plan | area management plan (covers a specific area or set of areas) | issue plan (used to implement regional and area management plans) | operational plan (used to implement regional and area management plans)
As part of the management of the lands and waters entrusted to CALM, the
Department is responsible for planning and managing for recreation, tourism and associated visitor activities. Visitor use is often concentrated at specific recreation areas and these areas are developed according to various criteria including their aesthetic value, public demand and their ability to withstand high levels of use without environmental degradation (CALM, 2003a).
CALM’s Recreation and Tourism objective as stated in the CALM Recreation and
Tourism Strategy is “to identify, provide and maintain opportunities and services to the community which allow them to enjoy the wildlife, lands, waters and resources entrusted to the Department without compromising conservation and other management objectives” (CALM, 2003a). Recreation and tourism activity should be compatible with the vesting purpose of the land and water or the established land/water use priority. Recreation is provided for in existing categories of reservation such as state forest, national park, conservation park, 5(g) and 5(h) reserve, marine park and regional park (CALM, 2003a).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 17
The recreation areas in this study are currently managed as national park (Warren
National Park), 5(g) reserve (Lane Poole Reserve), and proposed national park
(Wellington Forest, Warner Glen Recreation Area and Sues Bridge Recreation Area).
In February 2001, the State Government ended logging in all old-growth forest vested with the Conservation Commission of Western Australia and began a process of creating 2 new conservation parks and 30 new national parks, including the 12 new national parks promised under the WA Regional Forest Agreement in 1999
(CALM, 2003c). Wellington Forest, Warner Glen Recreation Area and Sues Bridge
Recreation Area were proposed as national parks under the Regional Forest
Agreement and were formerly managed as state forest. State forest is managed to provide for recreation and nature conservation, protects water catchments, to provide for sustainable resource use (e.g. timber production, wildflower picking) and also provides for utilities and mineral production, where these activities are imposed
(CALM, 1987a).
In contrast to state forest, national parks are of national significance for scenic, cultural or biological values. They are managed to conserve wildlife and the landscape, for scientific study and to preserve features of archaeological, historical or scientific interest. They also provide for recreation that does not adversely affect ecosystems and with the exception of beekeeping in some parks, commercial exploitation of flora and fauna is not permitted (CALM, 1987b). Finally, Reserves classified under Section 5(g) of the Conservation and Land Management Act WA
1984, such as Lane Poole Reserve, are managed as if they were a national park, except under the conditions that enabled the Reserve to be established. For example,
A.J. Smith Study Areas 18
in Lane Poole Reserve, mining and timber harvesting can be carried out as specified in the Alumina Refinery Agreement Amendment Act 1986 (CALM, 1990).
Incumbent on the Department is a responsibility to monitor its performance in meeting strategic actions that embody the Departments’ approach to managing recreation opportunities, services and facilities and community expectations (CALM,
2003a). It is required that visitor activities, facilities and services are managed in a cost-effective manner. CALM’s Visitor Statistics Monitoring Program (VISTAT) collects basic information on the extent and location of visitor activity on CALM- managed sites throughout the state. However, there is a recognised need to broaden the recreation and tourism and monitoring program (CALM, 2003a). Items included in this broader monitoring program relevant to this study are:
A need to monitor visitor impacts on the recreation and tourism environment,
namely biophysical impacts and the impacts of visitors’ interactions with
others and the quality of visitor experience (CALM, 2003a).
This information is needed to improve the Department’s management capabilities in providing quality visitor facilities and services and protecting natural and cultural values. It is further desired that a standardised system of collecting, processing and using information collected on the levels, patterns and impacts of visitor use and public perceptions and preferences is developed (CALM, 2003a). As mentioned in chapter 1, it is an aim of this study to assist in meeting this desired outcome of
CALM.
A.J. Smith Study Areas 19
2.2. Rationale for Site Selection
In this study, the term “park” is used whether the area is a reserve, state forest or national park. The term “recreation area” refers to a designated or informal recreation area available within a park. Recreation areas are also referred to as a camping area where the main recreation purpose of this area is for camping. A “campsite” is then an individual site within a recreation area e.g. a single campsite/day-use site within
Charlie’s Flat Recreation Area in Lane Poole Reserve. Campsites may also be completely separate from all other campsites as in the case of some informal campsites.
The parks in this study had similar vegetation types i.e. Eucalyptus marginata,
Corymbia calophylla and E. diversicolor forests, similar facilities and management practices (Tables 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and Map 2.1). Additionally, a water body is contained within the park and is a feature of visitation. The study recreation areas were chosen based on a number of criteria (Tables 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3.)
The five study parks had recreation areas with similar design e.g. constructed campsites along a one-way access road accessible by motor vehicle. Both designated and informal camping sites (described below) were available in all five study parks.
The study parks were: Lane Poole Reserve, Wellington Forest, Warner Glen
Recreation Area, Sues Bridge Recreation Area and Warren National Park (Map 2.1).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 20
Table 2. 1 Features of study parks and the study recreation areas
Protected Area Climate, Rainfall Landform, Soils Study Park Vegetation Type Status, CALM & Temperature & Water body Region
Lane Poole Reserve Mediterranean Darling Plateau Jarrah (Eucalyptus Reserve Charlie 650 mm – 1,300 Sand/Loam marginata), Marri Swan Region Tony’s mm Murray River (Corymbia calophylla) Yarrag 5 – 29 oC Forest Inform Fire-lin
Wellington Forest Mediterranean Darling Plateau Jarrah (E. marginata), Proposed National Honey 1100 – 1,200 mm Sand/Loam Marri (C. calophylla) Park Honey 6 – 21oC Collie River Forest Southwest Region Inform
Warner Glen Mediterranean Blackwood Jarrah (E. marginata), Proposed National Warne Recreation Area 1,000 – 1,100 mm Plateau Marri (C. calophylla) Park 6 - 21oC Loamy Sands Forest Southwest Region Blackwood River
Sues Bridge Mediterranean Blackwood Jarrah (E. marginata), Proposed National Sues B Recreation Area 1,000 – 1,100 mm Plateau Marri (C. calophylla) Park Denny 6 - 21oC Sand/Loam Forest Southwest Region Blackwood River
Warren National Sub-Mediterranean Darling Plateau Karri (E. diversicolor), National Park Camp Park 1,300 – 1,400 mm Sandy Loams Marri (C. calophylla) Warren Region Area 7 - 26oC Warren River Forest Camp
Source: CALM (1987a,b, 1989, 1990, 1994, 1998, 1999)
A.J. Smith Study Areas 21
Table 2. 2 Study recreation areas including number and type of campsites
Designated In Number of Study Park Study Recreation Area Recreation Rec campsites Area
Lane Poole Reserve Charlie’s Flat Camp Area 16 √ Tony’s Bend Camp Area 14 √ Yarragil Camp Area 2 √ Informal Camp Area – Murray River Fire-line 5
SUB-TOTAL: 37
Wellington Forest Honeymoon Pool Family Camp Area 24 √ Honeymoon Pool Group Camp Area 3 √ Informal Camp Area– Lennard Trail 3
SUB-TOTAL: 30
Warner Glen Recreation Warner Glen Camping Area 12 √ Area SUB-TOTAL: 12
Sues Bridge Recreation Sues Bridge Camping Area 16 √ Area Denny Road – Informal Camp Area 4
SUB-TOTAL: 20
Warren National Park Camping Area 1 – Individual Camp Area* 17 √ Camping Area 1 – Group Camp Area* 6 √ SUB-TOTAL: 23
TOTAL: 122
*Newly developed campsites
A.J. Smith Study Areas 22
Table 2. 3 Site descriptions for study parks
Unsealed Toilets Table/Picnic Fire Fees charged for Study Park and Area Bins access Other com # Bench pits overnight stay road Lane Poole Reserve - Barriers areas
Charlie’s Flat 2 Yes Yes Skip bin Yes – Camping Fees Yes - Firewoo
Tony’s Bend 2 Yes Yes Skip bin Yes – Camping Fees Yes - Domest
Yarragil 1 Yes Yes Skip bin Yes – Camping Fees Yes - Informat
Informal 0 No No No No Yes
Wellington Forest - Barriers Honeymoon Pool areas
Family 3 Yes Yes Skip bin Yes – Camping Fees Yes - Firewoo
Group 3 Yes Yes Skip bin Yes – Camping Fees Yes - Domest
Informal 0 No No No No Yes - Informat
Warner Glen Recreation Area 1 Yes Yes Skip bin Yes – Camping Fees Yes - Barriers areas - Firewoo - Domest - Informat
Sues Bridge Recreation Area 2 Yes Yes Individual Yes – Camping Fees Yes - Barriers bins areas - Firewoo
Denny Road - Informal 0 No No No No Yes - Domest - Informat
Warren National Park - Nationa Camping Area 1 $3.40/pa
Individual 4 Yes Yes No Yes – Park pass Yes - Barriers areas - Firewoo
Group 1 Yes Yes No Yes – Park pass Yes - Domest - Informat Source: CALM (1987 a, b, 1989, 1990, 1994, 1998, 1999)
A.J. Smith Study Areas 23
Map 2. 1 Location of five study parks
A.J. Smith Study Areas 24
Within the study parks a variety of recreation areas were available. Recreation areas that were used as day use only, were highly modified e.g. a former town site, or located in non-native vegetation, were not included in this study. Similar recreation areas in terms of biophysical features and recreation use were selected so that impacts could be readily compared without the results being confounded by environmental variability. Designated and informal campsites were selected so that comparisons in impact could be made to determine whether impacts were greater or lesser at designated campsites. With the exception of Warren National Park, no comprehensive surveys, either social or biophysical, have been conducted in the study parks. A comprehensive visitor survey of Warren National Park was conducted in 1998 that established indicators and standards (Smith, 1998).
Designated recreation areas are designed by regional staff and planners from CALM.
A plan for the recreation area is proposed and the recreation area is developed from this. The one-way loop track recreation area as illustrated in Fig. 2.1 is a common feature of the study parks. Each campsite is cleared of vegetation and facilities such as fire rings and picnic table/benches are provided to concentrate use. Campsites may be designed for individual or group use.
A.J. Smith Study Areas 25
ToiletB
Figure 2. 1 Recreation Master Plan – Loop Track Recreation Area Design Adapted from: CALM (1998)
Group campsites are generally larger in size than individual campsites and are able to accommodate larger numbers of people. Individual campsites are suitable for one to two small tents, generally accommodating 1-4 people. Individual campsites are sometimes referred to as family campsites because the campsites are large enough to accommodate a single family group. For example, CALM have named a camping area at Honeymoon Pool “Family Camping Area” (Table 2.2) to encourage visitors in a family group. A second camping area for larger groups is provided in a separate area.
Designated recreation areas often incorporate unsealed roads accessible by two- wheel drive vehicles, are identified by signs and delineated by boundary markers such as logs or ring-lock fencing placed at the perimeter of the campsite. Visitors
A.J. Smith Study Areas 26
walk only a short distance from the car parking area, which adjoins each individual campsite, to set up camp or use the site for day use activities such as picnicking.
For designated recreation areas, facilities and maintenance are provided by CALM and fees are charged for an overnight stay (Table 2.3). Each designated recreation area consists of at least several individual cleared campsites (20-50m2) suitable for either single or multiple party use often with mature trees at the centre of the campsite and some remnant vegetation at the perimeter of the campsite acting as a natural barrier or screen from other campsites (Fig. 2.1). Additionally, car-parking facilities surfaced with gravel are provided at each individual campsite (either suitable for a single vehicle at campsites suitable for small groups or for multiple vehicles at campsites suitable for larger groups) (Fig. 2.1). Also provided are fire rings (either cement or steel) with a steel barbecue plate, as well as picnic tables and bench seats (Fig. 2.2). A common use toilet facility (generally pit toilets) (Fig. 2.1) and bin (rubbish) facilities are provided at a central location to individual campsites or a bin is provided at each individual campsite. Vehicles are excluded from the tent pad by barriers, with a clearly defined parking area (Fig. 2.2).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 27
Plate 1 Plate 2
Plate 3 Plate 4
Figure 2. 2 Designated Campsites Plate 1 Wellington Forest Individual, Campsite 4 Plate 2 Lane Poole Reserve, Tony’s Bend, Campsite 2 Plate 3 Sues Bridge Recreation Area, Campsite 9 Plate 4 Warner Glen Recreation Area, Individual Camp, Campsite1 (Photos: A. Smith)
In contrast, informal campsites are mostly accessible by four-wheel-drive vehicles via fire control management tracks or other unsurfaced roads. There is little site development with people camping in existing cleared/trampled areas (Fig. 2.3).
These campsites have been developed by users not managers, are not marked by signs, fees are not charged and limited maintenance by managers (CALM) is provided. Over time, users have arranged rudimentary fire rings and log seats (Fig.
2.3). These campsites are mostly used when the formal campsites are full or when people seek more solitude. These campsites are recognised by CALM but are not actively promoted to visitors in brochures or at regional offices. These informal
A.J. Smith Study Areas 28
campsites are similar to backcountry campsites examined in the US in that they have developed over time in a natural environment, with the exception that they are accessed by motor vehicle, not by foot or packstock2.
Figure 2. 3 Informal Campsite – Denny Road Informal Campsite near Sues Bridge (Photo: A. Smith)
In the following sections, a description of each of the study parks is given. This includes: the location; climate; topography, geology and soils; flora and fauna of special interest; legislation and management; historical recreation use of the Park; recreation opportunities and facilities including a description of the study recreation areas; and current recreation use of the park. These sections serve to highlight the similarities in the study parks in terms of environmental characteristics, recreational facilities and use. Species of special interest, such as endangered flora and fauna, are presented to highlight the ecological significance of these study parks. While wildlife was not a component examined in this study, it is mentioned here to emphasise the biodiversity of these areas.
2 Packstock: a pack animal e.g. horse, mule, llama used for transport A.J. Smith Study Areas 29
2.3. Study Park 1 – Lane Poole Reserve
Lane Poole Reserve is located approximately 85km south east of Perth, the capital of
Western Australia, near the town of Dwellingup (Map 2.1). The Reserve is within an easy hour and a half drive of most of the Perth Metropolitan Region and is readily accessible to other communities such as Pinjarra, Mandurah and Bunbury (CALM,
1998). The Reserve was declared in 1984 and contains forest uplands, steeply dissected valley slopes, rocky pools and open, undulating jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) and wandoo (E. wandoo) woodlands and covers an area of 54,000 ha.
(CALM, 1990, 1998). The Reserve is accessed via a main entry station at River Road with surrounding land use including state forest and private properties such as accommodation facilities and agricultural properties (CALM, 1998) (Map 2.2). The
Recreation Zone of Lane Poole Reserve is currently managed as a Reserve 5(g), as described in Sect. 2.1, and is in the Swan Region (Sect. 2.3.4).
A variety of recreation areas are provided in the Reserve. The recreation areas examined in this study include three designated camping areas (Charlie’s Flat,
Tony’s Bend and Yarragil) along River Road and five informal campsites on the
Murray River Fire-line (Map 2.2, Tables 2.1, 2.2. and 2.3).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 30
Map 2. 1 Recreation areas of Lane Poole Reserve, showing location of river, Park boundary and recreation and conservation zones, and River Road entry station.
A.J. Smith Study Areas 31
2.3.1. Climate The region experiences a Mediterranean climate with cool, wet winters and mild summers with an average rainfall ranging from 650 mm per annum in the south eastern section, increasing to 1300 mm per annum in the north-western section. Most areas of the Reserve receive approximately 800-1200 mm per annum. The majority of rain falls in the cooler months of the year (May-October) with limited rainfall in the summer months (December-February). The mean maximum temperature in summer is 29°C and mean minimum temperature in winter is 5°C (CALM, 1990)
(Table 2.1).
2.3.2. Topography, Geology & Soils The main geological element of the Reserve is the Archaean Yilgarn Block. To the west of the block lies the Perth Basin separated by the Darling Fault. The western part of the Yilgarn Block consists of high-grade metamorphic belts partially enveloped by complex associations of granite. The metamorphic belts contain remnants of older sedimentary and volcanic rocks and metamorphosed granitic rocks
(CALM, 1990). The major river that passes through Lane Poole Reserve is the
Murray River.
The major geomorphological feature of the Reserve is the Darling Plateau, which is an ancient erosion surface with an average elevation of approximately 300m above sea level (CALM, 1990). The main recreation area is located in the northern part of the Reserve containing the Murray units, which have scenic attributes such as deeply incised valleys, and large granite outcrops that occur sporadically throughout the area. The Murray unit consists of deeply incised valleys with red and yellow earths on slopes with narrow alluvial terraces (CALM, 1990). The Murray unit soil patterns
A.J. Smith Study Areas 32
on the valley slopes are very complex with underlying rocks, slope, moisture and degree of weathering giving rise to a variety of soils. These soils have a moderate erosion rating (CALM, 1990) (Table 2.1).
2.3.3. Flora & Fauna The vegetation of Lane Poole Reserve is dominated by open jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) and marri (Corymbia calophylla) forest with a high prevalence of flooded gum (E. rudis) and blackbutt (E. patens). The main understorey trees are peppermint
(Agonis flexuosa), bull banksia (Banksia grandis) and sheoak (Allocasuarina fraseriana). Common understorey species are: Trymalium floribundum, Bossiaea aquifolium, Pteridum esculentum, Macrozamia riedleii, Xanthorrhoea preissii,
Hibbertia spp., Acacia spp. and Persoonia longifolia. In Lane Poole there are an estimated 500-700 species of plants with most species being widespread and recorded elsewhere (CALM, 1990). Exotic plants occurring in the Reserve include pine plantations (Pinus radiata) and remnant gardens surrounding obsolete developments and introduced species at recreation areas and along the River
(CALM, 1990).
There are four mammal species common to the jarrah and marri forest these include: western grey kangaroo (Macropus fuliginosus), western brush wallaby (Macropus irma), southern brown bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus), and the mardo (Antechinus flavipes). There are two known snake species: dugite (Pseudonaja affinis affinis) and the black tiger snake (Notechis ater occidentalis). Some of the common native bird species include: silvereye (Zosterops lateralis), scarlet robin (Petroica multicolor), grey fantail (Rhipidura fuliginosa), red-eared fire-tail finch (Emblema oculata), and the tawny frogmouth (Podargus strigoides) (CALM, 1987b).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 33
In Lane Poole Reserve, 21 native animals have been recorded. Of these animals, the chuditch (D. geoffroii), numbat (Myrmecobius fasciatus) peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), white-tailed black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus baudinii), Carnaby’s cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus latirostris) are gazetted rare or in need of special protection under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (CALM, 1990; Garnett and
Crowley, 2000; Bennetts, 2003; Government Gazette, 2003a).
2.3.4. Legislation and Management Lane Poole Reserve was originally various state forest areas that were vested in the
National Parks and Nature Conservation Authority (NPNCA), now the Conservation
Commission, by order in the Government Gazette of 6 February 1987. The nine reserves that collectively are named the Lane Poole Reserve are all ‘A’ class and make up an area of 54,000 ha. Three quarters of the Reserve is zoned for conservation and the remaining quarter for recreation (CALM, 1990). The
Recreation Zone of the Reserve is classified under Section 5(g) of the Conservation and Land Management Act WA 1984 and managed as if it were a national park (Sect.
2.1) (CALM, 1990).
The Reserve is currently managed by the Swan Region according to their Regional
Management Plan 1987-1997 and Lane Poole Reserve Management Plan 1990-2000.
A draft Lane Poole Reserve Recreation Master Plan 1998 exists that presents management strategies which are designed to ensure that conservation values are retained and that compatible, forest based recreational activities are catered for
(CALM, 1987a, 1990, 1998).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 34
The designated recreation areas examined in this study include: Charlie’s Flat,
Tony’s Bend and Yarragil. Work on the facilities in the study areas commenced in
1983 and was completed in 1990. The objectives of providing these recreation areas were to cater for current use and meet future demands by hardening campsites and correcting site degradation (CALM, 1990). The Dwellingup District of CALM is responsible for the day-to-day maintenance of facilities within the Reserve and other tasks associated with visitors to the Reserve. Activities specific to recreation are presented in Table 2.4. Informal campsites are located along the Murray River Fire- line track and only minimal maintenance is provided to these campsites e.g. rubbish clean up.
Table 2. 4 Site management responsibilities in relation to recreation in Lane Poole Reserve Management responsibilities
servicing of toilets, clean up of camp and day use sites and routine maintenance
repairs after vandalism
replanting and site stabilisation, correction of erosion and other problems caused by recreation
upgrading facilities where required
providing positive liaison with user groups
providing interpretive material for the public
collecting camping fees and policing camping regulations
enforcing other limitations on recreational use (e.g. trail bikes) and other use of conservation areas
organising nature walks and other activities over peak periods, in conjunction with CALM staff Source: CALM (1990)
2.3.5. Historical Recreation Use of the Park Lane Poole Reserve was declared in 1984 to help protect the conservation and recreation values of the northern jarrah forest and the Murray River, the longest permanent river in the jarrah forest. It is named after C.E. Lane Poole, the State’s first Conservator of Forests and a devoted conservationist (CALM, 1998). Prior to
A.J. Smith Study Areas 35
the Reserve being declared this area was state forest and was still used as a recreation area. In the 1920’s to 1989 about 80% of the current Conservation Zone was cut over and regenerated (CALM, 1998). Additionally, there are four officially registered
Aboriginal sites within the Reserve, including artefact scatters found along the watercourse, Aboriginal remains and stone arrangements (CALM, 1990).
2.3.6. Recreation Opportunities & Facilities Natural area recreation opportunities centre on the unique features of the Murray
Valley. These include the Murray River, streams and the associated riverine and upland vegetation types, providing a variety of largely undeveloped environments.
As mentioned previously, recreation areas are located in the north-western section of the Reserve with the remainder of the reserve being zoned for conservation. There are numerous opportunities for both forest and river based recreation within the
Reserve. The Recreation Zone includes recreation areas with picnic areas, barbecues, toilets, canoe launching, walk trails and camping sites that have been established along the Murray River (CALM, 1990) (Table 2.5). Canoeing, swimming, marroning3, fishing and other water-based activities are some of the most popular recreational opportunities in the Reserve (CALM, 1990).
3 Marron are edible native freshwater crustaceans that can be taken annually during a defined period in January and February. Season, bag limits and fishing restrictions are announced by the Department of Fisheries and a recreational fishing licence is required (Dept of Fisheries, 2003). A.J. Smith Study Areas 36
Table 2. 4 Facilities at recreation areas in Lane Poole Reserve Formal Day Picnic Canoe River Camping BBQ Toilets Walk Use Tables Launch Access Trail Scarp Pool - 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Scarp Lookout - 9 9 9 - - - 9 Nanga Townsite 9 9 9 9 - - - 9 Nanga Mill - 9 9 9 - - - 9 The Stringers 9 - 9 9 9 9 9 - Baden Powell Day Use Area - 9 9 9 9 9 9 - Camping Area 9 - 9 9 - - - - *Charlie’s Flat 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Island Pool - 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 *Tony’s Bend 9 9 9 9 9 - - - *Yarragil 9 - 9 9 9 9 9 - *Informal sites along Murray 9 9 ------River Fire-line Adapted from: CALM (1990) *denotes study areas examined in this thesis
The recreation areas examined in this study include three designated areas on River
Road: Charlie’s Flat Recreation Area has 16 individual campsites, toilet facilities, a formal walk trail (designed and planned by CALM) and river access (Fig. 2.4, Table
2.2 and 2.5); Tony’s Bend Recreation Area has 14 individual campsites, toilet facilities and a formal walk trail to a lookout and the river (Fig. 2.5, Table 2.2 and
2.5); Yarragil Recreation Area has two individual campsites, toilet facilities and a large day use area on the river with canoe launching facilities (Fig. 2.6, Table 2.2 and
2.5); and there are five informal campsites on the Murray River Fire-line track located on the Murray River, that have no facilities. Campsites I01 to I03 are clustered, with I01 being directly on the riverbank (Fig. 2.6). Campsites I04 and I05 are single campsites that are also located directly on the riverbank (Fig. 2.6, Table
2.2 and 2.5).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 37
Other recreation areas available in the Reserve were not included in this study as they were either located in non-native vegetation e.g. Baden Powel campground in
Pinus radiata plantations, were day use only sites e.g. Island Pool, or highly modified e.g. Nanga Townsite and Stringers.
A.J. Smith Study Areas 38
Figure 2. 4 Lane Poole Reserve, Charlie’s Flat Recreation Area showing layout of campsites, formal walk trails and toilet facilities
A.J. Smith Study Areas 39
Figure 2. 5 Lane Poole Reserve, Tony’s Bend Recreation Area showing layout of campsites, walk trails and toilet facilities
A.J. Smith Study Areas 40
River Road B
Y01! ! Y02
Day Use Area
! I03 ! I02 ! I01
Murray River Fire Line
I04 !
! I05 LANE POOLE RESERVE YARRAGIL & INFORMAL CAMPSITES
Campsite ! 0 500
B Toilet Scale (m)
Figure 2. 6 Lane Poole Reserve, Yarragil Recreation Area and Informal campsites showing layout of designated campsites, walk trails and toilet facilities, and location of informal campsites
A.J. Smith Study Areas 41
2.3.7. Current Recreation Use The number of visitors to Lane Poole shows a 70% increase over a 20-year period
(Fig. 2.7). Since 1996 visitors numbers per annum have ranged from 144,000 to
210,000 with a mean of 184,167 (Fig. 2.7). A steady decline is shown from 1998 to
2002 (Fig. 2.7). This could be due in part to more accurate traffic counters being installed in 1999.
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000 No. of visitor days per year 0 1973 1978 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02
Year
Figure 2. 7 Total number of visitors per year (1973 to 2002, Lane Poole Reserve) Source: VISTAT, Liddicoat, (pers. com, 2003)
Visitor numbers are obtained by automated traffic counters located along the main access road (Nanga Road). Each month traffic counter figures are multiplied by an average, representing the number of passengers per vehicle. This average is based on staff observation counts for Lane Poole and is adjusted seasonally (Liddicoat, pers. comm., 2003). A pneumatic tube counter was used in Lane Poole Reserve until July
1999 when MetroCount classifiers were installed (Hassall, pers. comm., 2003).
MetroCount classifiers give more accurate data than pneumatic tube counters as they can determine vehicle type e.g. motorcycle, cars and busses using axle detectors that give precise speeds and log every axle passing over the sensor (Hassall, pers. comm.,
A.J. Smith Study Areas 42
2003). MetroCount data are analysed using computer software rather than at the roadside, eliminating the need to determine traffic parameters at the roadside and routine calibrations and are less susceptible to vandalism, tube bounce, vehicle speed and trajectory problems (MetroCount, 2003).
Vehicle traffic count information suggests that use varies throughout the year (Fig.
2.8). Peak periods of visitation exist during spring (September to November), over the Christmas break, at the Easter break, with the summer school holidays in January being the busiest period (CALM, 1998).
15,000
10,000
5,000 No. of visitor days
0 JFMAMJJASOND
Month 2001/2002
Figure 2. 8 Total number of visitors per month year (2001/2002, Lane Poole Reserve) Source: VISTAT, Hassall, (pers. comm., 2003)
No accurate data exist on the number of visitors that visit each of the recreation areas or individual campsites. The majority of visitors to Lane Poole Reserve visit Baden
Powell and Nanga Mill (Moore, pers. comm., 2003). An estimation of figures was provided by management for each of the study recreation areas as follows: Charlie’s
Flat 3,000 visitors per year (2% of total overnight visitors); Tony’s Bend 3,000
A.J. Smith Study Areas 43
visitors per year (2% of total overnight visitors); Yarragil 600 visitors per year (0.4% of total overnight visitors); and informal campsites 4,000 visitors per year (2.7% of total overnight visitors) (Moore, pers. comm., 2003) (Table 2.1). The figures for the designated recreation areas seem low compared to the total number of visitors to the
Reserve. It has been observed that on long weekends and Easter that all of the campsites offered in the designated areas are occupied. In the Lane Poole Draft
Recreation Masterplan (CALM, 1998) it was noted that about 80% of visitors stay overnight and that Baden Powell was one of the main recreation areas for day and overnight use. It, however, seems unlikely that only 7% of the visitors to the Reserve visit the study recreation areas.
The Lane Poole Reserve Visitor Survey Program (CALM, 2001b, 2002) indicated that 46% (n=46) of respondents in 2001 and 58% (n=31) of respondents in 2002 visited the Reserve to camp. This figure is lower than those indicated in the Lane
Poole Draft Recreation Masterplan (CALM, 1998). Respondents were also asked to identify what activities they participated in during their visit with the highest responses including: camping (48%), bushwalking (39%), relaxing/reading (15%) and swimming (11%) (n=46) (CALM, 2001b). The majority of visitors came from
Perth (72% in 2001 and 82% in 2002), with 26% in 2001 and 12% in 2002 living locally or elsewhere in Western Australia (CALM, 2001b, 2002).
Most of the visitors to the Reserve come in friendship or family groups (CALM,
2001b, 2002). Conflict between visitors exists in regards to noisy activities such as trail bike riding, a high volume of through traffic, competition for campsites during peak times, loud music and disruptive e.g. drunken behaviour (CALM, 1990).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 44
In order to reduce disruption to other visitors due to intoxication, and as a result of numerous complaints, CALM reserves the right to inspect vehicles and containers for excessive quantities of liquor. The River Road entry station was constructed in 1998 and alcohol restrictions were put in place at this time. The introduction of alcohol restrictions may also be a contributing factor in the decline of visitor numbers in the
Reserve since 1998 (Fig. 2.7). Alcohol may be off-loaded at the entry station at River
Road and collected on departure and entry will be refused to any visitors who are intoxicated. CALM reserve the right to evict any persons, with visitors failing to leave the Reserve when requested, facing prosecution with a maximum fine of
$1,000AUD (CALM, 2000b).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 45
2.4. Study Park 2 – Wellington Forest, Honeymoon Pool
Wellington Forest is located 195 km south of Perth, Western Australia near the town of Collie (Map 2.1). The area collectively known as Wellington Forest includes a variety of land tenures (Map 2.3). As a result, various levels of management exist within Wellington Forest. Wellington Forest is currently managed as state forest, with the recreation area of Honeymoon Pool being managed as proposed national park (Map 2.3). Under the 1999 RFA there is an additional 630 ha of proposed conservation parks and 4,300 ha of proposed national park within Wellington Forest
(CALM, 1999). These areas are surrounded by 28,000 ha of state forest (including forest conservation zones), conservation parks and Crown reserves and the
Wellington reservoir (CALM, 2003b).
The forest consists of a mix of mature, open jarrah and marri forest with thick riparian vegetation, stream sections with rapids and steep, rugged forested valley slopes with outcropping granite (CALM, 1999). Access to Honeymoon Pool, the recreation area addressed in this thesis (Table 2.1), is via River Road, an unsealed road from the main sealed access road Wellington Dam Road (Map 2.3).
Honeymoon Pool is the only camping area servicing this section of the Collie River.
Informal campsites are located along an unsealed road (Lennard Trail) suitable for four-wheel-drive vehicles only (Map 2.3).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 46
Map 2. 2 Wellington Forest showing recreation areas, location of Collie River and Wellington Dam
2.4.1. Climate The region experiences a Mediterranean climate characterised by a cool wet winter and a hot dry summer with an average annual rainfall from about 1100 to 1200 mm
(CALM, 1987b). The average maximum temperature is approximately 21 °C and the mean minimum temperature in the winter months ranges from 6 to 9 °C (Bureau of
Meteorology, 2002) (Table 2.1).
2.4.2. Topography, Geology & Soils Wellington Forest is part of the Darling Plateau as described in Sect. 2.3.2. The major river that passes through Wellington Forest is the Collie River. The Collie
River’s flow regime is artificially regulated by the Wellington Dam but the riparian environment is largely intact (CALM, 1999). The Wellington Dam historically was used as a source of potable water but the dam was closed for this purpose in the early
1990s due to increasing contributions of salt from upper catchments. Downstream of the Wellington Dam, the Collie River traverses the forested Darling Scarp before passing across the Swan Coastal Plain and discharging into Leschenault Inlet (Water and Rivers Commission, 2002b). Soils are part of the Helena Subsystem, which has deeply incised valleys (129-200m) with steep (>25%) slopes. Rock outcrop is common and soils are stony, sand to red/brown loamy earth (Tille, 1996) (Table 2.1).
2.4.3. Flora & Fauna The forest consists mainly of a mix of open jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) and marri
(Corymbia calophylla) with some blackbutt (E. patens) and flooded gum (E. rudis).
The species present are those common to such forests as discussed in Sect. 2.3.3.
A.J. Smith Study Areas 48
Species of special interest and listed in CALM’s Priority Flora List4 include Acacia oncinophylla subsp. oncinophylla and A. semitrullata which are Priority 15 species and Grevillea ripicola which is Priority 46 (Atkins, 1998b; Bennetts, 2003). Other species of interest are the holly-leafed banksia (Banksia ilicifolia) and woody pear
(Xylomelum angustifolium) as they are considered rare elsewhere on the Darling
Plateau and under-represented in the present conservation reserve system (Dept of
Conservation and Environment, 1981; CALM, 2003b). There is also a good representation of the river banksia (Banksia seminuda) whose occurrence elsewhere has been eliminated or reduced by the damming of rivers, agricultural clearing and pine plantations (Dept of Conservation and Environment, 1981; CALM, 2003b).
Additionally, twenty species of exotic plant species have been recorded (CALM,
2003b).
Wellington Forest includes thirteen fauna species of high significance including five that are threatened species, gazetted rare or in need of special protection under the
Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (WA) (CALM, 2003b). These are: chuditch
(Dasyurus geofroyii), quokka (Setonix brachyurus), western ring-tailed possum
(Pseudocheirus occidentalis), Carnaby’s cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus latirostris) and white-tailed black cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus baudinii) (Government Gazette,
2003a). Translocations of woylies (Bettongia penicillata) also occurred in June and
July 2000 (CALM, 2003b).
4 Priority Flora List: A supplementary list to the schedule of rare flora maintained by CALM that lists flora that may be rare or threatened but for which insufficient survey data are available to accurately determine their status, as well as taxa which are regarded as rare but not currently threatened (Atkins, 1998b). 5 Priority 1: Taxa with few (generally <5) known populations that grow on land under threat. 6 Priority 4: Taxa that have been adequately surveyed and found to be rare (in Australia), but are not currently threatened by any identifiable factors (Atkins, 1998b). A.J. Smith Study Areas 49
2.4.4. Legislation & Management Wellington Forest includes the existing Wellington National Park which is an ‘A’ class reserve that currently covers an area of 3,045 ha. This is surrounded by
28,000ha of state forest, forest conservation zones, conservation parks, proposed conservation parks (Mungalup and Westralia Conservation Parks), Crown reserves, private land, and the Wellington Reservoir (CALM, 2003b). The study recreation area, Honeymoon Pool, is currently located within proposed national park. In 1999, part of the Wellington Forest was proposed National Park under the Regional Forest
Agreement. As a result a new park, named Wellington National Park, will be created and cover an area of approximately 17,500 hectares (CALM, 1999, 2003b).
Wellington Forest is currently managed by the Southwest Region according to their
Regional Management Plan 1987-1997. No specific management plan currently exists for Wellington Forest, therefore CALM would carry out management in accordance with necessary operations s33(3) in the Conservation and Land
Management Act 1984 (WA) which are defined as “those that are necessary for the preservation or protection of persons, property, land, flora or fauna, or for the preparation of a management plan”. The Wellington Forest Draft Recreation and
Tourism Masterplan (CALM, 1999) exists and provides a long term plan for the development and management of recreation and tourism so that visitors can continue to enjoy Wellington Forest in the future without compromising its conservation, landscape and catchment values.
A.J. Smith Study Areas 50
The camping and day use areas located in Honeymoon Pool are designated areas on
River Road. The Collie District of CALM is responsible for the day-to-day maintenance of facilities within Wellington Forest and other tasks associated with visitors. Activities specific to recreation are similar to those presented in Table 2.4 for management of camping areas in Lane Poole Reserve. In addition, firewood is provided at the designated campsites (Table 2.3). Informal campsites are located along Lennard Trail and only minimal maintenance is provided to these campsites e.g. rubbish clean up.
2.4.5. Historical Recreation Use of the Park Wellington Dam was made available for recreational use in the late 1980’s due to increasing salinity making the water unsuitable for domestic use (CALM, 1999).
Since 1989, research and planning have been undertaken to provide recreation and tourism opportunities for visitors that will not threaten the area’s environmental and water catchment values (CALM, 1999). It is considered that some of the campsites have experienced significant degradation since 1993 and require review, and in most cases some sort of action, whether it be redevelopment, closure or maintenance
(CALM, 1999). In 2002, seven of the ten informal campsites located along Lennard
Trail were closed and rehabilitated. Therefore, only three informal campsites were surveyed in this study.
An additional feature and attraction to visitors of the Park is the Aboriginal significance of the area. The Collie River, which dissects Wellington Forest, is regarded by local Noongar people (Aboriginal persons of the region) to be a symbol of life. Legend says that the Waggyl or Rainbow Serpent came down from the hills to make the Collie River and that his enormous body turned to form the Leschenault
A.J. Smith Study Areas 51
Inlet (which the Collie River flows into) before returning up the river to Minninup
Pool where his spirit rests today. Wellington Forest is considered to be rich in
Noongar culture and its importance for traditionally linked contemporary cultural activities is recognised. At present, there are no registered sites although the area is covered by one native title claim (Bennetts, 2003).
2.4.6. Recreation Opportunities & Facilities Wellington Forest offers a range of recreation areas suitable for day use and camping
(Table 2.6). Honeymoon Pool, the main camping area, offers access to the Collie
River and its tributaries (Stoney Brook) below Wellington Dam and provides for both camping and day use. Facilities provided at each of the designated recreation areas in Honeymoon Pool include: individual and group campsites for the purpose of camping but are also utilised by day visitors; barbecues/fire ring; picnic tables; water taps, toilets (flush toilets on septic tanks); car bays; and a centrally located rubbish disposal facility (Fig. 2.9, Tables 2.3 and 2.6). Fees are charged for an overnight stay and dogs are permitted, at present, provided they are restrained on a leash (Table
2.6). The informal campsites have no facilities provided by CALM with exception to one of the campsites having formal benches and fire rings provided (Table 2.6).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 52
Table 2. 5 Facilities at recreation areas in Wellington Forrest Formal Day Picnic Canoe River Camping BBQ Toilets Walk Use Tables Launch Access Trail
Dam and Kiosk Area - 9 9 9 9 - - -
Potter’s Gorge 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 -
*Honeymoon Pool Family 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Camp Area
*Honeymoon Pool Group Camp Area (Stoney 9 - 9 9 9 - 9 9 Brook)
Lightweight Camp Area 9 - 9 9 - - 9 9
*Informal (Lennard Trail) 9 - - - - - 9 -
Lennard Drive The Rapids - 9 9 - 9 9 9 - Big Rock - 9 - - - - 9 - Little Rock - 9 9 - - - - - Long Pool East - 9 9 - - - 9 - Source: CALM (1999) *denotes study areas examined in this thesis
Other recreation areas available in the Reserve were not included in this study as they were either day use only areas e.g. Lennard Drive or highly modified e.g.
Potter’s Gorge (Table 2.6). The lightweight camp area was also not included in this study because of the layout and design of the area. This area has no defined boundaries for the placement of tents. It is a large, relatively open area where visitors can camp in any cleared space. Facilities are provided in a central area and there is a single, multiple party car park (Table 2.6).
The campsites that were studied in Honeymoon Pool Recreation Area included two designated areas on River Road: Honeymoon Pool Family and Honeymoon Pool
Group Camp (Stoney Brook) (Table 2.2, Map 2.3 and Fig. 2.9) and informal campsites on Lennard Trail (Map 2.3).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 53
Honeymoon Pool Family has 24 individual campsites suitable for individual or small family group use along a one-way track, toilet facilities, a formal walk trail (designed and planned by CALM), a day use area and river access (Fig. 2.9, Table 2.2 and 2.6);
Honeymoon Pool Group has 3 campsites (A-C) suitable for group use on a one-way track, toilet facilities and a formal walk trail and river access (Fig. 2.9, Table 2.2 and
2.6); and there are three informal campsites (I01 to I03) on Lennard Trail that are large enough to accommodate larger groups (Map 2.3).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 54
Gel-Coat Road
! A ! B HP24 ! HP23 ! B HP21 HP22 ! ! River Road C ! HP20
r ! HP19 ! HP18 ! HP17 ! HP16 ! HP15 ! HP14 ! B HP12 ! ! HP11 HP13 ! HP10 ! Firewood & Skip Bin
Day Use HP09 Area ! ! HP08 HP07 HP06 ! ! HP05 WELLINGTON FOREST ! HONEYMOON POOL ! ! Campsite HP04 r --- Formal Walk Trail (DCLM designed) HP03 B Toilet ! HP02 0 80 Scale (m) ! ! HP01 One-Way Drive Track r
Figure 2. 9 Wellington Forest, Honeymoon Pool Family (HP01 to HP24) and Group Camping Areas (A- C), showing campsite location, formal walk trails and toilet facilities
A.J. Smith Study Areas 55
2.4.7. Current Recreation Use Visitor numbers are obtained by automated traffic counters located along main access roads (Wellington Dam Road and Falcon Road). A steady decline in the number of visitors to Wellington Forest is shown from 1999 to 2002 (Fig. 2.10).
Similarly to Lane Poole, pneumatic tube counters were used in Wellington Forest until October 1999 (Wellington Dam Road) and August 2001 (Falcon Road) when
MetroCount classifiers were installed (Hassall, pers. comm. 2003). Total number of visits for Wellington Forest is obtained by the addition of figures from units on
Wellington Dam Road and Falcon Road (Hassall, pers. comm. 2003). These figures are multiplied by an average to represent the number of visitors to the park as described in Sect. 2.3.7. Visitor numbers ranged from 136,000 in 1999 to 82,000 in
2002 with a mean of 103,000 (Fig. 2.10).
150,000
125,000
100,000
75,000
50,000
25,000
No. of visitor days per year per days visitor of No. 0 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02
Year
Figure 2. 10 Total number of visitors per year (1999 to 2002 Wellington Forest) Source: VISTAT, Liddicoat (pers. comm., 2003)
Vehicle traffic count information suggests that use is variable throughout the year.
However, peak periods of visitation exist during spring (September to November),
A.J. Smith Study Areas 56
over the Christmas break, at the Easter break, with the summer school holidays in
January being the busiest period (Fig. 2.11).
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
No. of visitor days 5,000
0 JFMAMJJASOND
Month 2001/2002
Figure 2. 11 Total number of visitors per month (2001/2002 Wellington Forest) Source: VISTAT, Hassall (pers. comm. 2003)
No accurate data exist on the number of visitors to Honeymoon Pool Recreation Area or each of the campsites. It was estimated by CALM staff that 70% of visitors would visit Honeymoon Pool but only half of these would actually camp. Using figures for
2001/02 this would equate to 57,400 visits to Honeymoon Pool with 28,700 visitors camping. Further, it was estimated that 5% of visitors would use the informal campsites on Lennard Trail which equates to approximately 4,100 visits (Driscoll, pers. comm. 2003). The figures for the designated campsites seems inflated. While it was observed that in Peak periods most of the campsites were full, the opposite was observed in off-peak periods. This trend is also indicated in the monthly figures for total number of visitors to Wellington Forest in 2001/02 (Fig. 2.11). The estimated figure given would indicate that all of the campsites would be utilised most days of the year including off-season for camping. This does not seem likely, nor has this been observed.
A.J. Smith Study Areas 57
Wellington Forest is a popular visitor destination offering a wide range of activities and experiences such as bushwalking, swimming, marron (in season) and trout fishing, sailing, rowing, camping, canoeing, mountain biking, sightseeing, four- wheel and scenic driving (CALM, 1999). Sailing and rowing are confined to the dam with all other water-based activities occurring on the river below the Dam, on the lower Collie River where most of the infrastructure is in place and opportunities for land-based activities are provided (CALM, 1999).
The Wellington National Park Visitor Survey Program (CALM, 2001a) indicated that 36% (n=56) of respondents visited the Park to camp. Visitors were also asked to identify what activities they participated in during their visit with the highest responses being: 60% bushwalking and 40% swimming. A total of 49% of the visitors were from Perth and 42% either lived locally or from other regional areas in
Western Australia (CALM, 2001a).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 58
2.5. Study Park 3 – Warner Glen Recreation Area
Warner Glen Recreation Area is located 300km south of Perth, Western Australia near the town of Forest Grove (Map 2.1). Warner Glen is currently managed as proposed national park in the Southwest Region. Formerly Warner Glen was managed as state forest. This state forest covers an area of 74,503 ha and is bordered by private property e.g. agricultural and national park unofficially known as
Chapman Pool National Park (Map 2.4) (Fordham Lamont, pers. comm., 2003). The forest consists of a mix of open jarrah and marri located on Chapman Pool, a tributary of the Blackwood River. Access to Warner Glen is via Warner Glen Road, a sealed road (Map 2.4). Informal campsites are located along an unsealed road
(Denny Road) that extends to Sues Bridge Road and will be discussed in Sect. 2.6.
The study area (Warner Glen Individual Camping Area) is a designated area containing twelve campsites located along a one-way loop track. These campsites are suitable for individual or small family group use (Map 2.4).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 59
Map 2. 3 Warner Glen Recreation Area showing recreation areas, Blackwood River and Chapman Pool, Warner Glen Road and bordering private property and national park.
A.J. Smith Study Areas 60
2.5.1. Climate The region experiences a Mediterranean climate (Table 2.1).
2.5.2. Topography, Geology & Soils Warner Glen Recreation Area is part of the Blackwood Plateau, also known as the
Donnybrook Sunklands and has a gently undulating surface covered by lateritic gravel and sand. It typically ranges from 80m to 180m above sea level and is underlain by Mesozoic sediments and Bunbury Basalt. Much of this area is poorly drained (CALM, 1987b). The major river that passes through Warner Glen is the
Blackwood River, although the recreation area is located on Chapman Brook, a tributary of the Blackwood River. The Blackwood River and Chapman Brook become permanently flowing as they traverse the densely forested Blackwood
Plateau which receives groundwater from the Perth Basin (Water and Rivers
Commission, 2002a).
The soils in Warner Glen are part of the Treeton Hills phase which are well drained valley flats and floodplains with deep alluvial soils, often red brown loams (i.e.
Marybrook soils) and the Treeton Hills phase with low slopes (gradients ranging from 2-10%) and shallow gravely sands over laterite (Goulding, pers. comm., 2003).
Marybrook soils typically comprise about 80% sand, 13% silt and 7% clay in the top
30 cm (loamy sand) compared with 10 per cent silt and 20 to 35 per cent clay below about 30 cm (loam to a clay loam) (Bolland, 2003).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 61
2.5.3. Flora & Fauna The forest of Warner Glen consists mainly of a mix of open jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) and marri (Corymbia calophylla). The species present are those common to such forests as discussed in Sect. 2.3.3. Species of special interest and listed in
CALM’s Priority Flora List include Amperea prostensa (Priority 27), Caladenia arrecta ms (Priority 4), and Acacia inops (Priority 38) (Forward, pers. comm., 2003).
No comprehensive flora surveys have been conducted in this area so only Priority
Flora and common species are known.
The native fauna in this region are those common to the jarrah and marri forest as discussed in Sect. 2.3.3. Additionally, this area of the Blackwood River is important habitat for the orange-bellied frog (Geocrinia rosea) and conservation zones have been established to protect the riverine habitat of this species. No comprehensive fauna surveys have been conducted in this area so only common species are known.
2.5.4. Legislation & Management Warner Glen Recreation Area is currently located within state forest. Under the 1999
RFA Warner Glen Recreation Area was proposed as part of a new national park named Blackwood National Park. As a result, Warner Glen Recreation Area has been managed as proposed national park since this time. Blackwood National Park will cover an area of approximately 15,600 ha (Regional Forest Agreement, 1998a). The state forest currently covers an area of approximately 74,503 ha with approximately
200 ha set aside as Warner Glen Recreation Area (Forward, pers. comm. 2003).
7 Priority 2: Taxa with few known populations, some of which occur on conservation lands (Atkins, 1998b) 8 Priority 3: Taxa have several known populations, some of which occur on secure conservation lands, or are present over a large range and not under immediate threat (Atkins, 1998b). A.J. Smith Study Areas 62
Warner Glen Recreation Area is currently managed by the Southwest Region according to their Regional Management Plan 1987-1997. No specific management plan exists for Warner Glen, therefore it would be managed in accordance with necessary operations (as described in Sect. 2.4.4). There is also currently no recreation and tourism plan (CALM, 1987b).
The campsites for this study are located in Warner Glen Individual Camping Area which is a designated area. The campsites are accessed via an unsealed track off the sealed Warner Glen Road (Map 2.4). The Margaret River District of CALM is responsible for the day-to-day maintenance of facilities within Warner Glen
Recreation Area and other tasks associated with visitors. A CALM worker visits the recreation area three times a week for general maintenance and to collect camper’s fees. Activities specific to recreation management are similar to those presented in
Table 2.4. In addition, firewood is provided at the designated campsites.
2.5.5. Historical Recreation Use of the Park Early settlers used a transport corridor that ran north to south. This corridor passed through Warner Glen and because of access to water is thought to have been a place to stop and camp. The existing camping area (Warner Glen Individual Camp Area) was constructed in October/November 1998. This was seen as a necessity due to conflict between day use visitors and campers at the Chapman Brook Picnic Area.
Campers would monopolise sites and caravans were using up vacant space. This impacted upon the surrounding vegetation as the site expanded to accommodate use
(Forward, pers. comm., 2003). Since 1998, research and planning have been undertaken to provide recreation and tourism opportunities for visitors that will not threaten the area’s environmental values. As a result of the redevelopment, day use
A.J. Smith Study Areas 63
and camping are now in separate designated areas with separate facilities. Specific use by Aboriginal people of the area is not currently known and no sites are currently registered.
2.5.6. Recreational Opportunities & Facilities Warner Glen Recreation Area has two camping areas, the Warner Glen Individual
Camping Area and the Warner Glen Group Camping Area (Table 2.7). Warner Glen also has two-day use areas, Chapman Brook Picnic Area and Blackwood Views
Picnic Area. The group camping area was completed at the end of 2002 with the entire area having been surfaced with gravel. Facilities include: a central gas barbecue area (2) in an undercover area, picnic table/bench’s, fire rings with barbecue plate and toilet facilities (pit toilet) (Fig. 2.12). The group camping area was not included in this study because use had not commenced at the time of field survey. The group camping area is a large open area that is highly modified and not comparable to other camping areas in this study (Fig. 2.12).
Table 2. 6 Facilities at recreation areas in Warner Glen Recreation Area Formal Day Picnic Canoe River Recreation Area Camping BBQ Toilets Walk Use Tables Launch Access Trail
*Warner Glen Individual 9 9 9 9 9 - 9 9 Camping Area
Warner Glen Group 9 9 9 9 9 - - 9 Camping Area (gas)
9 Chapman Brook Picnic Area - 9 9 9 9 9 9 (gas)
Blackwood Views Picnic - - 9 - - - 9 9 Area *denotes study areas examined in this thesis
A.J. Smith Study Areas 64
Figure 2. 12 Warner Glen Recreation Area, Group Camping Area (Photo: A. Smith)
The study area, Warner Glen Individual Camping Area, has 12 designated campsites suitable for individual or family use (Table 2.2, Fig. 2.13). Facilities provided include: individual sites for the purpose of camping but are also utilised by day visitors; barbecues/fire ring; picnic tables/benches; toilet facilities (pit toilet); car bays; a centrally located rubbish disposal facility (skip bin at track entrance); and firewood provided by CALM (Table 2.3 and 2.7, Fig. 2.13). Fees are charged for an overnight stay and dogs are currently permitted provided they are restrained on a leash (Table 2.3).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 65
! WG12 r Trail to Group Campsite
WG11
WG10 ! ! ! WG01 One Way Loop Track Firewood B WG08 WG06 WG05 ! ! ! ! WG02 ! WG09
WG07 ! ! ! WG03 r WG04
WARNER GLEN RECREATION AREA INDIVIDUAL CAMPING AREA ! Campsite 0 40 r --- Formal Walk Trail (DCLM designed) Scale (m) B Toilet
Figure 2. 13 Warner Glen Recreation Area, Individual Camping Area showing location of campsites, formal walk trails and toilet facilities
A.J. Smith Study Areas 66
2.5.7. Current Recreation Use Visitor numbers are obtained by an automated traffic counter (MetroCount classifier) located on the main track to Warner Glen Recreation Area. The figures from the traffic counter are multiplied by an average to represent the number of visitors to the park as described in Sect. 2.3.7. The counter at Sues Bridge is not permanently installed. It was installed in October and November 2001 and December 2001 and
January 2002 (Fig. 2.14). Data obtained prior to this period were based on estimates from fees and observations. It was estimated that approximately 10,000 visitors per year visit Warner Glen Recreation Area (Miscamble, pers. comm., 2003). This figure would seem likely taking into consideration the values displayed below for a four month period (Fig. 2.14). Additionally, all campsites have been observed full over the four day Easter break and numerous visitors have also been observed during the two week school holiday period following Easter.
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000 No. of visitor days visitor of No.
0 Oct/Nov 01 Dec 01/Jan 02
Month and Year
Figure 2. 14 Total number of visitors (Warner Glen Recreation Area) Source: VISTAT, Miscamble (pers. comm., 2003)
A.J. Smith Study Areas 67
Peak periods of visitation occur during spring (September to November), at the
Easter break, with the summer school holidays in December to January being the busiest period (Miscamble, pers. comm., 2003). No accurate data exist on the number of visitors to the study area. Peak period numbers are based on revenue received from camping fees (Miscamble, pers. comm., 2003). Recreational pursuits such as camping, picnicking, bushwalking, marroning (in season) and fishing, swimming, boating and canoeing are popular activities within Warner Glen.
A.J. Smith Study Areas 68
2.6. Study Park 4 – Sues Bridge Recreation Area
Sues Bridge Recreation Area is located 280 km south of Perth, Western Australia near the town of Karridale (Map 2.1). Sues Bridge is currently managed as proposed national park in the Southwest Region. This area was formerly managed as state forest. The existing state forest (State Forest 32) covers an area of 74,503ha and is bordered by private property (Map 2.5) (Fordham Lamont, pers. comm., 2003). The forest consists of a mix of jarrah and marri located on the Blackwood River (CALM,
1987b). Access to Sues Bridge Recreation Area is via Sues Road, a sealed road.
Informal campsites are located along an unsealed road (Denny Road) that extends to
Warner Glen Road (Map 2.6).
The study areas consist of sixteen designated campsites suitable for individual or small family group use located along a one-way loop track and five informal campsites (I01-I05) located along Denny Road (Maps 2.5 & 2.6). The informal campsites are suitable for either individual or group use.
A.J. Smith Study Areas 69
Map 2. 4 Sues Bridge Recreation Area showing Blackwood River, Sues Road and surrounding land use
Map 2. 5 Sues Bridge Recreation Area and Informal Campsites along Denny Road showing Blackwood River, Sues Road, Denny Road and surrounding land use
2.6.1. Climate The region experiences a Mediterranean climate as discussed in Sect. 2.4.1, Table
2.1.
2.6.2. Topography, Geology & Soils Sues Bridge Recreation Area has the same topography as Warner Glen as discussed in Sect. 2.5.2. The major river that passes through Sues Bridge is the Blackwood
River.
The soils of Sues Bridge are a part of the Blackwood Subsystem slope phase with a relief of 10-30m and slopes of 3-10%, Darradup terrace phase which are raised alluvial terraces, with a relief of 1.15m and slopes of 0-5% and the river channel of the Blackwood River. Soils are brown deep sands (Goulding, pers. comm., 2003).
2.6.3. Flora & Fauna The forest of Sues Bridge consists mainly of a mix of open jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) and marri (Corymbia calophylla). The species present are those common to such forests as discussed in Sect. 2.3.3. Species listed in CALM’s Priority Flora
List include: Hybanthus volubilis (Priority 2) and Astroloma sp. Nannup (Priority 4).
No comprehensive flora surveys have been conducted in this area so only Priority
Flora and common species are known (Forward, pers. comm., 2003).
The native fauna in this region are those common to jarrah and marri forest as discussed in Sect. 2.3.3. No comprehensive fauna surveys have been conducted in this area so only common species are known.
A.J. Smith Study Areas 72
2.6.4. Legislation & Management Sues Bridge Recreation Area is currently located within state forest but managed as a proposed national park. The state forest covers an area of approximately 74,503 ha with approximately 200 ha set aside as Sues Bridge Recreation Area (Forward, pers. comm., 2003). Sues Bridge Recreation Area, along with Warner Glen Recreation
Area, is to be included in the proposed national park additions (Blackwood National
Park) as described in Sect. 2.5.4.
Sues Bridge Recreation Area is currently managed by the Southwest Region according to the Regional Management Plan 1987-1997. No specific management plan exists for Sues Bridge, therefore it would be managed in accordance with necessary operations (as described in Sect. 2.4.4). There is also currently no recreation and tourism plan (CALM, 1987b).
Sues Bridge Recreation Area includes a designated camping area and a day use area.
The campsites are accessed via an unsealed track to the east, 606 m from the sealed
Sues Road. The Margaret River District of CALM is responsible for the day-to-day maintenance of facilities within Sues Bridge Recreation Area and other tasks associated with visitors. A CALM worker visits the recreation area three times a week during peak periods and on a weekly basis off-peak for general maintenance such as emptying campsite rubbish bags and to collect camping fees. Activities specific to recreation management are similar to those presented in Table 2.4. In addition, firewood is provided at the designated campsites. Informal campsites are located along Denny Road and only minimal maintenance is provided to these campsites e.g. rubbish clean up.
A.J. Smith Study Areas 73
2.6.5. Historical Recreation Use of the Park Early settlers are believed to have used a track leading from Busselton to Augusta that passed through Sues Bridge as it crossed the Blackwood River. The existing camping area was constructed in 1996 after pressure on the site located on the riverbank became too great (Forward, pers. comm. 2003). Specific use by Aboriginal people of the area is not currently known and no sites are currently registered.
2.6.6. Recreation Opportunities & Facilities Sues Bridge Recreation Area has two recreation areas, Sues Bridge Day Use and
Sues Bridge Camping Area (Fig. 2.15, Table 2.8). The study site, Sues Bridge
Camping Area, has 16 campsites suitable for individual or small family group use and a large day use area suitable for multiple party use (Table 2.2). No campsites specifically set aside for group camping are available, however, some campsites are located in close proximity to one another e.g. campsites SB13 to SB16 or are large enough to accommodate more than one tent (Fig. 2.15). Facilities provided in the camping area include fire pits with steel barbecue plates, picnic table/benches, toilets
(2 pit toilets) and individual bins at each campsite (Fig. 2.15, Table 2.3 and 2.8). Fees are charged for an overnight stay and dogs are currently permitted provided they are restrained on a leash (Table 2.3). The day use site is a large open area located on the riverbank and was previously a camping area. It has multiple facilities including picnic bench/tables, bins, fire rings with barbecue plates provided and multiple use car parking facilities (Fig. 2.15, Table 2.8).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 74
Table 2. 7 Facilities at recreation areas in Sues Bridge Recreation Area Formal Day Picnic Canoe River Recreation Area Camping BBQ Toilets Walk Use Tables Launch Access Trail
*Sues Bridge Camping 9 9 9 9 9 - - - Area
Sues Bridge Day Use Area - 9 9 9 - - 9 -
*Informal (Denny Road) 9 - - - - - 9 - *denotes study areas examined in this thesis
On Denny Road there are 5 informal campsites located along the river. One of the campsites (I02) was excluded from this study due to the difficulty in accessing it
(Map 2.6). The track into the campsite was severely eroded and unsafe. The four remaining informal campsites are individual campsites that are suitable for either individual or group use and have no facilities provided (Tables 2.3 and 2.8). Denny
Road links Sues Bridge Recreation Area to Warner Glen Recreation Area (Map 2.6).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 75
B
SB12 r SB11 m
! ! Maintenance Road
! SB10 ! ! ! ! Day Use SB13 SB14SB15 SB16 Area
! SB09 Firewood
! SB08
! One Way Loop Track SB07 m B ! r SB04 SB06 SB03 SB01 ! ! ! !
SB05 ! SB02 m
To Sues Road SUES BRIDGE RECREATION AREA ! Campsite 0 30
r --- Formal Walk Trail (CALM designed) Scale (m)
B Toilet
m Parking
Figure 2. 15 Sues Bridge Recreation Area showing location of campsites, day use area, formal walk trails and toilet facilities
A.J. Smith Study Areas 76
2.6.7. Current Recreation Use Visitor numbers are obtained by an automated traffic counter (MetroCount classifier) located along the main track to Sues Bridge Recreation Area. The figures from the traffic counter are multiplied by an average to represent the number of visitors to the park as described in Sect. 2.3.7. The counter at Warner Glen has not been permanently installed. It was used in September to December 2001 (Fig. 2.16). Data prior to this period were based on estimates from fees and observations. It is estimated that approximately 10,000 visitors per year visit Sues Bridge Recreation
Area (Miscamble, pers. comm., 2003). This figure seems likely considering the values for peak periods such as December and January 1996 were high (Fig. 2.16).
4000
3000
2000
1000 No. of visitor days of visitor No.
0 Dec 96/Jan 96 Oct/Nov 1997 Sep/Oct 2001 Nov/Dec 2001
Month and Year
Figure 2. 16 Total number of visitors (Sues Bridge Recreation Area) Source: VISTAT, Miscamble, (pers. comm., 2003)
Peak periods of visitation exist during spring (September to November), at the Easter break, with the summer school holidays in December to January being the busiest period (Miscamble, pers. comm. 2003). Peak period numbers are based on revenue received from camping fees (Miscamble, pers. comm. 2003). Recreational pursuits such as camping, picnicking, bushwalking, marroning (in season) and fishing, swimming, boating and canoeing are popular activities within Sues Bridge.
A.J. Smith Study Areas 77
Sues Bridge Visitor Feedback (CALM, 2000d) indicated that 56% (n=18) of respondents visited the park to holiday and camp. Visitors were also asked to identify what activities they participated in during their visit with the highest responses being:
39% swimming and 28% camping. For Sues Bridge, 44% of the visitors were from the Perth metropolitan, 22% from other regional areas in Western Australia, 17% interstate and 17% overseas (CALM, 2000d).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 78
2.7. Study Park 5 – Warren National Park
Warren National Park is located 350 km south of Perth, Western Australia near the town of Pemberton on the Old Vasse Road (unsealed) (Maps 2.1 and 2.7). The park is an class ‘A’ reserve managed as national park in the Warren Region. It is surrounded by state forest and includes private property both surrounding and within the Park (Map 2.7). The forest is tall, open old growth karri (Eucalyptus diversicolor) and marri covering an area of 3718ha with the Warren River flowing through it.
Some of the riverine vegetation includes: river banksias (Banksia seminuda), peppermints (Agonis flexuosa) and Agonis juniperina.
The study recreation area (Camping Area 1) is a designated recreation area. There are three one-way loop tracks within this area. The first leads to seventeen campsites suitable for individual or small family group use. The second leads to parking facilities for the day use area located on the riverbank and the third loop track leads to six campsites suitable for larger group use (Map 2.7, Table 2.2). Warren National
Park was included in this study because of the newly developed campsites. These newly developed campsites offered an opportunity to compare existing developed campsites to new campsites to determine how changed from post construction existing campsites were. Informal campsites were not examined in this study as they were studied previously by Smith (1998).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 79
Map 2. 6 Warren National Park showing recreation facilities, Warren River, Heartbreak Trail, Old Vasse Road and surrounding land use
2.7.1. Climate The Pemberton region experiences a Sub-Mediterranean climate with cool, wet winters and mild summers with an average rainfall ranging from 1300 mm to 1400 mm (CALM, 1987a). The average maximum temperature is 25.5°C and the average minimum temperature is 7.6°C (CALM, unpub.) (Table 2.1).
2.7.2. Topography, Geology & Soils The Warren National Park is part of the Darling Plateau as discussed previously in
Sect. 2.3.2. The soils include red and yellow sandy loams and sandy clay loams with underlying rock of gneiss or granite (CALM, 1987a, unpub.). The major river passing through Warren National Park is the Warren River which has a relatively fresh flow. There are no major dams in the region and the region experiences only a localised demand for groundwater resources (CALM, 1987a).
2.7.3. Flora & Fauna The vegetation of Warren National Park consists mainly of a high open forest mix of virgin karri (Eucalyptus diversicolor) and marri (Corymbia calophylla). The main understorey tree species are karri oak (Allocasuarina decussata) and peppermint
(Agonis flexuosa) (Christensen, 1992). Additionally, Caladenia harringtonaie is a declared rare species listed in the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (WA) and is found within the Park (Government Gazette, 2003b).
In the last 20 years, ten native mammal species have been recorded including the quokka (Setonix brachyurus) and western ring-tailed possum (Pseudocheirus occidentalis) which are threatened species and are gazetted rare or in need of special protection under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (WA) (Christensen, 1992;
Government Gazette, 2003a).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 81
Additionally, there are over 50 native bird, 10 reptile, 10 amphibian (including
Geocrinia rosea which has a limited distribution within riparian zones) and 6 native freshwater fish species (Christensen et al., 1985; Christensen, 1992).
2.7.4. Legislation & Management Warren National Park is managed as a class ‘A’ reserve. It is surrounded by state forest and includes private property both surrounding (12 bordering) and within (25 properties) the Park. These private properties have various uses including: a café, accommodation facilities, private dwellings and agriculture. Part of the existing state forest (Hawke Block) which borders Warren National Park is proposed National Park under the 1998 Regional Forest Agreement and is to be named Hawke National Park and will cover an area of 2900ha (Regional Forest Agreement, 1998a).
Warren National Park is currently managed by the Warren Region according to their
Regional Management Plan 1987-1997. No specific management plan currently exists for Warren National Park, therefore it would be managed in accordance with necessary operations (as described in Sect. 2.4.4). The Warren National Park Draft
Masterplan 2000 currently exists and aims to facilitate the public enjoyment of the park’s natural and cultural values in a manner that is consistent with nature conservation and other objectives (CALM, 1987a, 2000a).
The campsites and day use areas located in Warren National Park are designated areas on Heartbreak Trail, an unsealed road (Map 2.7). The Pemberton District of
CALM is responsible for the day-to-day maintenance of facilities within Warren
National Park and other tasks associated with visitors. Activities specific to
A.J. Smith Study Areas 82
recreation are similar to those presented in Table 2.4. In addition, firewood is provided at the designated areas.
2.7.5. Historical Recreation Use of the Park The Warren National Park was probably first discovered by cattlemen in about 1860 and opened up when the Vasse highway was constructed in about 1868 (CALM, unpub.). Parts of the Warren National Park were gazetted in the period 1911 to 1924, making it one of the first national parks in the Pemberton region to be gazetted
(CALM, 1987a). Heartbreak Trail was originally constructed, by hand, as a fire protection break in the early 1960’s and in the late 1960’s extension of the fire protection break called Maidenbush Trail was constructed (Annear, pers. comm.
1998). The existing sites then evolved by visitors choosing attractive places to camp or picnic. The campsites along Heartbreak Trail were not formalised until the 1970’s and were classified as a partially developed area where roads and walk trails were built and facilities were provided for day visitors and picnickers (Underwood, 1972).
Pit toilets were installed in the 1980’s consisting of a sealed septic tank with a concrete base that is pumped out as required (Annear, pers. comm. 1998).
To date, one previous study has been conducted in relation to environmental impacts of tourism and recreation in Warren National Park. A study by Smith in 1998 examining the environmental impacts of recreation and tourism in Warren National
Park and appropriate management planning (Smith, 1998). This study used an integrated approach that combined biophysical and social measurements to assess campsite degradation and information was fed into a management and monitoring strategy for campsites in the park (Smith and Newsome, 2002). This was the first attempt to quantify the impact of recreation and tourism in this park and aided in the
A.J. Smith Study Areas 83
development of recommendations made in the Pemberton RFA Project Masterplan in
2000.
In July 2000 the Pemberton RFA Project Draft Masterplan was written as a plan for the development and management of a tour of the Pemberton Forests and to ensure that recreation opportunities within this region are sustainable by implementing environment protection strategies (CALM, 2000a). In this plan it was proposed that re-development occur along the access roads, Heartbreak Trail and Maidenbush
Trail, to improve the existing facilities as they were small, became overcrowded in peak times and were experiencing environmental degradation. It was proposed that a new camping area be provided locating camping sites further back from the river with designated walk trails to and from the river (CALM, 2000a). This work was completed in 2002.
2.7.6. Recreation Opportunities & Facilities A variety of recreation opportunities are provided in the Park including: camping in two designated camp areas along the unsealed access road, Heartbreak Trail,
(Camping Area 1 and Camping Area 2 – Drafty’s Camp); three day use areas
(Heartbreak Crossing, Heartbreak Day Use and Camping Area 1 Day Use); a lookout
(Warren Lookout), Dave Evan’s Bicentennial Tree which is a fire lookout tree that is able to be climbed and where parking and barbecue facilities are provided; Marianne
North Tree which is a large karri with a bulbous growth; and numerous walk trails under different levels of management (Map 2.7) (CALM, 2000a).
Warren National Park underwent development to upgrade existing facilities along
Heartbreak Trail in 2001 and the majority of the earthworks and site development
A.J. Smith Study Areas 84
were completed in April 2002. As a result, two new recreation areas were developed and are now known as: Camping Area 1, which has two camp areas, one camp area with campsites suitable for individual use and the other camp area with campsites suitable for group use; and Camping Area 2 (Drafty’s Camp), which has a large single cleared area and three individual use campsites. The former first camp area is to be further developed as a day use facility (Heartbreak Day Use Area) with picnic tables and fire pits. Additionally, a vehicle parking area suitable for up to 9 vehicles has been provided adjoining the day use area (CALM, 2000a) (Map 2.7).
The study area, Camping Area 1, has an individual/family camp area, a day use facility and a group camp area (Map 2.7, Figs 2.17 and 2.18). The first loop track leads to the individual/family area that has seventeen newly developed campsites with six being provided with picnic table/bench and a fire ring with barbecue plate
(Table 2.9, Fig. 2.17). These campsites are suitable for individual or small family group use. There is a large cleared site at the centre of this area that was developed as a common use campground kitchen facility in 2003 (Fig. 2.17). Additionally, a toilet facility (pit toilets) has been provided. The second loop track leads to one of the original Heartbreak Trail camping areas (Fig. 2.17) and is to be re-developed for day use. This recreation area had been affected by soil erosion and compaction, loss of vegetation cover and damage to trees. Rehabilitation of severely degraded areas is necessary and this area will then be used as a day use facility (CALM, 2000a).
Vehicle parking facilities have been provided and suitable for up to nine vehicles.
The third loop track leads to the group use area, which has four large campsites suitable for large group use and three smaller campsites suitable for small group use.
A.J. Smith Study Areas 85
Two of the group campsites have been provided with facilities such as picnic table/bench and a fire pit with barbecue plate (Table 2.9 and Fig. 2.17).
Table 2. 8 Facilities at recreation areas in Warren National Park Day Picnic Canoe River Formal Recreation Area Camping BBQ Toilets Use Tables Launch Access Walk Trail
Heartbreak Day Use Area 9 9 9 9 9 - 9 -
Heartbreak Crossing - 9 9 9 - 9 9 -
*Camping Area 1 – 9 9 9 9 9 - 9 - Individual and Group
Camping Area 1 Day Use 9 9 9 9 9 - 9 -
Camping Area 2 (Drafty’s 9 9 9 9 - - 9 - Camp)
Warren Lookourt - 9 9 9 - - - 9
Dave Evan’s Bicentennial - 9 9 9 9 - - 9 Tree *denotes study areas examined in this thesis
Camping Area 2 (Drafty’s Camp) was the existing third camping area along
Heartbreak Trail (Map 2.7). This camping area included a defined parking area and a large cleared area offering riverside camping and day use. Campers would cluster in this single large area with no defined campsite boundaries. Previous camping opportunities have been maintained and the access track has been developed as a loop track. An additional three campsites have been provided. Facilities such as barbecues (fire pits), picnic tables/benches and a toilet facility (pit toilet) have been provided (Table 2.9). For the three additional, new campsites only earthworks have been conducted to date. As such, this camping area was not considered suitable for monitoring in this study.
A.J. Smith Study Areas 86
Figure 2. 17 Warren National Park, Camping Area 1, Individual Area showing location of campsites, toilet facilities and location of day use area
A.J. Smith Study Areas 87
Heartbreak Trail
Track to Individual Campsites ! ! W01 W05 One-Way Loop Track
! W04
! W02a ! W02b
m
W03! m m
Day Use Area B Warren River
WARREN NATIONAL PARK 0 20 CAMPING AREA 1 – GROUP SITES Scale (m) ! Campsite B Toilet m Parking for Day Use Area
Figure 2. 18 Warren National Park, Camping Area 1, Group Area showing location of campsites, toilet facilities and day use area.
A.J. Smith Study Areas 88
2.7.7. Current Recreation Use Visitor numbers are obtained by an automated traffic counter (MetroCount classifier) located along the road to Dave Evan’s Bicentennial Tree – a popular day use site due to the fire lookout and climbing tree. This counter was installed in July 2000. A pneumatic tube counter is installed at the main access road to the campsites,
Heartbreak Trail. The total number of visits for Warren National Park is the addition of figures from units on the road to Dave Evan’s Bicentennial Tree and Heartbreak
Trail (Hassall, pers. comm. 2003). These figures are multiplied by an average to represent the number of visitors to the park as described in Sect. 2.3.7. The number of visitors per year ranges from 60,132 to 107,316 with a mean of 80,233 visitors per year over a 6 year period (Fig. 2.19). A decline in 2000/01 was recorded (Fig. 2.19).
It is predicted that the figure for 2000/01 is lower because road works and site construction was being conducted for a considerable period during this time, so the road were either closed or the counter was not in place (Annear, pers. comm. 2003).
It is estimated that approximately 1700-3500 people per month visit Camping Area 1 and of those 255-525 per month stay overnight, which equates to 3060-6300 visitors per annum staying in the study recreation area (Camping Area 1) (Annear, pers. comm. 2003).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 89
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000 No. of visitor days per year of visitor No. 0 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02
Year
Figure 2. 19 Total Visitor Numbers (Warren National Park, 1998 to 2002)
Source: VISTAT, Annear, (pers. comm., 2003)
Peak periods of visitation occur during spring (September to November), over the
Christmas break, during marron season and at the Easter break and school holidays, with December being the busiest month (Fig. 2.20). Use is more even over the summer months than the other study parks. This is possibly due to the cooler temperatures experienced in the summer season. Activities include: self-drive touring, appreciating nature and viewing scenery, viewing wildlife, bush walking, bird watching, photography, picnicking, camping, swimming, canoeing, climbing
Bicentennial Tree, marroning (in season) and fishing (Smith, 1998).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 90
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
No. of visitor days of visitor No. 1,000
0 JFMAMJJASOND
Month 2001/2002
Figure 2. 20 Total Monthly Visitor Numbers (Warren National Park, 2001/2002) Source: VISTAT, Hassall (pers. comm., 2003)
A survey of visitors to Warren National Park was conducted in 1998 (n=117) (Smith,
1998). The majority of respondents visited with family (36%), friends (29%) or a combination of both (Smith and Newsome, 2002). Visitors were also asked to identify what activities they participated in during their visit with the highest responses being: appreciating nature (90%) and admiring scenery (88%). The majority of the respondents were from the Perth metropolitan (63%) with 19% being either local or other Western Australia, 11% interstate and 7% from overseas (Smith and Newsome, 2002).
A.J. Smith Study Areas 91
2.8. The Study Parks as a Focus for Further Research
Managers need to know how much and what kind of environmental damage is occurring and what conditions visitors consider acceptable. At present, this information for the study parks is largely anecdotal and qualitative rather than quantitative and is based on the expertise and knowledge of the park managers. The designated and developed nature of the recreation areas in this study are considered typical of many of the recreation areas provided for camping in Australia, particularly the eucalypt forests of southern Australia. To effectively and efficiently assess the condition of designated and developed recreation areas an understanding of the associated impacts and the applicable methods used to explore these impacts are needed. Further, an understanding of the biophysical impacts on developed, designated and informal campsites is needed. The following literature review describes the biophysical impacts associated with the use of camping areas and the methods used to describe these impacts.
A.J. Smith Study Areas 92
PART II: BIOPHYSICAL MONITORING & ASSESSMENT
Chapter 3 Assessing Biophysical Impacts
3.1. Introduction
Use of natural areas for recreation inevitably results in impacts on the social, biophysical and environment. This chapter explores the literature that describes the biophysical impacts of recreational use of campsites, while the following one discusses the methods used in this study and provides the results and discussion. This chapter is divided into two sections.
Section one reviews the current methods for monitoring the biophysical impacts of recreation at camping areas. The review centres on five research themes: type of recreation impact, amount of use, effect or influence of visitor and site management actions, change over time and improvement of methods. The type of recreation impact is discussed in detail and categorised into impacts on soil, vegetation, coarse woody debris and intensity and spatial extent of impact. Impacts on wildlife are beyond the scope of this study so therefore have not been included, while impacts on the social environment will be discussed in Chapter 5.
Section two reviews current methods for monitoring biophysical conditions in camping areas. The use of indicators and standards is described and various campsite assessment approaches are reviewed including: photographic assessment, condition class ratings, multiple indicator ratings, multiple indicator measures, combined systems and coarse woody debris.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 93
3.2. Impacts of Recreation at Camping Areas and Dayuse Sites
Conspicuous evidence of human use and hence visual impact can be a serious problem in forested areas because use is often highly concentrated at popular destination areas (Martin et al., 1989). Cole (1990b) reported that the most common and profound recreational impacts are associated with campsites and the trails leading from the campsite due to the large amount of time that visitors spend at the campsite, rather than elsewhere in the forested environment. Forested areas receiving heavy use often exhibit visible evidence of deterioration shortly after use begins
(Brown et al., 1977). A significant impact may be any change that threatens to make a campsite either non-functional or undesirable to visitors (Cole, 1982a). While these impacts generally do not threaten the ecological integrity of the entire area, they may result in serious localised resource damage and certainly have the potential to affect the quality of visitor experiences (Martin et al., 1989). Cole (1990b) went on to further suggest that the most significant impacts were those that occur over very large areas, seriously disrupting ecosystem function or affecting rare ecosystems.
Additionally, changes that are irreversible or long term are problematic.
Previous biophysical impact research, most of it conducted in backcountry areas of the United States, seems to coalesce around five areas or themes (Table 3.1). These themes include: type of recreation impact; amount of use; effect or influence of visitor and site management actions; change over time; and improvement of methods
(Table 3.1). These themes build on the concepts provided by Leung and Marion
(2000a) in a review of literature on recreation resource impacts and their management in the United States, with a focus on research in wilderness areas over the past 15 years. The campsite impact themes of most interest in this study are
A.J. Smith Biophysical 94
theme 1, type of recreation impact and theme 5, improvement of methods, and to a lesser extent theme 4, change over time (Table 3.1).
Table 3. 1 Major research themes in determining biophysical impacts associated with recreation use of campsites* Themes Description Recent Examples 1. Type of recreation impact Estimates or measurements taken on Hall and Shelby Direct and indirect forms of recreation sites to assess current resource (1994) recreation impact conditions McEwen et al. (1996) Intensity of impact Measurements taken on recreation sites and Obua and Harding Spatial extent of impact nearby undisturbed control and compared to (1997) infer amount of impact Cole et al. (1997)
2. Amount of use Measurements taken on recreation sites Cole (1986b, 1992) Use-impact relationship experiencing different use levels e.g. high use Marion and Cole and low use and nearby undisturbed control (1996) and compared to infer amount of impact
3. Effect or influence of visitor and Measurements are taken before and after Marion (1995) site management actions (1) commencing or ceasing use of sites Cole and Spildie Which management actions (2) applying management action(s) to sites to (2000) have the greatest chance of infer amount of impact due to change Marion and Farrell success in ameliorating impacts (2002) Which management actions have the most influence on the quality of impacts
4. Change over time Measurements taken on recreation sites and Cole (1986a, 1993) nearby undisturbed control and compared to Cole and Hall (1992) infer amount of impact Boyers et al. (2000) Measurements repeated after set period of time to assess change over time.
5. Improvement of methods Measurements taken before and after Cole (1989b) Accuracy and precision of treatment Marion (1991) different methods Leung and Marion Improving efficiency of (1999b) methods *Partly based on Leung and Marion (2000a)
3.2.1. Type of Recreation Impact Camping can cause biological, physical and social impacts (Table 3.2). These impacts can be direct such as vegetation damage or soil erosion or indirect impacts such as species composition change or reduced soil moisture, while social impacts have the potential to degrade the quality of the visitor experience (Table 3.2).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 95
Table 3. 2 Impacts from the use of camping areas in natural environments Biological Impacts Physical Impacts Social Impacts
Soil Impacts Soil Impacts Littering Soil compaction
Organic matter reduction Soil erosion Human waste
Vegetation Impacts Infiltration rate reduction Vandalism Loss of ground cover
Vegetation damage including Exposed mineral soils Visitor conflict human damage to trees
Change in species composition Vegetation Impacts Crowding
Seedling removal Tree root exposure Loss of aesthetic appeal
Introduction of weeds (exotics Noise pollution species)
Loss of Coarse Woody Debris
Derived from: Parsons and MacLeod (1980), Cole and Fichtler (1983), Blakesley and Reese (1988), Martin et al. (1989), Buckley and Pannell (1990), Cole 1(990a), Kuss et al. (1990), Cole (1992), Sun and Liddle (1993b), Trumball et al. (1994), Cole (1995b), Cole and Landres (1995), Marion (1995), Leung and Marion (2000a)
The most frequently measured impacts relate to soil and vegetation attributes (Leung and Marion, 2000a). The following discussion focuses on three impact areas: soil impacts, vegetation impacts and loss of coarse woody debris (Table 3.2). Soil impacts most relevant to this study are soil compaction and reduced infiltration rates.
These impacts are of most concern in the cleared campsite area. Vegetation impacts most relevant to this study are vegetation damage, root exposure and seedling removal. These impacts are of most concern in the perimeter of the campsite (1-2m from the boundary of the campsite where the first significant amount of natural vegetation occurs) and in the cleared campsite area where mature trees still remain.
In the developed campsites examined in this study, vegetation loss is only of concern in the undisturbed area surrounding the campsite. Further, coarse woody debris is significant in this study because of the common practice of visitors collecting firewood from the natural area surrounding the campsite and thus depleting coarse woody debris and expanding the area of impact.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 96
3.2.1.1. Soil impacts Numerous studies have indicated that impacts on soils as a result of recreational use and hence resultant trampling include loss of surface organic horizons, exposure of bare soil, compaction, reduction in macro and total porosity, reductions in infiltration rates and increases in soil erosion (Cole and Landres, 1995; Liddle, 1997) (Table
3.2). Compaction has been documented as being the most common effect of recreation use and is reflected by increased values for bulk density, soil penetration resistance and decreased permeability values (Brown et al., 1977; Cole and Fichtler,
1983; Cole, 1986b; Cole and Marion, 1988; Cole, 1990a; Marion, 1995). Various studies have found that the soils most prone to compaction are those with a wide range of particle sizes such as loams, those with a low organic content and those that are frequently wet when trampled. The reduced infiltration capacity caused by compaction at campsites may result in flat areas becoming saturated and boggy which increases the need for visitors to excavate trenches around tents in order to facilitate drainage (Smith and Newsome, 2002). Additionally, compaction can directly affect vegetation and soil microbiota because the decreased pore spaces of soils can lead to decreased oxygen and water availability to plant roots (Landres,
1995; Zabinski and Gannon, 1997).
3.2.1.2. Vegetation impacts Many studies have examined the changes in vegetation as a result of trampling in natural areas (Table 3.2). The degree of impact on vegetation is influenced by the type and distribution of visitor activity, amount and type of use, density and relative fragility of vegetation (Liddle, 1997).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 97
Vegetation types that are resistant to trampling have features such as low growth habit, growing points that are not easily damaged, flexibility and toughness (Cole,
1992; Liddle, 1997; Yorks et al., 1997). Trampling of less resistant species can result in physical bruising resulting in the death of plants, especially small ground cover forms such as mosses and lichens which protect the soil surface (Liddle, 1997). As a result of wear, reduction in plant cover has been measured in various studies according to losses in percentage plant cover, reduced height of vegetation and reduced biomass of the original undisturbed vegetation e.g. (Cole, 1987; Sun and
Liddle, 1993a; Cole, 1995a, b).
Trampling can also degrade the natural plant community through changing the species composition. Sensitive native and/or endemic species are replaced by species that are more resistant to trampling, such as more aggressive native colonisers e.g. grasses and/or exotic species, because they are more resistant to trampling due to their low growth habit and growth points present at the soil surface (Burden and
Randerson, 1972; Huxtable, 1987; Cole, 1990a; Sun and Liddle, 1993a; Marion and
Cole, 1996; Liddle, 1997) (Table 3.2).
Trampling can also damage the aerial parts of some annuals, thereby reducing their flowering ability and hence their reproductive success. Thus plants that reproduce vegetatively are advantaged (Sun and Liddle, 1993a). Ground level vegetation is most profoundly affected in and around recreation sites such as campsites showing a general decrease of vegetative cover with a reduction in the number of flowering species and the disappearance of vulnerable species (Cole, 1990a; Anderson, 1995).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 98
Trampling can also inhibit root elongation and damage fine root hairs thereby causing a reduction in root volume reducing the plant’s ability to access nutrients with limited availability such as phosphorus and potassium (Liddle, 1997) (Table
3.2). Root exposure is most common on trails, river and lake banks, and campsites.
Once exposed, roots can become prone to mechanical damage (Hammitt and Cole,
1998).
The major impact to mature trees in recreation areas is caused by mechanical damage such as axe marks, embedded nails and screws, carving, removal of accessible limbs, peeling bark to use as kindling and in extreme cases root exposure as a result of severe erosion of shallow soils (Table 3.2). Such damage and exposure of roots can cause mortality, however, there is little evidence that vigour in large trees is reduced as a result of these impacts (Brown et al., 1977; Cole, 1982a; Cole, 1990a). While the long term health of a tree is not necessarily impacted as a result of such activities, various studies have shown that damaged trees suffered from disease and more vulnerable to insect attack (Brown et al., 1977).
Of greater concern, as demonstrated in various studies, is that tree seedlings in campsites are often eliminated. This elimination is due to trampling, resultant compaction and physical removal to clear the campsite or for use as firewood, thereby reducing regeneration so that overstorey trees will not be replaced when they die e.g. (Brown et al., 1977; Cole, 1982a; Cole, 1990a; Marion and Cole, 1996;
Smith and Newsome, 2002) (Table 3.2).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 99
3.2.1.3. Loss of coarse woody debris The popular practice of day-trippers and campers using campfires and wood-fired barbecues results in the localised loss of coarse woody debris from recreation areas
(Table 3.2). Thus in areas where campfires are permitted, branches and logs of a size that are able to be carried or chopped with an axe (<70mm diameter) are likely to be removed from a considerable area around the campsite, greatly enlarging the area affected by camping and day use activities (Bratton et al., 1978; Liddle, 1997).
Bratton et al. (1978) found that the area disturbed by firewood gathering in the Great
Smoky Mountains National Park was more than nine times the size of the devegetated zone. Such losses are significant because coarse woody debris and standing dead trees play a crucial role in the functioning and productivity of forest ecosystems where they contribute to soil processes, soil fertility and hydrology, provide shelter for wildlife, habitat for many invertebrates, and provide substrates for plant germination and fungi growth (Cole and Dalle-Molle, 1982; Harmon et al.,
1986; Bretz Guby and Dobbertin, 1996; Hecnar and M'Closkey, 1998; Bowman et al., 2000; Farrell and Marion, 2001; Lindenmayer et al., 2002).
Coarse woody debris (of a diameter larger than 70mm) is also important ecologically because of its high water holding capacity, as a significant long term store of nitrogen, phosphorus and sometimes calcium and magnesium and as a significant site of nitrogen fixing organisms (Cole, 1990a; Hall and Farrell, 2001). Smaller woody materials also contribute significantly to productivity and nutrient cycling and contain most of the nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, even though it makes up a small fraction by mass of the total downed wood in forests (Hall and Farrell, 2001).
Decaying wood may also form an important substrate for seedling establishment and some essential fungi (Lindenmayer et al., 2002). The removal of fallen decaying
A.J. Smith Biophysical 100
wood eliminates sites protected from trampling where seedlings can regenerate and reduces the occurrence of natural dams that decrease the potential for soil erosion
(Cole, 1990a).
3.2.1.4. Intensity and spatial extent of impact The intensity of impact and the spatial qualities of impact are also significant components affecting the type of recreation impact (Table 3.1). Recreation resource impacts exhibit concentrated and predictable spatial patterns that do not occur randomly in space. These areas are generally restricted to a small number of destination areas and travel routes (Hammitt and Cole, 1998).
As discussed previously, in the campground visitors spend most of their time in the individual campsite. The area surrounding the individual campsite is a less intensively used area but is traversed when visitors search for firewood, an informal toilet site, or to gain access to other campsites, waterways and other scenic attributes
(Cole, 1990a). Regular access to these areas often results in the expansion of the natural area impacted, or where use is concentrated, the formation of a social trail.
Social trails leading from the campsite develop over time in an informal manner.
3.2.2. Amount of Use The rate at which impacts occur varies over time and is influenced by factors such as amount of use (Cole, 1982a; Cole, 1990a) (Table 3.1). Amount of use is one of the most studied factors influencing recreation impacts (Leung and Marion, 2000a).
Various studies show that impacts occur most rapidly with heavy use levels, however, impacts on vegetation and soil occur even on lightly and moderately used campsites (Cole, 1990a; Cole, 1990b; Cole, 1992). Cole (1990b) showed that impacts increase rapidly at campsites during the first few years of use and then slow during
A.J. Smith Biophysical 101
subsequent years creating a curvilinear relationship (Fig. 3.1). Marion and Cole
(1996) also found that soil and vegetation conditions changed rapidly in the first few years after a campsite is first used and then increase more slowly, if at all, thereafter.
However, other impacts on campsites such as site expansion, damage to trees and loss of organic matter, do not occur as rapidly with initial use and may continue to increase with time (Cole and Hall, 1992; Hammitt and Cole, 1998).
Figure 3. 1 Temporal pattern of impact – impact on recreation sites occurs within the first few years after the site is open Source: Cole (1982a), Hammitt and Cole (1998)
Certain environmental and topographical characteristics of a campsite that relate to vulnerability also influence the amount of impact (Cole, 1990a, 1992; Marion, 1998).
Factors such as site durability, slope steepness and position, elevation, aspect, soil type, depth of surface organic horizons and vegetation type can greatly influence the amount of impact (Cole, 1990a; Marion, 1995; Hammitt and Cole, 1998). For example, some campsites may have a prevalence of plant species that are more tolerant to trampling (as discussed in Sect. 3.2.1.2). These campsites are likely to experience less vegetation loss than campsites with more vulnerable species. Further, coarse soils such as sands are less prone to compaction and water logging than fine- textured soils such as clays (Cole, 1992).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 102
A further variable that may influence the amount of impact a campsite receives relates to the type of group, behaviour of individuals and type of activity (Cole,
1990a, 1992; Marion, 1998). For example, large groups have more potential to cause impact, particularly campsite expansion, where a party may need more space (Cole,
1990a, 1992). Behavioural factors that influence amount of impact may include: motivating force behind an individual’s behaviour; skill level and knowledge of minimal impact practices; user motivation e.g. an individual who is visiting the area to experience and observe nature is likely to produce fewer impacts than someone who visits to socialise; the type of group e.g. family groups vs. friendship groups; sense of place, e.g. amount of personal site attachment; and mode of travel e.g. motorised vs. hikers (Cole, 1990a; Hammitt and Cole, 1998; Marion, 1998).
The means that a visitor accesses a recreation area can have a varying degree of impact. For example, the impacts associated with motorised travel are different from those caused by visitors on foot or on horse (Hammitt and Cole, 1998). Vehicles can travel a much larger distance than hikers and carry more equipment and therefore have the potential to cause a larger areal impact in a relatively short period of time
(Hammitt and Cole, 1998). The effect of packstock in camping areas has been well documented and shows that users with packstock disturb a larger area than hikers.
Additionally, there is more vegetation damage and loss, soil disturbance, and introduction of weed species (McClaran and Cole, 1993; Watson et al., 1993, 1994;
Whinam et al., 1994; Cole and Spildie, 1998; Deluca et al., 1998; Newsome et al.,
2002b). Packstock are not common in natural areas in Western Australia and horse use is limited to a small number of parks and recreation areas (Newsome et al.,
A.J. Smith Biophysical 103
2002b). The main form of transport into Western Australian natural areas, as mentioned previously, is by motor vehicle or foot.
3.2.3. Effect or Influence of Visitor and Site Management Actions In order to reduce or contain impacts caused by camping, a variety of site and visitor management actions can be implemented (Table 3.1). Various studies have examined the relative success of these actions to determine which management actions have the greatest chance of success in ameliorating impacts and those that acceptable to visitors (Table 3.1). These actions include: selection of resistant sites, site construction and hardening, facility development, site maintenance, site closure and restoration, dispersed or designated camping policies, use limitations, restrictions on activities, charging of fees, increased enforcement and visitor education (Cole et al.,
1987; Marion, 1995; Marion and Cole, 1996; Vorkinn, 1998; Bowker et al., 1999;
Leung and Marion, 1999a; White and Lovett, 1999; Cole and Spildie, 2000; Marion and Farrell, 2002).
3.2.4. Change Over Time Trends of recreation impact are taken initially and after a set period of time these measurements are repeated (Table 3.1). Impacts, as demonstrated in Sect. 3.2.2., vary over time. Long-term studies enable the changes in condition of established campsites to be evaluated. Further, conditions that deteriorate with time including impacts such as campsite expansion, damage to trees and loss of organic matter, can be assessed in long-term studies. Various studies have examined this change over time to determine whether impacts have increased or decreased and to determine campsite proliferation (Cole, 1986b; Cole and Hall, 1992; Cole, 1993; Marion and
Cole, 1996; Boyers et al., 2000).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 104
3.2.5. Improvement of Methods The improvement of methods addresses the accuracy, precision and efficiency of different methods (Cole, 1989b; Marion, 1991; Leung and Marion, 2000a) (Table
3.1). Cole (1989) and Marion (1991) developed procedural manuals in an attempt to improve and standardise campsite methodologies. Building on techniques developed by Marion (1991), Leung and Marion (1999b) in the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park, USA, examined the possibility of reducing the number of indicators for backcountry campsite impact assessment and monitoring by means of multivariate techniques. Factor analysis of established campsites on eight impact indicator variables revealed three dimensions of campsite impact: area disturbance, soil and groundcover damage, and tree-related damage. These impact characterizations aim to facilitate interpretation and evaluation of camping impacts showing that impact indicators are interrelated and that campsite impacts can be viewed and examined holistically (Leung and Marion, 1999a).
3.3. Monitoring and Assessment of Biophysical Condition
Five campsite impact themes have been explored and described (Table 3.1). This section describes current monitoring approaches for assessing these impacts. It begins by providing a brief introduction to monitoring and the use of indicators and follows with a detailed discussion of the monitoring approaches used to assess the biophysical condition of campsites.
Monitoring can be defined as the systematic gathering and analysis of data over time
(Newsome et al., 2002a). Monitoring is essential for managers who are increasingly being required to report on the outcomes of their activities. Monitoring is a means to provide information about when management intervention is required and can
A.J. Smith Biophysical 105
improve managers’ understanding of the cause-effect relationship between levels and type of visitor use and the resultant impacts (Cole, 1989b; Marion, 1995; Newsome et al., 2002a; Moore et al., in press).
The choice of a monitoring system should take into consideration accuracy, precision, sensitivity and cost (Newsome et al., 2002a). Monitoring provides a means of evaluating the current condition of the resource in relation to management objectives and aims to identify any problems. Monitoring also provides a mean to assess the effectiveness of management actions in addressing impacts and concerns, while providing accurate and meaningful information about how much impact has already occurred (Belnap, 1998; Hammitt and Cole, 1998; Ashor, 2000). Research methods to investigate recreation resource impacts, range from simple qualitative descriptions of impact conditions to elaborate experimental designs (Leung and
Marion, 2000a). Many of the studies on campsites involve the use of indicators.
3.3.1. Use of Indicators and Standards Land management agencies in the United States and other countries have been developing ways to incorporate resource carrying capacities into the planning process (Belnap, 1998; Cole and McCool, 2000). Over the past 20 years the interest in carrying capacity by natural area managers as a concept to answer complex and contentious questions regarding management of recreation use has waned as its limitations have been realised (Lindberg et al., 1997).
The increased emphasis on indicators is as a direct result of the adoption and implementation of standards-based planning and management frameworks such as the Forest Service’s Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) (Stankey et al., 1985) and
A.J. Smith Biophysical 106
the US National Parks and Conservation Association’s Visitor Impact Management
(VIM) (Graefe et al., 1990), to address the concept of sustainable tourism and reduction of negative impacts (Leung and Marion, 2000a). It is recognised that recreational use of natural areas causes some impacts but a limit should be placed on the amount of change to be tolerated (Stankey et al., 1985; Krumpe, 2000). LAC is a major alternative approach to carrying capacity as it asks ‘how much change is acceptable’ rather than ‘ how much use is too much’. Planning frameworks rely heavily on the use of indicators and standards to monitor and then manage resource conditions.
Extensive research has been undertaken, predominantly in North America, on indicators of resource and social conditions as influenced by visitors to natural areas
(Cole, 1983a; Cole and Fichtler, 1983; Hendee et al., 1990; Marion, 1991; Belnap,
1998; Manning and Lime, 2000). Indicators and standards allow managers to unambiguously define desired conditions and to assess the effectiveness of various management practices (Stankey et al., 1990). An indicator, in the context of this study can be broadly defined as an important quality that indicates change in resource and social conditions due to recreation use (Leung and Marion, 2000a).
Indicators must be relevant and important to both visitors and managers. Indicators also need to reflect the overall condition of the factor (issues and concerns) of interest whether it is biological, physical or social (Stankey et al., 1990).
Preferred indicators should: define specific rather than general condition, be objective, reliable and repeatable, reflect recreation site attributes that have ecological and/or aesthetic significance, reflect the relationship to the amount and/or
A.J. Smith Biophysical 107
type of use occurring, be related to user concerns, be responsive to management control, while being accurate, and time and cost efficient (Stankey et al., 1985;
Stankey et al., 1990; Watson and Cole, 1992; Marion and Leung, 1997; Morin et al.,
1997; Belnap, 1998; Manning and Lime, 2000). Additionally, indicators should primarily reflect changes caused by the recreational activity of interest. For example, measures of tree damage should not include damage caused by wildfires or lightning strike (Marion and Leung, 1997; Manning and Lime, 2000). Further, indicators should be sensitive to change and measurement techniques must be capable of reliably documenting change over one monitoring cycle. For example, while assessing the amount of litter on campsites every year or five years would not characterise the extent of this problem on individual campsites, an average for all campsites measured over a single period may acceptably characterise this problem for the entire recreation area (Marion and Leung, 1997; Manning and Lime, 2000).
Indicators can be categorised as either inventory or impact indicators (Marion, 1991).
Inventory indicators characterise conditions on campsites e.g. water source, distance from trail, while impact indicators define the impacts resulting from recreation use e.g. campsite area, soil compaction, root exposure (Cole, 1989b; Marion, 1991;
McEwen et al., 1996; Leung and Marion, 1999a). Indicators have been classified as either inventory or impact indicators in this study.
An additional component of planning frameworks is the setting of standards for indicators. Standards provide a basis for judging whether a particular impact is acceptable or not, they establish the limits of acceptable change for resource and social conditions (Stankey et al., 1990; Morin et al., 1997). Standards should be
A.J. Smith Biophysical 108
stringent enough to be meaningful, but not so stringent that they cannot be attained.
Standards need to set desired conditions that managers can achieve over a reasonable time period (Stankey et al., 1990; Morin et al., 1997). To be effective, standards need to consider existing conditions, professional judgement and public input (Stankey et al., 1990). Desirable characteristics of standards should include: that standards can be expressed in a quantitative manner; be time or space bound e.g. have a time period associated with them such as per day; focus directly on the impacts that affect the quality of the visitor experience e.g. no more than 10 encounters with other groups on the river per day; include a probability that conditions may exceed standard and this is okay e.g. no more than three encounters with other groups per day along trails for 80% of days in the summer use season, this allows for random or unusual events that might prevent management from attaining these conditions; and reflect conditions that are realistically attainable (Morin et al., 1997; Manning and Lime,
2000).
3.3.2. Monitoring of Campsites Six general approaches to monitoring campsites exist which all aim to provide information to managers so that action can be taken before impacts become unacceptable to visitors. Discussed below are photographic assessment, condition class ratings, multiple indicator ratings, multiple indicator measurements, combined systems and methods used to determine coarse woody debris quantities associated with firewood collection (Table 3.3). These techniques vary in their precision, reliability, the amount and type of information they provide and associated costs
(Table 3.3). The monitoring approach of most interest in this study is the combined system. As this system incorporates components of each of the monitoring
A.J. Smith Biophysical 109
techniques presented (Table 3.3), these will be discussed in detail in the following section.
Table 3. 3 Advantages and disadvantages of campsite assessment approaches Monitoring technique Advantages Disadvantages Photographic assessment Rapid assessments at relatively Provides no quantitative measures low cost of change in indicators Visually documents extent and Not sensitive to small changes location of campsite impacts Poor comparability due to Minimal staff training inconsistent photographic quality
Condition class ratings Rapid assessment at low cost Provides no quantitative measures Provides data on which sites are of change in indicators most impacted. Does not work well in all Useful when high numbers of environments (e.g. mountain campsites are spread over large grasslands or deserts) areas Does not provide information on which types of impacts are most serious Is not sensitive to monitor change over time Rating classes are broad and many types of impacts are integrated into one estimate
Multiple indicator ratings Provides a lot of information at Information on individual indicators relatively low cost is not always very precise (different Rapid assessment – a campsite evaluators may give different can be evaluated in 5-10 minutes ratings for different parameters) Accuracy sufficient to detect Composite ratings may not be change over time mathematically appropriate Provides information on which Not sensitive to small changes types of impacts are most serious and what the area-wide trend is for individual impact parameters Enables rapid assessment for a large number of sites
Multiple indicator measurements Provides accurate, replicable data Time consuming and therefore can for individual campsites be expensive – can take an hour or Provides a large amount of two to monitor each campsite information Requires highly trained staff Feasible where there are a small number of sites
Combined systems Provides a lot of information at More time consuming than other relatively low cost rapid techniques – can take 15-20 Provides accurate, replicable data minutes to monitor each campsite for individual campsites Requires more highly trained staff Enables rapid assessment for a than other rapid techniques large number of sites Minimises field assessment time
Derived from: Frissell (1978), Parsons and MacLeod (1980), Cole (1983a 1989b) Marion (1991), Marion and Leung (1997), Hammitt and Cole (1998), Leung and Marion (1999a, 2000a), Monz (2000), Newsome et al. (2002a)
A.J. Smith Biophysical 110
3.3.2.1. Photographic assessment Photographs were among the first systems used to assess the impacts of backcountry visitors (Marion, 1991; Marion and Leung, 1997). Three photographic techniques that have been used to monitor campsites are: photopoints, quadrat photography and campsite panoramas.
(1) Photopoints involve taking photographs from a fixed point that can be re-
established at a later date to detect change over time (Hammitt and Cole,
1998; Newsome et al., 2002a).
(2) Quadrat photography involves repeat photographs being taken of
vegetation quadrats (usually 1m x 1m, laid over the top of the vegetation)
to determine change in vegetation cover (Hammitt and Cole, 1998;
Newsome et al., 2002a).
(3) Campsite panoramas involves piecing together a series of photographs to
provide a 360° panorama of the campsite by rotating a camera located at a
fixed point (Hammitt and Cole, 1998; Newsome et al., 2002a).
Photographs provide a visual record of condition of the campsite, are easy to conduct and low in cost but provide no quantifiable information (Table 3.3) (Monz, 2000).
Photographs are best used to relocate campsites, visually convey impacts and as a supplement to other data collected in the field (Marion, 1991; Monz, 2000; Newsome et al., 2002a). Examples where photographs have been used to supplement other measurements include: photopoints and condition class assessment in Delaware
Water Gap National Recreation Area, USA (Marion, 1995); and photographs, condition class assessment and multiple indicator measures in Torres del Paine
National Park, Chile (Marion, 1997), Shenandoah National Park, USA (Marion,
A.J. Smith Biophysical 111
1999), Isle Royale National Park, USA (Marion and Farrell, 2002), Warren National
Park, Western Australia (Smith and Newsome, 2002) and Greater Blue Mountains
Area, Australia (Sinha and Blaydon, 2001).
3.3.2.2. Condition class ratings Condition class ratings involve assigning an overall rating to a campsite, usually based on observable characteristics, that best describes the campsite being surveyed
(Monz, 2000). Several descriptive classes which best characterises a campsite’s overall condition are determined (Frissell, 1978). A single class (usually based on observable characteristics in a 1-5 numeric scale, see Table 3.4) is given to each campsite based on a pre-determined description, therefore providing data on which campsites are most impacted (Frissell, 1978; Hammitt and Cole, 1998; Newsome et al., 2002a). Frissell (1978) developed this system to allow resource managers to quickly classify a large number of campsites, compare conditions and identify over- used areas. Condition class ratings are one of the earliest approaches which are still commonly used (Leung and Marion, 1999a). It is a quick, relatively low cost method that provides a rapid survey approach and is useful when large numbers of campsites are spread over large areas and to provide data on which campsites are most seriously impacted (Table 3.3) (Newsome et al., 2002a). A disadvantage of this system is that it doesn’t provide accurate quantitative measures of change in indicators or severity of each impact type, resulting in difficulty in selecting the appropriate management response (Newsome et al., 2002a) (Table 3.3).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 112
Table 3. 4 Condition class for monitoring campsites in natural areas Class Description
Ground vegetation flattened but not permanently injured. Minimal physical change 1 except for possibly a simple rock fireplace.
2 Ground vegetation worn away around fireplace or centre of activity.
Ground vegetation lost on most of the site but humus and litter still present in all but a 3 few areas.
4 Bare mineral soil widespread. Tree roots exposed on the surface.
5 Soil erosion obvious. Trees reduced in vigour or dead. Source: Frissell (1978)
Various other authors have since modified the condition class estimate as developed by Frissell (1978) to suit conditions in a particular study area. Marion (1991) developed a condition class system (Table 3.5) to monitor the resource conditions on river-accessed backcountry campsites in the Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area, USA. Campsites rating a condition class of three or above were further assessed using more detailed measurements such as multiple indicator ratings or measures. Examples of the application of the system developed by Marion (1991) as part of a monitoring system are Marion and Leung (1997) and Gadja et al. (2000).
Table 3. 5 Condition class system applied at Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, USA Class Description
Campsite barely distinguishable; slight loss of vegetation cover and/or minimal 1 disturbance of organic litter.
Campsite obvious, vegetation cover lost and/or organic litter pulverised in primary-use 2 areas. No bare soil other than fire scars.
Vegetation cover lost and/or organic litter pulverised on much of the site; some bare soil 3 exposed in primary-use areas.
4 Nearly complete or total loss of vegetation cover and organic litter; bare soil widespread.
5 Soil erosion obvious, as indicated by exposed tree roots and rocks and/or gullying. Source: Marion (1995)
Marion and Leung (1997) in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA used
Marion’s (1991) condition class system to provide condition classes for all campsites. Campsites that rated a condition class of three to five were further
A.J. Smith Biophysical 113
monitored using the multiple indicator ratings and measures, as discussed in the following sections. Gadja et al. (2000) in Gwaii Haanas National Park in British
Columbia, Canada also used Marion’s (1991) condition class system to determine baseline levels of visitor impacts.
Rochefort and Swinney (2000) also developed a condition class estimate system.
This system was developed to provide spatial documentation of a wide range of human impacts in the alpine and sub-alpine zone in Mount Rainier National Park,
USA.
3.3.2.3. Multiple indicator ratings The multiple indicator rating system, also referred to as the multiple parameter rating system (Marion, 1991), collects information on a number of individual indicators
(consisting of 6 to 10 variables, each with 3 to 5 quantitatively defined rating categories) that are then summed to give a summary impact score (index) or impact class for each campsite (Parsons and MacLeod, 1980; Marion and Leung, 1997).
This summary (index) can then be used for the purpose of characterising conditions at individual or groups of campsites (Leung and Marion, 1999a). Indices are useful because they can reduce the volume of data into simple yet meaningful information to aid decision-making processes (Leung and Marion, 1998).
A multiple indicator rating system yields more objective data than condition class rating systems on individual impact indicators, is quick and can provide information at a relatively low cost, with accuracy being sufficient to detect changes over time as well as categorising the status of existing campsites (Table 3.3) (Leung and Marion,
1999a; Newsome et al., 2002a). A disadvantage of this system is that individual
A.J. Smith Biophysical 114
impact indicators are often evaluated separately with little account for the interrelationships among indicators and for the similarities among campsites (Leung and Marion, 1999a). The mathematical appropriateness of summation methods in which campsite impact indices are constructed by averaging and adding ordinal scale measurements is another limitation (Leung and Marion, 1999a) (Table 3.3).
Parsons and MacLeod (1980) developed a rating system for Sequoia and Kings
Canyon National Parks, USA. This system used eight visual criteria to quantitatively evaluate the level and extent of impact in each backcountry campsite that reflected vegetation and soil damage as well as the degree of campsite development. The criteria used were rated on a five-point scale (Table 3.6), with level 5 representing maximum impact or diversion from natural conditions and level 1 representing minimum impact. The values were summed and divided by the number of criteria used with the resulting mean value representing the campsite’s overall rating or
“campsite class”. This system has been applied in a number of different studies, for example: in the snow plains of the Baw Baw National Park, Australia (Preston et al.,
1986); Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park, USA (Stohlgren and Parsons,
1992); and in Yosemite National Park, USA (Boyers et al., 2000).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 115
Table 3. 6 Criteria and rating factors used for camp area inventory in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, USA Indicator Rating Description (1) same as surroundings A relative measure of the extent Density of vegetation (3) moderately less dense than surroundings of vegetative ground cover (with respect to (5) considerably less dense than surroundings within the campsite as compared surrounding vegetation) with similar un-impacted areas outside the campsite. (1) ≤20 feet2 (2m2) An estimate of the total area (2) 21-100 feet2 (2-9.3m2) affected by trampling directly (3) 101-500 feet2 (9.4-46m2) associated with use in and about Total area of campsite (4) 501-1,000 feet2 (46.1-93m2) the campsite. (5) >1,000 feet2 (>93.1m2)
(1) windbreaks and paraphernalia absent; trash A descriptive rating reflecting the and seats minimal; fire rings absent or amount of human-made scarce “improvements” in the campsite. (2) trash, windbreaks, seats and fire rings minimal; paraphernalia absent (3) trash, windbreaks, seats mostly moderate; Campsite development fire rings mostly minimal; paraphernalia minimal (4) trash, windbreaks, seats, fire rings and paraphernalia mostly moderate, some heavy (5) trash, windbreaks, seats fire rings, paraphernalia mostly heavily developed. (1) none A measure indicating the (2) 1 trail discernible amount of concentrated (3) 2 trails discernible trampling of surrounding (4) 1-2 trails well developed, or 3 or more trails vegetation as reflected by the Social trails ± discernible formation of access trails to (5) 3+ trails well-developed nearby destinations such as water sources, other campsites, main trails etc. (1) same as surroundings A measure comparing the Composition of vegetation (3) moderately less dense than surroundings species composition and relative (with respect to (5) considerably less dense than surroundings abundance in the campsite to surrounding vegetation) surrounding un-impacted areas. (1) absent An estimate of the area, which (2) 5-50 feet2 (0.5-4.6m2) due to trampling has been (3) 51-200 feet2 (4.7-18.6m2) completely denuded of Barren core 2 2 (4) 201-500 feet (18.7-46m ) vegetation. This usually (5) >500 feet2 (46.1m2) corresponds to the central activity of the campsite. (1) trampling discernible; some needles broken, Applied only in forested areas, scattered cones this measure indicates the (2) moderately trampled; needles broken; relative amount of pulverisation compacted; few cones and removal of organic debris Litter and duff (3) heavily trampled, clumped; pulverised; (needles, cones and twigs) as a cones absent result of trampling and other (4) litter ± absent; pulverised; ground into soil use. (5) litter and cones and duff completely absent (1) none A measure to document the (2) 1-2 number of permanent marks on Mutilations (3) 3-5 the campsite such as carvings, (4) 6-10 or 1-2 highly obtrusive axe marks and nails in (5) 11+ or 3± highly obtrusive surrounding trees. Source: Parsons and MacLeod (1980)
A.J. Smith Biophysical 116
Cole (1982a, 1983b) modified the rating system developed by Parsons and MacLeod and this was further refined by Cole (1989), and applied and slightly modified to suit campsite conditions described by Cole (1993), McEwen et al. (1996), Cole et al.
(1997) and Obua and Harding (1997). Cole (1983b) used ratings of 1-3 for nine indicators with each parameter being recorded separately (Table 3.7). A summary impact score was obtained by multiplying the rating for each parameter by a weight and then these values were summed to give an overall impact index for each campsite (Cole, 1983a) (Table 3.7). These weights were decided by managers based on their opinion of the relative importance of each parameter (Hammitt and Cole,
1998; Newsome et al., 2002a). The use of weightings to give a summary impact score has been used in various other studies, for example, Cole et al. (1997) in
Alpine Lakes, Mount Jefferson and Three Sisters Wilderness, USA; Obua and
Harding (1997) in Kibale National Park, Uganda; and Smith (2002) in Warren
National Park, Western Australia.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 117
Table 3. 7 The criteria, rating and weight used for the evaluation of recreational impact on campsites Indicator Rating Weight Vegetation loss (1) no difference in coverage 2 - Estimates the percentage of the campsite (2) difference one coverage class covered with live ground cover vegetation (3) difference two or more coverage classes on the campsite and undisturbed control. The difference in the number of coverage Classes: (1) 0-5%, (2) 6-25%, (3) 26-50%, (4) 51-75%, classes is recorded. (5) 76-100% Mineral soil increase (1) no difference in coverage 3 - Estimates the percentage of the campsite (2) difference one coverage class without either live ground cover vegetation (3) difference two ore more coverage classes or duff on the campsite and undisturbed control. The difference in the number of Classes: (1) 0-5%, (2) 6-25%, (3) 26-50%, (4) 51-75%, coverage classes is recorded. (5) 76-100% Tree damage: (1) no more than broken lower branches 2 No. of trees scarred or felled ____. (2) 1-8 scarred trees, or 1-3 badly scarred or felled - Number of trees with damage counted. (3) >8 scarred trees, or >3 badly scarred or felled Root exposure: (1) none 3 No. of trees with roots exposed _____ (2) 1-6 trees with exposed roots (estimate). (3) >6 trees with exposed roots - No. of trees with root exposure counted _____. (1) none 1 Development (2) 1 fire ring with or without primitive log seat - No. of human improvements ______. (3) >1 fire ring or other major development Cleanliness: (1) no more than scattered charcoal from 1 fire ring 1 No. of fire scars ____. (2) remnants of >1 fire ring, some litter or manure - Amount of charcoal, litter, human waste (3) human waste, much litter, or manure and horse manure. Social trails (1) no more than 1 discernible trail 2 - No. of trails radiating from the campsite (2) 2-3 discernible trails, max. 1 well-worn and their degree of development to (3) >3 discernible trails or more than 1 well-worn provide a measure of impact on surrounding areas ____. Camp area: (1) <500ft2 (<152m2) 4 Estimated area ___ (2) 500-2,000ft2 (152-610 m2) - Estimation of the total area disturbed by (3) >2,000ft2 (>610m2) camping Barren core camp area: (1) >50ft2 (15m2) 2 Estimated area ____ (2) 50-500ft2 (15-152m2) - Estimation of the area within the camp (3) >500ft2 (>152m2) without any vegetation. Source: Cole (1989b)
Scores obtained from the impact index can then be grouped into impact classes. This enables the impacts of recreation on campsites to be categorised from low to severe.
For example, Hammitt and Cole (1998) reported the use of impact classes of light
(ratings of 20-29), moderate (30-40), heavy (41-50), and severe (51-60) in Bob
Marshall Wilderness, USA. In Kibale National Park, Uganda, Obua and Harding
(1997) reported campsite impact classes of: low (ratings of 20-21), moderate (30-40), high (41-50) and severe (51-60). Alternatively, a mean of all of the parameters, for
A.J. Smith Biophysical 118
example, low impact (class 1, if the mean of all of the parameters was 1.5 or less), moderate impact (class 2, if the mean was between 1.56 and 2.25), high impact (class
3, if the mean was greater than 2.25) was used by Cole et al. (1997) in six high use destinations in the Alpine Lakes, Mount Jefferson and Three Sisters Wilderness in
Washington and Oregon.
3.3.2.4. Multiple indicator measurements Taking individual measures for each indicator provides a large amount of precise, replicable information for individual campsites (Table 3.3) (Monz, 2000; Newsome et al., 2002a). Monitoring campsites using multiple indicator measures can take from
30 minutes to 2 hours, depending on the number of indicators and requires highly trained staff (Monz, 2000). For this reason, it has traditionally been applied to a smaller number of campsites (Table 3.3). For example, in the United States, Cole
(1986a) surveyed 22 backcountry campsites in Eagle Cap Wilderness, while Cole and Fichtler (1983) surveyed 14 backcountry campsites in Mission Mountains
Wilderness and 20 backcountry campsites in Rattlesnake Wilderness. Up to seventeen different indicators were measured in these studies including various vegetation and soil indicators.
Table 3.8 describes commonly used indicators in multiple indicator measurement systems and examples of studies that have applied these indicators. Measurements are usually taken at an individual campsite and these conditions are then compared to an undisturbed control site in the vicinity (Table 3.8). This control is used to represent natural conditions.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 119
Table 3. 8 Indicators used in multiple indicator measurement systems Indicator Descriptions Examples Campsite area Standard campsite model – Fixed radial transect Cole (1982a) method (Fig. 3.2) Cole and Fichtler (1993) Variable radial transect method (Fig. 3.3) Marion (1991, 1995) Geometric figure method (Fig. 3.4)
Tree seedlings* Number of trees counted within the entire disturbed area Cole and Fichtler (1983) of the campsite Cole and Hall (1992) Number of trees counted on a 50m2 control plot close to Marion and Cole (1996) campsite
Mature trees Number of trees counted within the entire disturbed area Brown et al. (1977) of the campsite Bratton et al. (1978) Cole and Hall (1992) Marion and Cole (1996)
Tree damage Number of trees counted with damage on the campsite Cole and Fichtler (1983) Percentage of all trees on the campsite Marion (1991, 1995) Number of tree stumps or percentage of all stumps on Marion and Cole (1996) the campsite Marion and Leung (1996) Leung and Marion (1999a, 2000b) Cole (2000)
Vegetation cover* Quadrats (1m2), randomly placed at campsite. Cover Brown et al. (1977) estimated in 10% coverage classes between 10% and Cole and Fichtler (1983) 100% Cole and Hall (1992) Ground and canopy cover measured by a point-intercept Trumball et al. (1994) method at 1m intervals along a 100m transect Marion and Cole (1996)
Trees with exposed Number of trees counted with exposed roots on the Marion (1991) roots campsite Marion and Leung (1996) Percentage of all trees on the campsite (Leung and Marion 1995, 2000b)
Impacts to mineral Soil compaction (bulk density, penetrometry) Brown et al. (1977) soil* Water infiltration rate Cole and Fichtler (1983) Moisture content Cole and Hall (1992) Organic matter content Trumball et al. (1994) Chemical composition Marion and Cole (1996) Belnap (1998)
Impacts to soil Organic horizon cover and depth Cole and Hall (1992) organic horizons* Degree of disturbance of litter and duff Marion and Cole (1996)
Social trail Number of trails radiating from campsite boundaries Marion (1991) development counted Marion and Leung (1996) Length of social trails radiating from campsite Belnap (1998) boundaries Leung and Marion (1999a, 2000b) Cole (2000)
Cleanliness and Number of fire sites (fire rings, including inactive fire Marion (1991) campsite sites with presence of blackened rocks, charcoal or Marion and Leung (1996) development ashes) within campsite boundaries counted Leung and Marion (1999a, Number of individual human waste sites counted (piles 2000b) or pieces of toilet paper/human faeces) Cole (2000) Volume or pieces of human sourced litter, measured in litres or counted Number of constructed structures counted (e.g. picnic tables, benches, seats) * undisturbed control required
A.J. Smith Biophysical 120
An important component of campsite monitoring is defining the campsite area. Four commonly used approaches exist: the fixed radial transect method (Cole, 1982a), the variable radial transect method (Marion, 1991), the geometric figure method and estimation of campsite area (Table 3.8). Although estimating the area of a campsite is not an actual measurement, it is still a valid method for obtaining campsite area and will therefore be discussed in this section (Cole, 1989b). This method is applied in multiple indicator ratings and combined systems. There are a number of advantages and disadvantages associated with each method and these will be discussed in the following section.
Fixed radial transect method
Cole (1982) established the fixed radial transect method (Fig. 3.2), as part of the standard campsite model, as a method to measure the areal extent of a campsite. This system has been sourced in numerous references, for example: Grand Canyon
National Park, USA in three desert vegetation types (Cole, 1986a); backcountry campsites in a sub-alpine forests in Eagle Cap Wilderness, USA (Cole and Fichtler,
1983; Cole, 1986b; Cole and Hall, 1992; Hall and Shelby, 1994); campsites in riparian forests along the Delaware and New Rivers, USA (Cole and Marion, 1988); and Yellowstone National Park, USA (Taylor, 1997).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 121
An example of the application of this method is by Cole and Fichtler (1983) in Eagle
Cap Wilderness. The fixed radial transect method involves establishing sixteen linear transects, at set angles, on each campsite, radiating from an arbitrarily established centre point to the edge of the campsite and to the first significant amount of vegetation (Fig. 3.2). The fixed radial transect method defines both the area of the barren central core of the campsite (bare area) and the entire disturbed area (camp area) and therefore the area for further investigation. Other measurements taken using the standard campsite model included: counting tree seedlings and mature trees in the entire disturbed area, excluding any untrampled ‘islands’; and noting tree damage (e.g. axe marks, initials). At each campsite approximately 15 quadrats, (1m2) were located along four transects, originating from the centre point to the edge of the campsite and orientated perpendicular to each other. The distance between successive quadrats decreased with distance from the centre point so that the central area of the campsite was not over sampled. In each quadrat the coverage of total vegetation, exposed mineral soil and each plant species were measured (Table 3.8)
(Cole and Fichtler, 1983). Bulk density, organic content, chemical composition, pH, water infiltration rates and the depth of the organic horizons of soils were measured along four transects located 1 to 2m from the centre point and at control sites (Cole and Fichtler, 1983).
The fixed radial transect method has limitations in that it requires judgments in defining the campsite boundaries and is therefore inaccurate on campsites with complex shapes, unless a large number of transects are used (Marion, 1991). While
A.J. Smith Biophysical 122
this system provides a high level of accuracy9, it can take up to two hours per site to complete and requires highly trained staff (Table 3.3) (Hammitt & Cole, 1998).
Figure 3. 2 The fixed radial transect method used in Eagle Cap Wilderness Source: Hammitt and Cole (1998); Derived from: Cole (1992)
Variable radial transect method
An alternative approach to measuring campsite area is the variable radial transect method as developed by Marion (1991) (Table 3.8). This method differed from the fixed transect method as described by Cole (1982) in that evaluators matched the number and direction of transects to the unique shape of each campsite. Transects were used to measure the distance from a predefined central point to the edge of the campsite where the first significant amount of vegetation occurred. Wire pin flags were placed along the campsite boundary at locations that, when connected by straight lines, defined a polygon which closely approximated the campsite area (Fig.
3.3). The number of transects used depended upon the shape and size of the individual campsite so that an accurate map could be made. Campsite boundaries
9 Accuracy refers to how close measurements are to the true value (Marion, 1991). A.J. Smith Biophysical 123
were determined by pronounced changes in vegetation cover, vegetation height/disturbance or vegetation composition. Distance and compass bearings were taken from a permanently located centre point to each marker and computerised arithmetic procedures were used to calculate the area (Marion, 1991). The variable radial transect method is considered accurate but is more time-consuming than other methods, such as the fixed radial transect method and the geometric figure method
(Fig. 3.4) (Marion, 1991; Monz, 2000). This method provides a substantial increase in accuracy, particularly in re-measurement, because transects are easily relocated
(Marion, 1991). Other examples where this method has been applied include: Great
Smoky Mountains National Park, USA (Marion and Leung, 1996; Leung and
Marion, 1999a); Jefferson National Forest, USA (Leung and Marion, 2000b); Isle
Royale National Park, USA (Marion and Farrell, 2002).
Figure 3. 3 The variable radial transect method used for determining campsite size Source: Newsome et al. (2002b, derived from Marion, 1991,1995)
A.J. Smith Biophysical 124
Geometric figure method
The geometric figure method is based on approximating the area of the campsite to common geometric figures and calculating its area accordingly (Cole, 1989b;
Marion, 1991) (Fig. 3.4). The campsite area is approximated to either a single simple geometric shape or a combination of shapes. Pacing can then approximate the applicable lengths and widths of the chosen shape/s and using appropriate formulas, the area is calculated (Cole, 1989b) (Fig. 3.4). This is a rapid method, taking only a few minutes, that can be reasonably accurate if applied correctly with consistency and with good judgement (Cole, 1989b; Monz, 2000). This method is an estimate only and therefore is not very precise. This method is also difficult to apply on campsites with complex shapes and sinuous boundaries (Marion, 1991; Monz, 2000).
Figure 3. 4 Geometric figure method for measuring campsite area Source: Newsome et al. (2002b)
A.J. Smith Biophysical 125
Estimation of campsite area
The area of a campsite can be estimated and assigned to a predetermined campsite area rating (Parsons and MacLeod, 1980; Cole, 1989b). For example, in the Bob
Marshall Wilderness, USA, three ratings were defined: 0-46m2 (0-500ft2); 47-186m2
(501-2,000ft2); and >186m2 (>2,000ft2) (Cole, 1989b). Campsite area ratings should be relatively broad so that the likelihood of assigning a campsite to the wrong category is reduced. This method is rapid, however, considerably less accurate than other methods used to measure campsite area, while precision10 can be relatively high if used by experienced operators (Marion, 1991). With experience, it is possible to assign a campsite area rating to many campsites without any pacing or measurement (Cole, 1989b).
3.3.2.5. Combined systems Combined systems are often used to minimise field assessment time by combining rapid systems such as photographs, condition class ratings and multiple indicator ratings with more detailed multiple indicator measures (Table 3.3). Combined systems provide a comprehensive coverage of information and a large number of campsites can be surveyed with a reasonably high level of reliability (Leung and
Marion, 1999a) (Table 3.3). For example, Leung and Marion (1999b) surveyed 195 campsites in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA and Marion and Farrell
(2002) surveyed 244 designated campsites in Isle Royale National Park, USA using a combination of condition class ratings, multiple indicator ratings and multiple indicator measures.
10 Precision refers to how close repeated measurements of the same thing are to each other (Marion, 1991). A.J. Smith Biophysical 126
One of the earliest applications of the combined system was by Marion (1991) who established a combined monitoring system to give a rapid estimate of condition, taking two staff approximately 15-20 minutes per campsite. This system uses the variable radial transect method (Fig. 3.3) to determine campsite area, condition class ratings and multiple indicator ratings and measures. Condition class ratings are often used as an initial, rapid assessment to determine general conditions for all campsites and those campsites that are more highly impacted (e.g. that are rated class 3-5) have more detailed measurements applied, for example: Marion (1995), Marion and
Leung (1997), Marion (1997), Leung and Marion (1999b) and Marion (1999). This stratified approach is applied to provide comprehensive information on the more degraded campsites while minimising field assessment time associated with assessing campsites in good condition (Marion and Leung, 1997).
Combined systems are also used when it is necessary to provide baseline information on the number, distribution and condition of campsites. Leung and Marion (2000b) applied a census approach on 110 campsites in Jefferson National Forest, USA based on methods developed in Marion (1991). Campsite area was determined using the variable radial transect method and impact indicators included: number of fire sites, groundcover vegetation loss, soil exposure, trees with exposed roots, damage to tree trunks, tree stumps, and human waste and litter (Leung and Marion, 2000b). Other examples where combined systems have been used include: Selway-Bitterroot
Wilderness and Eagle Cap Wilderness, USA (Cole, 1993); Delaware Water Gap
National Recreation Area, USA (Marion, 1995), Great Smoky Mountains National
Park, USA (Marion and Leung, 1997), Torres del Paine National Park, Chile
A.J. Smith Biophysical 127
(Marion, 1997); Shenandoah National Park, USA (Marion, 1999); and Isle Royal
National Park, USA (Marion and Farrell, 2002).
3.3.2.6. Firewood collection associated with camping areas Few studies have reported the impacts of firewood gathering. Examples include
Bratton et al. (1982) in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA and Hall and Farrell (2001) in Mt Jefferson and Three Sisters Wildernesses, USA and are discussed in detail below.
Bratton et al. (1982) measured the effects of trampling and firewood gathering by campers in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park on 8 campsites at elevations above 850m. Depending on the size of the campsite, three to five 50x20m plots were established in (1) the centre of the campsite (Fig. 3.5), (2) the areas of campsite expansion with some patches of bare soil (transition zone), (3) the forest immediately adjoining the campsite (firewood gathering area), and (4) an adjacent undisturbed area (control). Measurements were taken in subplots (Fig. 3.5) with subplot 1 being placed in the most disturbed area. Woody fuels were measured along two 10m transects along each of the top left hand corners of the sampling plots (Fig. 3.5). For each 10m transect, woody fuels sized 0-7mm intercepting each transect were counted up to the 2m mark, 7-25mm fuels up to the 6m mark and 25-76mm fuels up to the
10m mark. Transect lengths for each size class differed because of differences in the natural distribution of materials. All intercepted woody fuels greater than 76mm diameter were measured and tallied while walking along the three 50m lengths and the six 20m lengths which outlined each plot (Fig. 3.5). Fuel biomass was calculated using formulae developed by Harmon et al. (1980). Woody fuels in the 25-76mm size class were found to be the preferred size for firewood collection (Bratton et al.,
A.J. Smith Biophysical 128
1982). A decrease in leaf litter and small twigs was noticed but attributed to trampling rather than firewood gathering. Larger woody fuels (>76mm diameter) were not as depleted as other woody fuels and it was noted that campers often left logs in the centre of campsites to use as benches and presumably were not able to cut or break the larger material down into easily transportable pieces (Bratton et al.,
1982).
50m 10m fuel transect 10m
20m SUB PLOTS
1 2 3 4 5
Figure 3. 5 Design of sampling plot Source: Bratton et al. (1982)
Hall and Farrell (2001) applied two different types of transects, using the modified planar transect method, to measure the abundance and availability of coarse woody debris in Mt Jefferson and Three Sisters Wildernesses in the Cascades Mountains of
Oregon, USA. Measurements were taken on 58 campsites and matched controls at several destination areas in montane or subalpine forests. This approach involved dividing the campsite into three concentric circles (centre, middle, outer) extending
5, 10 and 15m from a campsite centre point11 to ensure that some or the entire outer ring was located in intact vegetation, beyond the visibly impacted portion (Fig. 3.6).
The purpose of one transect was to determine the abundance of different sized coarse woody debris found at three distances from the centre of the campsite (fuelwood abundance), while the purpose of the other transect was to determine how much
11 Centre point refers to the point on a campsite that appeared to be the most impacted part. It was adjusted if needed to ensure a minimum radius of 15m unobstructed by lakeshore or talus slope. A.J. Smith Biophysical 129
effort was required by campers to find wood (fuelwood availability). To determine the level of fuelwood depletion at campsites, a control was established in a nearby undisturbed area with similar tree species composition, basal area and canopy cover
(Hall and Farrell, 2001).
Campsite boundary
Outer
Middle
Centre
Fuelwood Availability Fuelwood Abundance Six evenly-spaced 1.5m wide Six vertical sampling planes per transects, along which ring; compass bearings from measurements were made to the centre randomly selected first 10 pieces of wood between 25 and 76mm in diameter and at least 300mm in length
Figure 3. 6 Diagram of layout for measuring woody material within three concentric circles around campsite centre-point Source: Hall and Farrell (2001)
To determine fuelwood abundance, the number of pieces of woody material on campsites and control areas in the diameter size classes fine (<6mm), small (6 to
25mm), medium (26 to 76mm) and large (>76mm) were counted (Hall and Farrell,
2001). Measurements were taken in the centre, middle and outer rings. Within each ring, six randomly placed 5m long vertical sampling transects were selected resulting in a total of 18 transects per campsite (Fig. 3.6). Individual pieces of coarse woody
A.J. Smith Biophysical 130
debris at each intercept were counted and categorised. Fine material was counted along the first 2m of each transect, small pieces along the first 3m, and medium pieces along the entire 5m length (Hall and Farrell, 2001).
To determine fuelwood availability, measurements were taken along six evenly spaced 1.5m wide transects radiating from the centre-point. From the centre point, the distance to the first 10 pieces of wood between 25 and 76mm diameter and greater than 300mm in length was measured (Hall and Farrell, 2001). This measure was also taken to assess how widespread impacts were beyond the campsite boundary (Fig. 3.6).
A significant reduction of woody materials on campsites compared to control areas was found with losses being greatest for small (40%) and medium-sized (63%) materials. However, depletion was no greater in the centre of campsites than in the outer measurement ring (Hall and Farrell, 2001). The mean distance required to collect 10 pieces of wood differed significantly. On half of the campsites, a camper would have to walk more than 2.3 times further, and on 25% of the campsites 3.5 times further than they would to have to walk on the control to find the same amount of wood (Hall and Farrell, 2001).
3.4. The Need for Research in Western Australia
Having explored the relevant literature relating to the impacts associated with recreation in campsites and the associated methods it was realised that a majority of the research related to backcountry campsites in the United States. As highlighted previously, there is a lack of information in Australia in regards to the biophysical and social impact of recreation and tourism.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 131
The provision of developed, designated campsites is typical in natural areas in
Australia. In the eucalypt forests of southwest Western Australia, developed, designated campsites accessed by motor vehicles, for many, represent their natural area experience. Further, the parks included in this study contain species, either flora or fauna in need of special protection. These factors are important, as ecosystems with rare flora and fauna communities can be adversely affected from recreation impacts.
It was of interest in this study to compare developed, designated camping areas with campsites that have developed in an unplanned manner by users. The comparison of the two campsites provides an opportunity to determine the success of providing developed, designated campsites in reducing impacts caused by recreation. Further, informal campsites are similar in nature to backcountry campsites in the United
States.
The provision of developed, designated campsites imposes a management footprint on the natural area. In order to determine the amount of impact that has occurred at these campsites as a result of recreation, it is necessary to assess the impacts that have occurred since the management footprint was imposed. Comparing campsite conditions to newly developed campsites provides this opportunity. It would be erroneous to compare designated, developed campsites to undisturbed conditions because these campsites have been greatly changed from natural condition.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 132
Chapter 4 Investigations into the Biophysical Component: Temperate Eucalypt Forests of Western Australia
4.1. Introduction
The literature review was used to determine methods applicable to monitoring developed campsites in the temperate eucalypt forests of Western Australia. This chapter explores the biophysical impacts of recreational use of campsites in the temperate eucalypt forests of southwest Western Australia and how these impacts can be effectively and efficiently surveyed and monitored, while the following one focuses on social impacts. This chapter is divided into three main sections.
Section one describes the methods used in this study to investigate the biophysical impacts in the temperate eucalypt forests of Western Australia. This section provides an explanation of the approach used and the reasons for its choice. Included in this discussion is a description of the use of undisturbed sites as controls for off-site measurements, the pilot survey, volunteer training, the amount of time taken to conduct measurements and finally the conditions measured on the campsite data form. Indicators are divided into inventory indicators used to describe the campsite and impact indicators used to describe the impacts occurring at the campsite as a result of visitor use. The methodology used to define the impact indicators is described in greater detail. Also included in this section is a discussion of data analysis and measurement error.
The second section reports the results found using the campsite data form. The results are divided into campsite inventory and impact indicators and an impact index
A.J. Smith Biophysical 133
was also calculated for each of the campsites in the study parks. Further, the effectiveness and efficiency of methods is reported in this section.
Effectiveness refers to whether measurements are precise and accurate and whether you are measuring what you set out to measure, while efficiency refers to whether the approach minimised cost, time and use of resources. It was desirable in this study that a monitoring system was developed that provided accurate and meaningful measurements to assess the amount of impact that has occurred while being time and cost efficient.
Finally, section three discusses the results and provides a conclusion. Reviewed are the impacts associated with the use of campsites and how impacts can be effectively and efficiently surveyed and monitored. The discussion describes the impacts of visitors to campsites in the southwest of Western Australia and covers: area disturbance, soil and groundcover damage, tree related damage, social and multiple indicator ratings. Where applicable, the discussion is further refined by exploring the differences between designated, informal and newly developed campsites. The final part of the discussion explores developing monitoring for campsites.
4.2. Field Methodology
A combined survey approach using multiple indicator ratings and multiple indicator measurements was used. The multiple indicator ratings were based on descriptive visual measurements, marking an appropriate description category where applicable, as discussed in Sect. 3.3.2.3., while the multiple indicator measurements involved collecting quantitative measures for a number of indicators (Table 4.1). This combined approach was chosen because, as discussed previously, a comprehensive
A.J. Smith Biophysical 134
coverage of information can be provided with a reasonably high level of reliability. It was desirable that a time and cost efficient monitoring system was developed that could be implemented as part of management’s routine activities. Therefore it was essential that the monitoring system used a minimal amount of equipment and that extensive training was not necessary. The system needed to be simple to use, taking no longer than 15-30 minutes, while providing meaningful and accurate information.
Impact indicators were selected based on their ecological, visitor and managerial significance. Both on-site impacts (within the boundary or cleared area of the campsite) and off-site impacts (at or beyond the perimeter of a campsite) were considered. On-site and off-site impacts were measured at both informal and designated campsites (Table 4.1). Indicators for on-site impacts included campsite area, human damage to trees, root exposure, impact to mineral soil, evidence of human activities that contribute to erosion and cleanliness. Indicators for off-site impacts included the number of social trails, tree seedlings at the perimeter (1-2m from the boundary of the campsite where the first significant amount of vegetation occurs) and collection of firewood (coarse woody debris) to determine the amount of impact proliferating into the natural area (spatial extent of impact) (Table 4.1). Leung and Marion (1999b) stated that the level of off-site disturbance and the potential for campsite expansion and proliferation may be inferred in part by the number of social trails radiating from a campsite. Indicators included in this study were determined through extensive discussions with CALM staff and an extensive literature review.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 135
Table 4. 1 Indicators used in campsite data form for temperate eucalypt forests in southwest Western Australia Inventory indicators (Including measurement unit)* Initial Repeat Designated Informal Newly Developed Survey Survey Campsite Campsite Campsite
Distance to nearest campsite (m, rating) √ √ √ √ Distance to main trail/road (m, rating) √ √ √ √ Number adjacent campsites within 100m (#, rating) √ √ √ √ Distance to water (m) √ √ √ √ Water form (description) √ √ √ √ Barren core area (m2,, rating) √ √ √ √ √ Condition of vegetation at perimeter (with respect to √ √ √ √ surrounding vegetation) (rating) Mature trees (#) including common understorey species √ √ √ √ Firewood provision (rating, m) √ √ √ √ Development - facilities present (#) including number of √ √ √ √ √ informal fire pits (#, rating) Impact indicators (Including measurement unit) Multiple Indicator Multiple Initial Repeat Designated Informal Newly Developed Measurement Indicator Rating Survey Survey Campsite Campsite Campsite Campsite area (m2) √ √ √ √ √ √ Tree seedlings (15-140cm tall) (#) √ √ √ √ √ √ Human damage to trees (#, rating) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ (including felled trees) Root exposure in campsite (#, rating) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Coarse woody debris* √ √ √ √ Impact to mineral soil (#)* √ √ √ √ √ Evidence of human activities that contribute to soil erosion at √ √ √ √ √ √ √ campsites (e.g. tent ditching and drainage channels). (#, rating) Cleanliness (including litter and toilet paper) (#, rating) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Visitor created social trails (#) √ √ √ √ √ √ *Undisturbed control used
A total of 122 campsites from the five study parks were surveyed (Table 2.2).
Monitoring of all designated and informal campsites in the five study parks was necessary to provide baseline information, due to the lack of prior monitoring, to assess the condition of campsites. A census was preferable to a sample because monitoring each campsite provides information for managers on the conditions of the individual campsites. Some campsites are more impacted than others and a census provides information on all of the campsites in a recreation area so that management can prioritise actions and maintenance to campsites that are most impacted.
Examples of other studies that have used census to monitor camping areas include:
(Bratton et al., 1978; Cole, 1982b; Cole, 1993; Marion, 1995; Marion and Leung,
1996; McEwen et al., 1996; Obua and Harding, 1997; Leung and Marion, 1999a;
Leung and Marion, 2000b; Marion and Farrell, 2002). Both designated and informal recreation areas were measured. Also included was a newly developed, designated camp area (Table 4.1).
Designated and informal campsites were compared in this study to determine if there is a difference in impact occurring at these campsites. The literature indicates that concentrating use in designated areas reduces the area of impact therefore decreasing trampling in peripheral areas. Concentrating use generally refers to providing facilities such as tables and benches, fire pits, tents sites and huts (Cole, 1992;
Marion, 1995; Marion and Farrell, 2002).
In contrast to other studies relating to campsite impacts where campsites have developed over time by users in an unplanned manner, most of the campsites in this
A.J. Smith Biophysical 137
study have been intentionally designed, constructed and cleared of vegetation. Many of the studies relating to user developed backcountry campsites determine the level of impact by comparing indicators measured on the campsite to measures taken on undisturbed areas in close proximity, acting as controls. In developed campsites a
“management footprint” is imposed on the natural area through the deliberate clearing and construction of camping areas that include roads and tracks, parking bays and cleared tent pads. The size of the management footprint is determined in the planning process and designed according to the type of user and number of persons the campsite is to accommodate e.g. approximately 19-30m2 is allocated for a campsite planned for use by 2-4 persons travelling in a 2-wheel drive vehicle. Also considered is the available space at a site proposed for development so that minimum disturbance to natural vegetation occurs. If the disturbance does not extend beyond this footprint then it might be judged that there is little impact. However, if the disturbance extends well beyond the footprint then it might be rated that there is a level of impact from mild to severe.
A key focus of this study was to determine the impacts that extend beyond this management footprint. Furthermore, the newly developed campsites at Warren
National Park were included in this study to provide a baseline for developed campsites and therefore act as a control. An opportunity exists with newly developed campsites to compare impacts at other campsites in similar natural areas to the conditions on these new campsites rather than an undisturbed control area. Further, as no previous monitoring has been conducted in Australian eucalypt forests there is no baseline information available relating to campsite impacts.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 138
Measurements on the newly developed campsites at Warren National Park included inventory indicators and indicators to determine on-site impacts (campsite area, human damage to trees, root exposure, impact to mineral soil, evidence of human activities that contribute to soil erosion and cleanliness) and off-site impacts (tree seedlings at the perimeter and visitor created social trails). Coarse woody debris measurements were not included due to the recent construction of these campsites resulting in an increased amount of fallen debris and extensive clearing around the perimeter (Table 4.1).
All campsites were initially surveyed in late 2000 and early 2001 with repeat measurements conducted in 2002, 12 to 15 months later. The exception was Warren
National Park, which was a newly developed recreation area where initial measurements were taken post-construction but prior to use (April 2002) and repeat measurements were taken 3 months then 12 months (2003) later. Repeat measurements were only taken for those indicators that were considered to be appropriate to represent change over a relatively short period of time. The indicators taken in the repeat survey included: on-site indicators (human damage to trees including tree felling and number of fresh scars; root exposure; human activities that contribute to soil erosion e.g. tent ditching; and cleanliness) and off-site indicators
(number of tree seedlings at perimeter; and visitor created social trails) (Table 4.1).
Photographs were also taken in addition to ratings and measurements to help identify campsites for future assessments, record campsite features and to provide a visual supplement to data collection.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 139
4.3. Undisturbed Control Sites
An area of similar forest type near the campsite but appearing to be free of human disturbance was selected to represent natural conditions. Undisturbed sites were located in close proximity to each recreation area for comparison for selected parameters. At each undisturbed site impacts to mineral soil (penetrometry) and coarse woody debris measurements were taken using identical methods to those used at campsites (see Sect. 4.7.). The removal of coarse woody debris through firewood collection extends into the natural environment (the area surrounding the campsite) for this reason it was considered necessary to compare these measures with undisturbed natural conditions (control). Soil penetrometry measures were taken in the undisturbed natural area so that natural conditions could be identified and used as a comparison with the measures taken at the perimeter12 of the campsites. The perimeter is the interface between the campsite and the natural environment. In comparing soil compaction at the perimeter of the campsite the amount the amount of change and severity of impact that has occurred at the perimeter can then be identified.
4.4. Pilot Survey
Before sampling began campsite data forms were developed for recording the field data (App. 1). A pilot study was conducted at the beginning of the sampling period at ten designated campsites in Lane Poole Reserve to determine the applicability of the selected methods. Changes were made to the campsite data form to increase clarity.
In the early stages of field collection the opportunity was taken to identify and collect plants, test equipment and sampling methods and make minor adjustments to
12 Perimeter: 1-2m from the boundary of the campsite where the first natural vegetation occurs. A.J. Smith Biophysical 140
experimental design. These campsites were then re-measured at a later date using the modified campsite data form.
4.5. Volunteer Training
Volunteers were selected from the undergraduate programme for the School of
Environmental Science and the School of Biology at Murdoch University. These volunteers were taken into the field with the researcher and were trained on-site.
Training consisted initially of working alongside the researcher in completing campsite data forms and other measurements and after the researcher perceived competency, measurements were conducted independently or assistance was provided to the researcher. The volunteers were asked to assess the ease of use of the monitoring system and areas of difficulty experienced. Measurements were initially repeated by the researcher to determine accuracy and any difficulties were explained.
The amount of time taken to train volunteers was recorded.
4.6. Timing of Biophysical Measurements
Measurements were timed so that efficiency of methods could be monitored.
Efficiency refers to the ease of application, equipment needed and amount of surveyor time necessary (Marion, 1994; Marion and Leung, 1997). A start and finish time were recorded for measurements such as time to complete campsite data form, site sketch, penetrometry, areal measurements, and firewood collection measurements.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 141
4.7. Campsite Data Form
The campsite data form developed in the pilot study was designed so that relevant data could later be used to develop an indicator rating system to give an overall indication of the severity of impact on individual campsites at designated and informal recreation areas. The format of the campsite data form was derived and adapted from Parsons and MacLeod (1980), Cole (1983b, 1989), Marion (1991),
Obua and Harding (1997), Smith (1998) and Smith and Newsome (2002).
Information was collected on a number of impact indicators to measure both on-site and off-site impacts (Table 4.2). A raw value was recorded for an indicator and the appropriate indicator rating category was marked (App. 1). Other information was included to inventory each individual campsite (Table 4.2). A campsite data form was completed for each individual campsite in all of the study areas.
Indicators that were considered too time consuming to measure were replaced with visual estimates e.g. estimation of campsite area. Cole (1983b) stated that while using estimates reduces precision and sensitivity they should be adequate to meet most management requirements. Further, because of the developed nature of the study campsites, vegetation measurements such as percentage cover were not taken.
As discussed previously, all designated campsites are intentionally cleared in the initial development and construction phase and kept free of vegetation. Additionally, management often clears campsites of leaf litter with a rake as part of weekly maintenance. For this reason, measurements such as litter cover, vegetation percentage cover and species composition on a campsite were irrelevant indicators in this study.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 142
A sketch of each campsite was also taken which showed major features such as relation to water source, location of mature trees as reference points, social trail location and main access track location. A map was also drawn of the recreation area to indicate location of each individual campsite within camp area and major features, and included: distances to other campsites, water form and firewood collection or delivery point (CALM provided). Distances were measured using a Rotosure 1000 measuring wheel (100cm circumference) and from GPS readings taken at the camp area.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 143
Table 4. 2 Resource and inventory indicators for monitoring campsite impacts from visitor use for temperate eucalypt forests in southwest Western Australia Inventory indicators (Including Measured Description and comments measurement unit)* quantitatively Distance to nearest campsite (m, rating) Yes Camp area map and placed in rating category Distance to main access road (m, rating) Yes Camp area map and placed in rating category Number adjacent campsites within 100m (#, Yes Camp area map and placed in rating category rating) Distance to water (m) Yes Camp area map and placed in rating category Water form (description) No Area maps Barren core area (m2,, rating) No Estimation (by pacing and eye) and placed in rating category Condition of vegetation at perimeter (with No Estimation of condition and placed in rating respect to surrounding vegetation) (rating) category Mature trees (#) including common Yes Number of trees on campsite, including area understorey species 1-2m from perimeter. Description of common understorey species. Firewood provision (rating, m) Yes Firewood collection or delivery placed in rating category Closest firewood source determined using camp area map and placed in rating category Development - facilities present (#) including Yes Categorising the number of human number of informal fire pits (#, rating) improvements e.g. fire ring, picnic bench/table, bin Impact indicators (Including measurement Measured Description and comments unit) quantitatively Campsite area (m2) Yes Estimation (by pacing or eye) and placed in rating category Trialed variable transect method on sample of campsites Trialed GPS area calculation function on a sample of campsites Tree seedlings (15-140cm tall) (#) Yes Number of tree seedlings at perimeter of campsite Human damage to trees (#, rating) Yes Number of damaged trees within campsite (including felled trees) boundary, including area 1-2m from perimeter. Damage categorised (none to severe) Number of trees with fresh scars Percentage of all trees damaged on campsite Root exposure in campsite (#, rating) Yes Number of trees with root exposure on-site of campsite Damage categorised (none to severe) Percentage of all trees damaged on campsite Coarse woody debris Yes Coarse woody debris quantities (line intersect method) Measurements on nearby control site Impact to mineral soil (#) Yes Soil compaction (penetration resistance) Measurements on nearby control site Evidence of human activities that contribute to Yes Determined by categorising the types of soil erosion at campsites (e.g. tent ditching human activities and then measuring average and drainage channels). (#, rating) width and depth. Cleanliness (including litter and toilet paper) Yes Number of pieces of litter and toilet paper (#, rating) Types of litter counted and categorised Visitor created social trails (#) Yes Number of social trails radiating from campsite * Rating: 1-4 scale
A.J. Smith Biophysical 144
4.7.1. Campsite Area To determine the size of the campsite a variety of measures were trialed to assess the most appropriate method in terms of time, level of expertise, equipment and level of accuracy. In the first method trialed, campsite area was measured at a sample (n=5) of campsites in Warner Glen Recreation Area using the variable transect method as developed by Marion (1995) and discussed in Sect. 3.3.2.4. From the areal measurements, a campsite area map was sketched and later transformed into a detailed scale map showing compass bearings, distance measurements and campsite area (App. 2). The map was created using the computer program Microstation J which also arithmetically calculated campsite size from transect data in square metres.
Another method that was trialed on a sample of campsites (n=5) was using a Garmin
12XL GPS to measure the area of campsites in Warner Glen Recreation Area. The same campsites that were measured using the variable transect method were used so that measurements could be compared. Using the GPS’s area measurement function, each campsite boundary was walked and then the GPS area measurement was recorded. Ten repeat measurements were taken at each individual campsite to assess variability in measurements.
The third method that was trialed was estimating the size of the campsite. This was done by roughly pacing the area of the campsite and then categorising this estimate into a predetermined size class: <50m2, 50-200m2, 201-500m2 and >500m2.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 145
4.7.2. Human damage to trees Human damage to trees, such as axe marks, saw marks, embedded nails, rope tied around trees and initials, was recorded on the campsite data form. The numbers of trees with damage, number of trees with fresh scars and number of felled trees were also recorded. Tree damage was also classified into a category (impact rating) to indicate the severity of impact. Table 4.3 describes the impact ratings used in the survey and these are further illustrated in Fig. 4.1. Tree damage was recorded in both the initial and repeat survey. Four classes were used so that sufficient detail could be recorded, permitting the identification of subtle differences, while still being relatively broad and not too specific so that precision was maintained.
Table 4. 3 Human damage to trees – Impact ratings Rating Descriptor Explanation
(1) none other than natural causes
(2) slight nails, nail holes, small branches cut off or broken, small superficial trunk scars
(3) moderate large branches cut off or broken, trunk scars and mutilations
(4) severe trunk scars that total >0.09m2, large branches cut off or broken, extensive mutilations. Derived from: Cole and Marion (1988)
A.J. Smith Biophysical 146
Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3
Figure 4. 1 Human damage to trees – severity rating for tree damage Plate 1 Slight damage to marri (Corymbia calophylla) Plate 2 Moderate damage to marri Plate 3 Severe damage to marri (Photos: A. Smith)
4.7.3. Root exposure Root exposure was recorded on the inventory form. The number of trees with root exposure within the boundary of the campsite was counted and then classified into a category (impact rating) to indicate the severity of impact. Table 4.4 describes the impact ratings used in the survey and these are further illustrated in Fig. 4.2. Root exposure was recorded in the initial and repeat survey.
Table 4. 4 Root exposure in campsites – Impact ratings Rating Descriptor Explanation
(1) none other than natural causes
(2) the tops of a majority of the major roots exposed or severe exposure on only one or slight two major roots
(3) the tops and sides of a majority of the major roots exposed or very severe exposure moderate on only one or two major roots
(4) severe tops, sides and undersides of many of the major roots exposed. Derived from: Cole and Marion (1988), Cole (1989) and Marion (1991)
A.J. Smith Biophysical 147
Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3
Figure 4. 2 Root exposure – severity rating for root exposure Plate 1 Slight root exposure Plate 2 Moderate root exposure Plate 3 Severe root exposure (Photos: A. Smith)
4.7.4. Coarse woody debris – (firewood collection) Coarse woody debris quantities were measured using an adaptation of the line intersect method used by Van Wagner (1968), Smith and Neal (1993) and Smith
(1998). A line of known length was laid over an area and the diameter of each piece of wood intersecting the line in selected size classes is recorded. At the perimeter of each selected campsite three survey lines, each 10m long, were laid out to form an equilateral triangle; this configuration was adopted to minimise the orientation bias following the recommendation of Van Wagner (1968) as suggested by Smith and
Neal (1993) (Fig. 4.3).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 148
10m
10m Campsite boundary/perimeter 10m Line intersect (equilateral triangle m Parking area and track
Fire site
m
Figure 4. 3 Example of line intersect layout showing equilateral triangle positioning at campsite perimeter Adapted from Smith (1998)
The transect radiated out from the perimeter of the campsite because the central area of developed campsites were devoid of vegetation. Edge effects and social trails were avoided as indicated in Fig. 4.3. Further, the proliferation of social trails leading from campsites and evidence of cutting indicated that people walk a short distance from the campsite to collect wood. The measurement of coarse woody debris in the area adjoining a campsite enables an assessment to be made of what is happening beyond the management footprint. The firewood gathering area is therefore considered to be the forest adjoining the campsite.
A 10m transect line was chosen because of the close proximity of developed campsites to one another. It was often the case that there was only up to 10m of natural vegetation between the campsites. Individual pieces of coarse woody debris at each intercept were categorised into five diameter size classes: 10-25mm, 26-
70mm, 71-300mm, 301-600mm and >600mm. Coarse woody debris in size classes
A.J. Smith Biophysical 149
less than 70mm were of most interest because this is the size that would be easily collected and broken by hand or chopped with an axe. Measurements were also taken in an undisturbed area near the recreation area to represent the control. The same equilateral transect was laid out randomly and coarse woody debris quantities were recorded.
4.7.5. Impacts to mineral soil - soil penetrometry Penetrometry measures soil strength which is the force required to penetrate the soil at a series of depth intervals. Penetrometry was chosen as the method to measure soil compaction over bulk density because steady rate penetrometers provide a rapid assessment, have high levels of accuracy and are more sensitive to changes in soil condition than other methods (Hunt and Gilkes, 1992; Liddle, 1997). While it has been stated by Hunt & Gilkes (1992) that penetrometers do not work successfully on heavy (clay) or gravely soils, this bias was not considered to be a significant issue because most of the recreation areas occur on sandy loam or loam soils.
Measurements are best taken when the soil is moist, ideally a day after a substantial rainfall event (greater than 10mm). Therefore, measurements were taken at each recreation area during the winter period (June-August) when rainfall incidence is high and soil moisture levels are similar at all of the campsites. To further increase reliability of measurements for comparison, all campsites within a recreation area were measured on the same day, by the same operator using the same equipment.
The steady rate penetrometer used is a cone pointed metal rod driven into the soil by a steady force. The force necessary to penetrate to a certain depth is recorded (Hunt and Gilkes, 1992). The penetrometer was slowly pushed vertically to a depth of 5cm into the soil at a constant speed, to the full depth of measurement. The penetrometer
A.J. Smith Biophysical 150
was withdrawn and the data recorded. Soil measurements were taken in the centre of the campsite (a pre-determined point usually located near either the fire ring or picnic table/bench, therefore an area of concentrated use), middle (the area located approximately 2-3m from the centre point and 2m from the perimeter depending on the overall size of the campsite) and perimeter (the area where the first significant amount of vegetation occurs) of an individual campsite (Fig. 4.4). Eight measurements were taken in each of these three zones giving a total of twenty-four measures per campsite. Measurements were taken on designated, informal and newly constructed campsites. Penetrometry measures were also taken on an undisturbed control in close proximity that represented natural conditions.
perimeter
middle
centre
Figure 4. 4 Diagram of layout for measuring penetrometry at campsites
4.7.6. Human activities that contribute to soil erosion at campsites Human activities that contribute to soil erosion at campsites as mentioned above were recorded on the inventory form. The type of impact was recorded and a negligible to high rating was given to indicate the severity of impact (Table 4.5).
Width and depth measurements of drainage channels and tent ditching were taken with a metal tape measure. These impacts were recorded in the initial and repeat
A.J. Smith Biophysical 151
survey. Tent ditching and drainage channels are the two most common types of human activities that were evident on the sites that are caused by visitors. A detailed description is given below of these impacts.
Table 4. 5: Ratings for tent ditching and drainage channels Rating Descriptor Explanation, mean incision (cm) x mean width (cm)
(1) negligible <2 cm x <25cm
(2) low 2 to 6 cm x 25 to 50 cm
(3) moderate 7 to 8 cm x 51 to 100 cm
(4) high >8 cm x >100 cm Derived from: Obua and Harding (1997)
4.7.6.1. Tent ditching Tent ditching is when trenches have been dug for drainage around the perimeter of a tent to avert water away from the recreation site (Fig. 4.5). Sheet wash and puddling as a result of soil compaction are the factors that contribute to the necessity of such actions (Hunt and Gilkes, 1992; Gunn, 2003).
Tent ditching
Figure 4. 5 Tent ditching at Charlie’s Flat in Lane Poole Reserve (Photo: A. Smith)
A.J. Smith Biophysical 152
4.7.6.2. Drainage channels Drainage channels are when trenches or channels are dug to avert water away from a recreation site as a result of sheet wash and puddling (Fig. 4.6). Drainage channels have similar environmental impacts to gully erosion in that it contributes to the removal of topsoil and related deposition off-site possibly causing sedimentation of nearby waterways (Hunt and Gilkes, 1992; Gunn, 2003).
Drainage channel
Figure 4. 6 Drainage channel at Tony’s Bend in Lane Poole Reserve (Photo: A. Smith)
4.7.7. Cleanliness (Pieces of human sourced litter and toilet paper) The number of pieces of litter was counted and categorised according to types e.g. cigarette butts, bread ties13. Litter was then further categorised into cleanliness ratings (Table 4.6) for use in the multiple indicator rating system to obtain an overall score for campsite impact. Often litter was found in or near the fire ring area and also in the cleared area of a campsite and at the perimeter. Litter placed inside the fire ring at designated campsites was not counted. Only litter lying on the ground within the campsite boundary extending 1-2m from the perimeter was counted. The litter
13 A Bread tie is a small detachable piece of hard plastic used to seal the plastic bags bread is packaged in. A.J. Smith Biophysical 153
usually consisted of similar small pieces of litter. Pieces of toilet paper were also counted and recorded (Table 4.6).
Table 4. 6 Cleanliness ratings applied at campsites in study recreation areas Rating Descriptor Rating Descriptor
Litter Toilet Paper
(1) None (1) None
(2) 1-3 pieces of litter (2) 1-2 pieces of toilet paper
(3) 4-6 pieces of litter (3) 3-4 pieces of toilet paper
(4) >6 pieces of litter (4) >4 pieces of toilet paper Derived from: Cole (1989)
The presence of toilet paper is an indicator of the improper disposal of human waste.
The two primary concerns with the improper disposal of human waste are human health problems as a consequence of either direct contact or contamination of drinking water and aesthetic concerns to visitors who find improperly disposed human waste. Moreover, the transmission of disease causing pathogens (bacteria, viruses, and protozoans) from human faeces is a serious health concern (Cilimburg et al., 2000).
4.7.8. Multiple Indicator Ratings To enable comparison of the severity of impact between campsites, impact indicator scores were categorised into an impact class. For each impact indicator an impact score was derived by multiplying a rating by a weight. Weights were determined by assessing indicators and standards defined by managers and visitors in the visitor survey (Sect. 6.6.5.), observation in the field and by literature review. Ratings were used rather than measures because they are easily defined into broad categories.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 154
Parameters and the associated weights chosen in this rating system took into consideration that the campsites were developed and that a management footprint was imposed on the natural environment. The six indicators included in this rating system were: tree damage, root exposure, human activities that contribute to erosion, cleanliness, social trails and the camp area. Vegetation loss and site development
(Cole, 1989) were not included in this rating system as they are desirable features of developed campsites. The rating system was applied to informal campsites for ease of comparison. For each indicator a rating of 1-4 was applied.
The following description provides the reason why indictors were included in the rating system and the weightings that were applied to each indicator. Tree damage and root exposure were included in the rating system because visitors and managers in this study showed great intolerance of tree damage and only limited tolerance of root exposure (Sect. 6.5.4). These findings are in accordance with other studies e.g.
Roggenbuck et al. (1993), Morin et al. (1997). For this reason tree damage was given a weight of three and root exposure was given a weight of two (Table 4.7).
The number of social trails radiating from the campsite is an important indicator in determining the areal extent of impact as a result of recreational use. In this study, the number of social trails is indicative of campsite expansion and impact on the natural environment (off-site impacts). Therefore, this indicator is given a weight of three (Table 4.7).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 155
Cleanliness or human sourced litter is also an indicator that evokes strong responses in visitor and management surveys (Sect. 5.2.5). It is representative of depreciative behaviour and as a result of its relative importance in affecting the visitor experience it was given a weight of two (Table 4.7).
Human activities that contribute to soil erosion e.g. tent ditching and drainage channels are indicators that a campsite has become compacted and that water is not infiltrating. The severity rating, in part, indicates how much excavation was necessary to remove water pooling on the surface. This indicator was given a weight of two (Table 4.7).
Finally, camp area indicates the areal extent of impact. In this study, because an area is deliberately cleared in the initial development phase, a management footprint is deliberately imposed on the natural environment. This makes camp area an indicator of less significance in developed, designated campsites. It is included in this rating system because when the campsite area extends beyond the planned campsite size it becomes problematic. Of more interest is campsite expansion beyond the management footprint such as social trails (described above). Camp area was given a weight of one (Table 4.7). The weightings determined in this study were also guided by other studies where weights have been applied to multiple indicator ratings e.g.
Cole (1983), Cole (1989), Cole et al. (1997), Obua and Harding (1997).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 156
Table 4. 7 The criteria, rating and weight used for the evaluation of recreational impact on campsites in the study recreation areas Criteria/Parameter Rating Weight Tree damage (1) None (other than natural causes) 3 (2) Slight (nails, nail holes, small branches cut off or broken, small superficial trunk scars) (3) Moderate (large branches cut off or broken, trunk scars & mutilations) (4) Severe (trunk scars that total >0.09m2, large branches cut off or broken, extensive mutilations)
Root exposure (1) None (other than natural causes) 2 (2) Slight (the tops of many of the major roots exposed or severe exposure on only 1 or 2 major roots) (3) Moderate (the tops & sides of many of the major roots exposed or very severe exposure on only 1 or 2 major roots) (4) Severe (tops, sides and undersides of many of the major roots exposed)
Human activities that Depth and width of incision: mean depth (cm) x mean width 2 contribute to soil erosion (cm) (Tent ditching, drainage channels) (1) Negligible (<2cm x <25cm) (2) Low (2-5cm x 25-50cm) (3) Moderate (6-8cm x 51-100cm) (4) High (>8cm x >100cm)
Cleanliness (1) None 2 (Human sourced litter) (2) 1-3 pieces of litter (3) 4-6 pieces of litter (4) >6 pieces of litter
Social trails radiating from (1) One 3 campsite (2) Two (3) Three (4) ≥ Four
Camp area (1) <50m2 1 (2) 50-200m2 (3) 201m2 – 500m2 (4) >500m2
Impact Class: low (8-20), moderate (21-31), high (32-42), severe (43-52).
Weighted indicators were summed to give an impact score. This score was then allocated to an impact class. Impact classes were: low (8-20), moderate (21-31), high
(32-42) and severe (43-52). The lowest possible score achieved is 8 while the maximum achievable score is 52. Subtracting the lowest score from the highest score and then dividing this by four categories, which equates to a range of 11, determined class boundaries. Class boundaries were checked for applicability by systematically working through each indicator and determining the possible scores that can be achieved for each impact class and then adjusting the range accordingly. The impact
A.J. Smith Biophysical 157
classes obtained were also compared to a sample of campsites in which field examinations had been conducted to determine if the impact score obtained was realistic.
Penetrometry and coarse woody debris data collection was excluded, as the data did not easily transfer to categories that are suitable for the rating system. The data is specific and not easily transferred into broad categories. Seedling data were also excluded because it was difficult to determine ratings due to the high amount of variability of this indicator. Table 4.7 shows the criteria, rating and weight used for each impact indicator to obtain the impact score.
4.8. Data Analysis
The survey data were collated and analysed, using the software spreadsheet program
Microsoft Excel 2000 and SPSS 11.0, a statistical package allowing a range of statistical analyses (Kinnear and Gray, 2000). Study results are presented in both tabular and graphic form. Descriptive statistics (percentages), means and standard deviations are reported.
To determine whether two means were significantly different, t-tests were used. T- tests, which assume interval data, were used in Table 4.15 with ordinal scale items.
Rossi et al. (1983) and Bohrnstedt and Borgatta (1981) state that while powerful statistical techniques assume interval levels, as in the case of t-tests, the consequences of assuming data are interval when in fact they are ordinal are so small in most cases that the gain in statistical elegance and power justifies any distortion produced by the more pretentious measurement assumption. Elsewhere in this chapter t-tests were conducted using interval data. An independent t-test was used to
A.J. Smith Biophysical 158
test whether the mean of a single variable differed from a specified constant while a paired t-test was used to compare the means of two variables for a single group
(Kinnear and Gray, 2000). The assumptions associated with the tests included: populations were random, independent, had equal variances, and were normally distributed (Kinnear and Gray, 2000; Taplin, pers. comm., 2003). A 95% confidence interval was used. The null hypothesis was rejected if p<0.025 for a two-sample t-test and if p<0.05 for a paired t-test. Where the significance in the Levene’s Test for
Equality of Variances was less than 0.1, equal variances were not assumed (Kinnear and Gray, 2000).
To address the research question relating to biophysical impacts of recreation use of campsites in the temperate eucalypt forests of southwestern Australia the data were organised and analysed with four different but related purposes in mind. The first was to determine if there was a significant difference in impacts for designated and informal campsites. A two-sample t-test (independent samples test) was used. As mentioned previously, informal campsites are considered similar to backcountry campsites. In comparing designated and informal campsites it can be determined whether the management practice of developing campsites and therefore concentrating use is an effective management strategy in reducing the amount of impact as a result of recreational use.
The second category was to determine if there was a significant difference in impacts for designated campsites and Warren National Park newly constructed campsites
(control) for selected variables. A two sample t-test was used as samples were independent. In comparing designated campsites to newly constructed campsites it
A.J. Smith Biophysical 159
can be determined how much impact as a result of recreation has occurred since construction.
The third category was to determine if the methods allowed us to measure significant changes in impacts over time. Initial and repeat measurements were compared. This method was included to assess whether the methods were replicable. A paired t-test
(paired samples test) was used. In comparing initial and repeat measurements trends of impact can be determined over time. It was of interest to see if changes were significant after a 12 month period.
Finally, to explore the efficiency of indicators used to survey and monitor these impacts, scatter plots and correlations were used to determine if relationships between selected indicators existed. This enabled methods to be improved by eliminating any indicators that showed a correlation, thereby reducing the number of indicators measured on a campsite and creating a more efficient monitoring system.
4.9. Measurement Error
Efforts were made to minimise measurement error through the development of detailed measurement procedures and the use, training and supervision of capable volunteers. The majority of the measurements were taken, recorded and analysed by the researcher. Volunteers were only used to assist in field data gathering and were supervised at all times and training was conducted as mentioned in Sect. 4.5. These steps reduced measurement error.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 160
4.10. Field Survey Results
4.10.1. Campsite Inventory Indicators The inventory indicators are presented as discussed in Sect. 4.7, Table 4.2. Barren core area results have been included with campsite area results and firewood provision results have been included with the coarse woody debris results. The results have been separated and discussed as the initial then repeat survey where applicable. The results are then further separated and discussed as designated and informal recreation areas. Finally, newly developed campsites are discussed when a comparison for designated campsites to the control are necessary.
The initial survey took a single field staff member on average 9 minutes per campsite to complete the inventory form with a range of 5-10 minutes, 3 minutes to conduct penetrometry (range 2-8 minutes), 4 minutes to measure coarse woody debris (range
2-10 minutes) and on average 10 minutes per campsite to complete a detailed site sketch (range 10 minutes). The repeat survey took one staff member on average 4 minutes per campsite (range 2-8 minutes) to complete the inventory form not including penetrometry and coarse woody debris.
4.10.1.1. Proximity to other campsites, access road, water and other adjacent campsites Proximity to other campsites, access road, water and other adjacent campsites were only measured in the initial survey, as these conditions do not change over time. The majority of the designated campsites in Lane Poole, Honeymoon Pool, Warner Glen,
Sues Bridge and Warren National Park are less than 30m to the nearest campsite with some campsites having no clearly defined boundary to divide the campsites and therefore no buffer of natural vegetation (Table 4.8). Designated campsites generally
A.J. Smith Biophysical 161
have less than 3 adjacent campsites. Adjacent campsites may be able to be seen from one another or the buffer of natural vegetation may act as a visual barrier (Table 4.8).
Table 4. 8 Distance to nearest campsite and number of adjacent campsites in recreation areas Recreation Area Distance to nearest campsite (m) Number of adjacent campsites
0-10m 11-30m 31-50m >51m 1 2 3 ≥4 DESIGNATED % of campsites LP – Charlie’s Flat (n=16) 13 81 6 6 50 38 LP – Tony’s Bend (n=14) 50 50 21 50 14 14 LP – Yarragil (n=2) 100 100 HP – Family (n=24) 100 13 54 13 17 HP – Group (n=3) 33 33 33 67 33 Warner Glen (n=12) 45 55 18 27 36 18 Sues Bridge (n=16) 38 63 13 75 13 NEWLY DEVELOPED Warren (n=17) 88 12 18 18 47 18 Warren Group (n=6) 100 33 67 INFORMAL LP – Informal (n=5) 20 40 40 60 HP – Informal (n=3) 100 Denny Road – Informal (n=4) 100 LP = Lane Poole HP = Honeymoon Pool
The informal campsites are generally set further apart than designated campsites.
Lane Poole informal campsites are generally >30m apart, with LP01 to LP03 in the closest proximity but being separated by vegetation or the access track. The other campsites at Lane Poole are >51m with no adjacent campsites (Table 4.8). All of the informal campsites at Honeymoon Pool and Denny Road (near Sues Bridge and
Warner Glen) are >110m apart with no adjacent campsites (Table 4.8).
The designated campsites are also less than 30m from the access track due to the design of the recreation area, being either a one-way loop track (Lane Poole Tony’s
Bend, Warner Glen, Sues Bridge and Warren National Park) or a one-way track
(Lane Poole Charlie’s Flat and Honeymoon Pool) (Table 4.9). Informal campsites are
A.J. Smith Biophysical 162
at greater distances from access roads than designated campsites. Lane Poole informal campsites are greater than 35m from the access road while Honeymoon
Pool informal campsites are between 30-90m, and Denny Road informal campsites are between 1.3 and 5.0 kilometres from the access road (Table 4.9). Access is gained down a single lane track leading off the access road that is often user developed.
Table 4. 9 Distance to main access road and water source from campsite Recreation Area Distance to main access road/track (m) Distance to water source (m) 1- 1-30m 31-60m 61-90m >90m 31-60m 61-90m >90m 30m DESIGNATED % of campsites LP – Charlie’s Flat (n=16) 100 25 31 25 19 LP – Tony’s Bend (n=14) 100 100 LP – Yarragil (n=2) 100 100 HP – Family (n=24) 96 4 96 4 HP – Group (n=3) 67 33 67 33 Warner Glen (n=12) 100 27 64 9 Sues Bridge (n=16) 100 100 NEWLY DEVELOPED Warren (n=17) 100 12 88 Warren Group (n=6) 100 17 33 50 INFORMAL LP – Informal (n=5) 100 80 20 HP – Informal (n=3) 33 33 33 100 Denny Road – Informal 100 25 50 25 (n=4) LP = Lane Poole HP = Honeymoon Pool
The designated campsites are located in relatively close proximity to a major river or one of its tributaries, and are a major feature of visitation. The majority of the campsites at Lane Poole Charlie’s Flat, Lane Poole Yarragil, Honeymoon Pool and
Warren National Park are set back up to 60m from the water source while the majority of the campsites at Lane Poole Tony’s Bend, Warner Glen and Sues Bridge are set back greater than 60m from the water source (Table 4.9). Informal campsites are also located in relatively close proximity to a major river or a tributary. The
A.J. Smith Biophysical 163
majority of the campsites at Lane Poole and Honeymoon Pool are set back less than
30m and are often located on the riverbank. Informal campsites at Denny Road are set back between 30 and 90m from the water source (Table 4.9).
4.10.1.2. Condition of vegetation at perimeter The condition of the vegetation at the perimeter14 of the campsites was estimated in comparison to undisturbed conditions in close proximity. These estimations were only taken in the initial survey. The majority of designated campsites at Lane Poole
Charlie’s Flat and Tony’s Bend, Honeymoon Pool family campsites, Warner Glen,
Sues Bridge and Warren National Park had vegetation at the perimeter that was moderately less dense than the natural surroundings (Table 4.10). Lane Poole
Yarragil campsites vegetation was rated considerably less dense than the natural surroundings while Honeymoon Pool group campsites were mostly rated the same as the natural surroundings (Table 4.10). Similarly, the informal campsites at Lane
Poole and Honeymoon Pool had vegetation at the perimeter that was rated moderately less dense than the natural surroundings while the majority of Denny
Road campsites had vegetation at the perimeter that was rated the same as the natural surroundings (Table 4.10).
14 Perimeter: 1-2m from the boundary of the campsite where the first vegetation occurs. A.J. Smith Biophysical 164
Table 4. 10 Condition of vegetation at perimeter of campsite Condition of vegetation at perimeter of campsite in respect to natural Recreation Area vegetation Moderately less dense Considerably less dense Same as surroundings than surroundings than surroundings DESIGNATED % of campsites LP – Charlie’s Flat (n=16) 100 LP – Tony’s Bend (n=14) 14 64 21 LP – Yarragil (n=2) 100 HP – Family (n=24) 13 88 HP – Group (n=3) 67 33 Warner Glen (n=12) 82 18 Sues Bridge (n=16) 44 56 NEWLY DEVELOPED Warren (n=17) 100 Warren Group (n=6) 100 INFORMAL LP – Informal (n=5) 20 60 20 HP – Informal (n=3) 33 67 Denny Road – Informal (n=4) 75 25 LP = Lane Poole HP = Honeymoon Pool
4.10.1.3. Mature trees The number of mature trees15 was counted on a campsite in the initial survey so that the number of trees with damage could then be compared to the total number of trees located at that campsite. At the designated recreation areas, there was generally a greater number of campsites with mature trees at the perimeter than at the centre of the campsite, with Lane Poole Yarragil campsites having no trees at the centre (Table
4.11). The informal recreation areas had the highest percentage of campsites with mature trees both at the centre and the perimeter of the campsite although there was a larger quantity of trees at the perimeter of the campsites (Table 4.11).
15 Mature trees are trees that are greater than 140cm tall (Cole, 1989) A.J. Smith Biophysical 165
Table 4. 11 Mean number of mature trees at campsites Recreation Area Mean number of mature trees at campsites Total number of mature Centre of campsite Perimeter of campsite trees on campsite DESIGNATED Mean and standard deviation LP – Charlie’s Flat (n=16) 2.0 ± 2.2 12.8 ± 3.7 14.8 ± 4.6 LP – Tony’s Bend (n=14) 3.4 ± 2.9 15.4 ± 7.8 18.8 ± 8.5 LP – Yarragil (n=2) 0.0 ± 0.0 9.0 ± 2.8 9.0 ± 2.8 HP – Family (n=24) 0.8 ± 1.0 9.4 ± 4.9 10.2 ± 5.1 HP – Group (n=3) 0.7 ± 1.2 12.0 ± 5.0 12.7 ± 4.0 Warner Glen (n=12) 0.5 ± 1.2 15.6 ± 5.4 16.1 ± 6.2 Sues Bridge (n=16) 0.3 ± 0.9 10.0 ± 3.8 10.3 ± 3.8 NEWLY DEVELOPED Warren (n=17) 0.0 ± 0.0 5.4 ± 4.2 5.4 ± 4.2 Warren Group (n=6) 0.0 ± 0.0 11.8 ± 7.5 11.8 ± 7.5 INFORMAL LP – Informal (n=5) 2.8 ± 2.4 13.0 ± 5.7 15.8 ± 7.7 HP – Informal (n=3) 9.0 ± 13.9 22.0 ± 13.9 31.0 ± 27.7 Denny Road – Informal (n=4) 2.5 ± 1.9 22.0 ± 8.4 24.0 ± 7.4 LP = Lane Poole HP = Honeymoon Pool
When the mean number of mature trees per campsite was calculated, the designated recreation areas generally had less than 20 mature trees per campsite with a range from 1 to 36 trees per campsite (Table 4.11). The number of mature trees at informal recreation areas ranged from 10 to 63. Honeymoon Pool informal followed by Denny
Road informal had the highest number of mature trees (Table 4.11).
4.10.1.4. Facilities present and development The level of development was defined by the presence of a fire ring, either as a ring of stones or a cement/steel fire ring with a barbecue plate. In addition to the presence of a fire ring, development was also represented by the presence of picnic tables/benches and other types of seating, bins and toilets. The numbers of facilities were inventoried on the campsite data form. These measurements were taken in the initial and repeat survey. The absence of a facility in the repeat survey was indicative of vandalism and therefore depreciative behaviour occurring at campsites unless
A.J. Smith Biophysical 166
otherwise advised by management e.g. management replaced facility with alternative or removed from campsite. At all designated recreation areas except for Sues Bridge, a centrally located litter disposal unit was available e.g. a skip bin (Plate 1, Fig. 4.7).
Sues Bridge had a bin located at each campsite (Plate 2, Fig. 4.7). All designated recreation areas also had at least one to two centrally located toilets (Plate 3, Fig.
4.7). Informal recreation areas had no rubbish disposal or toilet facilities.
Plate 1 Plate 2
Plate 3 Plate 4
Figure 4. 7 Development at designated recreation areas Plate 1 Skip bin at central location in recreation area Plate 2 Bin placed at individual campsite Plate 3 Toilet facilities provided at central location in recreation area Plate 4 Picnic table/benches and fire ring located at individual campsite (Photos: A. Smith)
A.J. Smith Biophysical 167
In the initial survey, designated recreation areas had at least a cement/steel fire ring and either a picnic bench/table or a primitive seat located at each campsite (Plate 4,
Fig. 4.7, Table 2.3). The informal campsites all had a fire ring that consisted of a user made ring of stones. No other development was recorded at the informal campsites with exception to one campsite at Honeymoon Pool that had the presence of a cement fire ring, a constructed and a primitive seat (Table 4.12). Facilities were only provided at 8 of the 23 campsites at newly constructed campsites in Warren National
Park
Table 4. 12 Development at campsites in study recreation areas Recreation Area % of campsites with development Fire ring Picnic Primitive seat Constructed bench/table seat Initial Repeat Initial Repeat Initial Repeat Initial Repeat DESIGNATED LP – Charlie’s Flat (n=16) 100 69 100 100 - 7 - - LP – Tony’s Bend (n=14) 100 86 100 100 - - - - LP – Yarragil (n=2) 100 100 100 100 - - - - HP – Family (n=24) 100 96 79 71 13 17 4 8 HP – Group (n=3) 100 100 100 100 33 - - - Warner Glen (n=12) 100 100 36 36 100 100 9 - Sues Bridge (n=16) 100 100 94 100 50 6 6 - NEWLY DEVELOPED Warren (n=17) 29 29 29 29 - - - - Warren Group (n=6) 33 33 33 33 - - - - INFORMAL LP – Informal (n=5) 100 80 ------HP – Informal (n=3) 100 100 - - 33 33 33 33 Denny Road – Informal (n=4) 100 100 ------LP = Lane Poole HP = Honeymoon Pool
In the repeat survey, a minimal amount of change was recorded in the percentage of campsites with development. At designated recreation areas, Lane Poole Charlie’s
Flat and Tony’s Bend showed a reduction in the number of fire rings while
Honeymoon Pool family showed an increase in the number of primitive and
A.J. Smith Biophysical 168
constructed seats and Sues Bridge showed an increase in the number of picnic table/benches (Table 4.12).
4.10.2. Campsite Impact Indicators The following section discusses the results relating to impact indicators. The results are presented as set out in Table 4.2.
4.10.2.1. Campsite area The variable radial transect method was trialed on a sample (n=5) of campsites (as discussed in Sect. 3.3.2.4.). Only a sample was taken because after the first five campsites were measured, it was deemed that while high levels of accuracy were obtained and detailed maps were produced (App. 2), the time taken to conduct both the measures (two people necessary and the time ranging from 4 to 7 minutes per campsite) and data entry into Microstation J (average time 45 minutes per campsite diagram) was considered excessive for this study. The use of Microstation J also requires professional training to develop the diagrams.
A second method that was trialed on a sample (n=5) of campsites was using the area measurement function on a Garmin 12XL GPS. The readings were erratic with large variation (Table 4.13). The example below shows that there was a range for an individual campsite of 52m2 to 357m2 (Table 4.13). The large variation in readings obtained using this method was considered unreliable. The area was also measured with a measuring wheel and the estimated area for this example (Warner Glen
Campsite 1) was 62m2.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 169
Table 4. 13 Example of GPS area calculation measurements taken at Warner Glen Campsite 1 Warner Glen GPS area Campsite 1 calculation (m2) Sample 1 130 Sample 2 97 Sample 3 66 Sample 4 67 Sample 5 357 Sample 6 113 Sample 7 52 Sample 8 57 Sample 9 58 Sample 10 77 Mean (Std Dev) 107.4 (± 91.5) Standard Error 86.8
The third method that was trialed and eventually used on all campsites was estimation of campsite area (Sect. 3.3.2.4.). The size classes for campsite area were:
<50m2, 50-200m2, 201-500m2 and >500m2. Barren core area was also estimated and the size classes were: <5m2, 5-20m2, 21-50m2 and >50m2. Designated recreation areas had a median campsite size within the range of 50-200m2 (Table 4.14). Visual estimates indicated that individual use or family assigned designated campsites are generally smaller in size than informal campsites. Individual use or family assigned campsites are suitable to accommodate single or small group sizes. More than half of the individual use designated campsites at Lane Poole Charlie’s Flat, Lane Poole
Tony’s Bend, Sues Bridge and Warren National Park have an estimated total area of less than 50m2 (Table 4.14). In contrast, all of the designated campsites at Lane Poole
Yarragil (n=2) and more than half of the Warner Glen campsites had an estimated total area between 50-200m2, these campsites could be considered for medium sized group use. The majority of the individual use designated campsites for Lane Poole,
Warner Glen and Sues Bridge had an estimated barren core area of 21-50m2. Further,
A.J. Smith Biophysical 170
the majority of Honeymoon Pool individual use designated campsites had an estimated barren core area of 21 to >50m2 while the majority of Warren National
Park individual use designated campsites had an estimated barren core area of <20m2
(Table 4.14).
Table 4. 14 Estimated total area of campsite and barren core area Recreation Area Estimated total area of campsite (m2) Estimated barren core area (m2) <50 50-200 201-500 >500 <5 5-20 21-50 >50 DESIGNATED % of campsites LP – Charlie’s Flat (n=16) 63 25 6 25 56 19 LP – Tony’s Bend (n=14) 50 36 14 7 71 21 LP – Yarragil (n=2) 100 100 HP – Family (n=24) 38 33 29 38 21 42 HP – Group (n=3) 33 66 33 67 Warner Glen (n=12) 18 73 9 18 45 36 Sues Bridge (n=16) 63 38 25 63 13 NEWLY DEVELOPED Warren (n=17) 100 100 Warren Group (n=6) 50 50 50 50 INFORMAL LP – Informal (n=5) 60 20 20 100 HP – Informal (n=3) 67 33 100 Denny Road – Informal 50 50 100 (n=4) LP = Lane Poole HP = Honeymoon Pool
Campsites specifically developed for group use were only present in Honeymoon
Pool (n=3) and Warren National Park (n=6). These campsites are suitable to accommodate medium to large group sizes. The majority of group campsites at
Honeymoon Pool have an estimated total area of >50m2, while half of the group campsites at Warren National Park are 50-200m2 and the other half are suitable for smaller groups being <50m2 (Table 4.14). Both Honeymoon Pool and Warren
National Park group campsites have an estimated barren core area of >50m2 (Table
4.14).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 171
Informal campsites are generally larger than individual use designated campsites and are more similar in size to the group campsites. The median campsite size for informal campsites was 200-500m2. More than half of the informal campsites at Lane
Poole and Honeymoon Pool have an estimated total area between 50 to 200m2 and an estimated barren core area >50m2 (Table 4.14). While the majority of Denny Road informal campsites have an estimated total area >200m2 and an estimated barren core area >50m2 (Table 4.14). None of the informal campsites are less than 50m2 and all have large barren cores (Table 4.14).
In order to conduct statistical analysis and because the data were recorded in category ratings the data needed to be manipulated. Each category rating was assigned a number e.g. <50m2 category was assigned the number 1, 50-200m2 was assigned the number 2 and so on (Taplin, pers. comm. 2003). As a result the means fall between 1 and 4 and are representative of each category rating (Table 4.15).
Table 4. 15 Comparison of means of campsite area for designated, informal and newly developed campsites Indicator Comparison of means Significance Designated Informal campsites campsites Campsite area 1.72 2.92 p=0.000 (S) Designated Newly developed campsites campsites Campsite area 1.72 1.18 p=0.000a (S)
a Levene’s test assumption, equal variances not assumed NS = not significant S = significant
A.J. Smith Biophysical 172
To determine whether there was a significant difference between the campsite area for designated and informal campsites a two-sample t-test was used (Table 4.15).
Group campsites were included in the designated campsite analysis to represent the different types of camping opportunities available. A significant difference was noted, with informal campsites being significantly larger than designated campsites.
A further test was conducted to determine if there was a difference between the already established designated campsites and newly developed designated campsites at Warren National Park. This analysis also included group campsites. There was a significant difference with designated campsites being significantly larger than the newly developed campsites.
4.10.2.2. Tree seedlings Tree seedlings were counted at the perimeter of all campsites in the initial and repeat survey. In the designated recreation areas, the campsites at Lane Poole Tony’s Bend had the highest number of seedlings at the perimeter in the initial survey (Table
4.16). In the informal recreation areas, the campsites at Honeymoon Pool and Denny
Road had the highest number of seedlings at the perimeter (Table 4.16). To determine if there was a difference between the number of seedlings at the perimeter of informal and designated campsites in the initial survey a two-sample t-test was used (Table 4.17). Informal campsites had significantly more tree seedlings at the perimeter than designated campsites (21.75 vs. 3.65 seedlings per campsite perimeter). The difference in number of seedlings at the perimeter of designated campsites and newly developed campsites in Warren National Park was also significant (3.65 vs. 0.41 seedlings per campsite perimeter) (Table 4.17).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 173
Table 4. 16 Mean number and standard deviation of tree seedlings recorded at the perimeter of campsites in study recreation areas Recreation Area Tree seedlings – mean and standard deviation Perimeter Initial Repeat DESIGNATED LP – Charlie’s Flat (n=16) 1.2 ± 3.0 6.0 ± 6.7 LP – Tony’s Bend (n=14) 7.8 ± 6.5 9.6 ± 8.2 LP – Yarragil (n=2) 1.5 ± 0.7 2.0 ± 2.8 HP – Family (n=24) 3.2 ± 3.8 1.0 ± 1.5 HP – Group (n=3) 3.0 ± 2.6 1.0 ± 1.0 Warner Glen (n=12) 5.5 ± 2.8 7.7 ± 4.6 Sues Bridge (n=16) 2.4 ± 1.6 10.0 ± 9.5 NEWLY DEVELOPED Warren (n=17) 0 ± 0 1.1 ± 2.7 Warren Group (n=6) 0 ± 0 0 ± 0 INFORMAL LP – Informal (n=5) 3.4 ± 1.5 14.4 ± 16.1 HP – Informal (n=3) 46.7 ± 27.2 12.0 ± 12.1 Denny Road – Informal (n=4) 26.0 ± 10.2 32.0 ± 12.1 LP = Lane Poole HP = Honeymoon Pool
Table 4. 17 Comparison of means of tree seedlings for designated, informal and newly developed campsites Indicator Comparison of means (no. of seedlings) Significance Initial Survey Repeat Survey Tree seedlings – Designated 3.65 5.91 p=0.008 (S) campsites Tree seedlings – Informal campsites 21.75 19.67 p=0.783 (NS) Designated Informal campsites campsites Tree seedlings 3.65 21.75 p=0.023a (S) Designated Newly developed campsites campsites Tree seedlings 3.65 0.41 p=0.000a (S)
a Levene’s test assumption, equal variances not assumed NS = not significant S = significant
When repeat measurements were taken, all of the Honeymoon Pool designated campsites had a 60% to 70% reduction in the number of seedlings at the perimeter while Lane Poole Charlie’s Flat (80%), Lane Poole Tony’s Bend (19%), Lane Poole
Yarragil (25%), Warner Glen (29%), Sues Bridge (76%), and Warren (100%)
A.J. Smith Biophysical 174
showed an increase (Table 4.16). The informal campsites showed an increase at the perimeter of Lane Poole (76%) and Denny Road (19%) while Honeymoon Pool informal campsites showed a decrease (74%) (Table 4.16). To test that there was no difference between initial and repeat measurements for the number of tree seedlings at the perimeter a paired t-test was used. There was no significant difference for the informal campsites but a significant difference was noted for the designated campsites. The designated campsites showed a 38% increase in the number of seedlings at the perimeter in the repeat survey (Table 4.17).
4.10.2.3. Human damage to trees Information was collected as a severity rating (none to severe), the number of trees damaged per campsite, the number of trees with fresh scars and the percentage of trees damaged per campsite. Measurements were taken in the initial and repeat survey except for the number of trees with fresh scars.
Severity rating
In the initial survey (Fig. 4.8), the median amount of tree damage at the designated campsites was slight with a range of none to severe. The median amount of tree damage for informal campsites was moderate with a range of slight to severe. The newly developed campsites at Warren National Park exhibited no signs of damage
(Fig. 4.8). The severity ratings are described in Fig. 4.1 and Table 4.3
A.J. Smith Biophysical 175
100
severe 80 moderate slight none 60
40
20 % of campsites with tree damage 0 (n=16) (n=12) (n=6) (n=14) (n=16) (n=4) Sues Bridge Warner Glen Warner Warren Group Warren Warren (n=17) Warren LP-Tony's Bend LP-Tony's HP-Group (n=3) HP-Group LP-Charlie's Flat LP-Charlie's LP-Yarragil (n=3) LP-Informal (n=5) LP-Informal HP-Family (n=24) HP-Family HP-Informal (n=3) HP-Informal Denny Rd-Informal Recreation areas
LP = Lane Poole HP = Honeymoon Pool
Figure 4. 8 Percentage of campsites at recreation areas with human damage to trees
Repeat measurements showed an increase in the amount of damage to trees at campsites in all designated recreation areas with exception to Warner Glen which showed a decrease (Fig. 4.9). The median amount of tree damage for designated campsites was still moderate however the range increased from slight to severe. Lane
Poole Yarragil campsites showed a greater increase in the amount of damage than others, changing from mostly moderate levels of damage to severe (Fig. 4.9).
Honeymoon Pool group campsites also showed a change from being mostly no damage or only slight damage to exhibiting moderate damage at all campsites (Fig.
4.9). At the informal campsites, the median amount of damage and range was the same. Lane Poole and Honeymoon Pool informal showed no change in the severity of damage while Denny Road showed a higher percentage of campsites with moderate levels of damage than the initial survey (Fig. 4.9).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 176
100
severe 80 moderate slight 60 none
40
20 % of campsites with tree damage 0 (n=16) (n=12) (n=6) (n=14) (n=16) (n=4) Sues Bridge Warner Glen Warner Warren Group Warren Warren (n=17) Warren LP-Tony's Bend LP-Tony's HP-Group (n=3) HP-Group LP-Charlie's Flat LP-Charlie's LP-Yarragil (n=3) LP-Yarragil LP-Informal (n=5) LP-Informal HP-Family (n=24) HP-Family HP-Informal (n=3) HP-Informal Denny Rd-Informal Recreation areas
LP = Lane Poole HP = Honeymoon Pool
Figure 4. 9 Percentage of campsites at recreation areas with human damage to trees - repeat measurements
To determine if there was a difference between initial and repeat measurements for the amount of tree damage when recorded as a severity rating (none to severe) a paired t-test was used (Table 4.18). In order to conduct statistical analysis and because the data was recorded in category ratings the data needed to be manipulated.
Each category rating was assigned a number e.g. the category none was assigned the number 0, the category slight was assigned the number 1 and so on. As a result the means fall between 0 and 3 and are representative of each category rating. There was no significant difference between initial and repeat measurements for either designated or informal campsites. Additionally, a two-sample t-test was used to test if there was a difference between informal and designated recreation areas for the amount of tree damage (none to severe) using the figures from the initial survey.
Informal campsites had a significantly higher severity rating (none to severe) than designated campsites (Table 4.18). Finally, a two-sample t-test was used to
A.J. Smith Biophysical 177
determine if there was a difference between designated campsites and newly developed campsites for the amount of tree damage (none to severe) using the figures from the initial survey. There was a significant difference between designated campsites and newly developed campsites with newly developed campsites having no tree damage (Table 4.18).
Table 4. 18 Mean and significance for the amount of tree damage (none to severe) and the total percentage of mature trees damaged at campsites in recreation areas Indicator Comparison of means Significance Initial Survey Repeat Survey Severity rating for tree damage – 1.53 1.67 p=0.039 (NS) Designated campsites Severity rating for tree damage – 2.08 2.17 p=0.586 (NS) Informal campsites Percentage trees damaged – 39.31 49.38 p=0.001 (S) designated campsites Percentage trees damaged – informal 44.00 62.00 p=0.035 (S) for campsites p<0.05 Designated Informal campsites campsites Severity rating for tree damage 1.53 2.08 p=0.019a (S) Percentage of trees damaged 39.31 44.00 p=0.542a (NS) Designated Newly developed campsites campsites Severity rating for tree damage 1.53 0.00 p=0.000a (S) Percentage of trees damaged 39.31 0.00 p=0.000a (S)
a Levene’s test assumption, equal variances not assumed NS = not significant S = significant
Number of trees damaged
The mean number of trees damaged per campsite was calculated for initial and repeat surveys. Designated campsites at Lane Poole Tony’s Bend, Yarragil and Honeymoon
Pool group showed a considerable increase in the average number of trees damaged per campsite (Table 4.19). Warren family and group recreation areas showed an increase in the number of trees damaged per campsite, while Lane Poole Charlie’s
Flat, Honeymoon Pool Family, Warner Glen, Sues Bridge and Honeymoon Pool informal showed very little or no change in the mean number of trees damaged per
A.J. Smith Biophysical 178
campsite (Table 4.19). At the informal recreation areas, Lane Poole informal and
Denny Road showed an increase in the average number of trees damaged per campsite, while Honeymoon Pool informal showed very little or no change (Table
4.19). However, as indicated in Fig. 4.8 and 4.9 the level of severity changed at some of these recreation areas.
Table 4. 19 Mean number and standard deviation of tree damage and trees with fresh scars at campsites in recreation areas Recreation Area Tree damage – mean and standard deviation No. of trees with damage No. of trees with fresh scars Initial Repeat DESIGNATED LP – Charlie’s Flat (n=16) 7.6 ± 4.5 8.3 ± 3.5 1.1 ± 0.6 LP – Tony’s Bend (n=14) 7.0 ± 3.7 12.2 ± 4.9 1.0 ± 1.5 LP – Yarragil (n=2) 3.5 ± 2.1 6.0 ± 1.6 0 ± 0 HP – Family (n=24) 3.2 ± 1.8 3.4 ± 2.5 0.8 ± 1.5 HP – Group (n=3) 2.7 ± 3.1 11.7 ± 4.4 3.0 ± 3.0 Warner Glen (n=12) 4.2 ± 2.4 4.5 ± 2.7 0.8 ± 1.7 Sues Bridge (n=16) 3.7 ± 2.5 4.5 ± 2.5 1.5 ± 1.9 NEWLY DEVELOPED Warren (n=17) 0 ± 0 0.4 ± 0.8 0.3 ± 0.7 Warren Group (n=6) 0 ± 0 0.2 ± 0.4 0.2 ± 0.4 INFORMAL LP – Informal (n=5) 6.8 ± 4.8 12.2 ± 4.5 3.6 ± 2.9 HP – Informal (n=3) 19.0 ± 8.5 19.3 ± 12.7 6.7 ± 4.6 Denny Road – Informal (n=4) 5.3 ± 4.0 7.8 ± 1.0 0.3 ± 0.5 LP = Lane Poole HP = Honeymoon Pool
Number of trees with fresh scars
In the repeat survey only, the numbers of trees with fresh scars were recorded.
Generally the campsites at all recreation areas exhibited only low numbers of trees with fresh scars with exception of the designated campsites at Honeymoon Pool group, Honeymoon Pool informal and Lane Poole informal (Table 4.19). These
A.J. Smith Biophysical 179
campsites also exhibited large standard deviations indicating that some individual campsites had much higher and lower levels of fresh scars than the average number.
Percentage of trees damaged
Information was also collected at each campsite in the recreation areas on the percentage of trees damaged. This was based on the number of trees damaged divided by the number of mature trees per campsite. Damage ranged from 20-90%
(Fig. 4.10). All recreation areas showed an increase in the percentage of trees damaged per campsite. The designated recreation areas generally showed an increase in the percentage of trees damaged per campsite. Lane Poole Tony’s Bend, Lane
Poole Yarragil and Honeymoon Pool group showed a considerable increase in the percentage of trees damaged per campsite in the repeat survey (Fig. 4.10). For the informal recreation areas, Lane Poole informal showed a considerable increase in the percentage of trees damaged per campsite, while Denny Road informal showed a minimal increase and Honeymoon Pool informal showed little change (Fig. 4.10).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 180
100
80 Initial survey Repeat 60 survey
40
20 % of trees damage per campsite
0 (n=14) (n=16) (n=4) Warren (n=17) LP-Tony's Bend LP-Tony's HP-Group (n=3) LP-Charlie's Flat LP-Charlie's LP-Yarragil (n=3) LP-Informal (n=5) LP-Informal HP-Family (n=24) HP-Family HP-Informal (n=3) HP-Informal Denny Rd-Informal Sues Bridge (n=16) Sues Bridge Warner Glen (n=12) Glen Warner Warren Group (n=6) Group Warren Recreation area
LP = Lane Poole HP = Honeymoon Pool
Figure 4. 10 Percentage of mature trees damaged at recreation area campsites – initial and repeat survey
To determine if there was a difference between initial measurements and repeat measurements for the percentage of trees damaged per campsite a paired t-test was used (Table 4.18). A significant increase was recorded for both designated (p<0.025) and informal recreation areas (p<0.05). Additionally, a two-sample t-test was used to test if there was difference between informal and designated recreation areas for the percentage of trees damaged per campsite. There was no significant difference between informal and designated recreation areas (Table 4.18). Finally, a two-sample t-test was used to determine if there was a difference between designated recreation areas and newly developed recreation areas for the percentage of trees damaged per campsite. There was a significant difference, with newly developed campsites having no trees damaged (Table 4.18).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 181
4.10.2.4. Root exposure Root exposure was measured in the campsite area itself to the boundary of the campsite. Root exposure information was collected as a severity rating (none to severe) and the mean number of trees with root exposure per campsite.
Measurements were taken in the initial and repeat survey.
Severity rating
The severity rating for root exposure was much more severe in the initial survey at the informal recreation areas than at the designated recreation areas with many of the designated campsites showing no root exposure (Fig. 4.11). Designated recreation areas had a median severity rating of no root exposure and a range of none to moderate levels of root exposure at campsites. Root exposure was not present at designated campsites at Lane Poole, Sues Bridge and Warren National Park. A minority of campsites at Honeymoon Pool family had a severity rating of slight to moderate levels of root exposure and at Warner Glen a minority of campsites had slight root exposure (Fig. 4.11). Informal recreation areas had a median severity rating of slight root exposure with a range of none to moderate levels of root exposure at campsites. Lane Poole informal only had a relatively low number of campsites with root exposure and these campsites only had slight to moderate levels of root exposure. Honeymoon Pool informal and Denny Road also had only slight root exposure at all campsites (Fig. 4.11).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 182
100 severe 80 moderate slight 60 none
40
20 % of campsites with root exposure 0 (n=16) (n=12) (n=6) (n=14) (n=16) Sues Bridge Denny Rd- Warner Glen Warner Informal (n=4) Informal Warren Group Warren (n=17) Warren LP-Tony's Bend LP-Tony's HP-Group (n=3) LP-Charlie's Flat LP-Charlie's LP-Yarragil (n=3) LP-Informal (n=5) LP-Informal HP-Family (n=24) HP-Informal (n=3) Recreation areas
LP = Lane Poole HP = Honeymoon Pool
Figure 4. 11 Percentage of campsites at recreation areas with root exposure
In the repeat survey, designated recreation areas had median severity rating of root exposure of slight and a range of none to moderate. Warner Glen had an increase in the level of root exposure from no campsites with root exposure to more than 40 per cent of campsites exhibiting slight root exposure (Fig. 4.12). Sues Bridge also had an increase from no root exposure to 6% of campsites with a severity rating of slight root exposure. At the informal recreation areas, the median level of root exposure was moderate with a range of none to severe. Lane Poole informal had a greater percentage of campsites with slight root exposure and a decrease in the campsites with moderate root exposure (Fig. 4.12). Denny Road informal showed a change in the severity of root exposure exhibited with some campsites showing no root exposure and some campsites showing an increase from slight to moderate root exposure (Fig. 4.12). Honeymoon Pool informal also showed a reduction in the severity of root exposure from all of the campsites having a severity rating of slight
A.J. Smith Biophysical 183
levels of root exposure to 33% of campsites having a severity rating of slight and the remainder having no root exposure (Fig. 4.12).
100
severe 80 moderate
60 slight none 40
20 % of campsites with root exposure 0 (n=16) (n=12) (n=6) (n=14) (n=16) (n=4) Sues Bridge Warner Glen Warner Warren Group Warren (n=17) Warren LP-Tony's Bend LP-Tony's HP-Group (n=3) LP-Charlie's Flat LP-Charlie's LP-Yarragil (n=3) LP-Informal (n=5) LP-Informal HP-Family (n=24) HP-Family HP-Informal (n=3) HP-Informal Denny Rd-Informal Recreation areas
LP = Lane Poole HP = Honeymoon Pool
Figure 4. 12 Percentage of campsites with root exposure in study recreation areas– repeat measurements
To test whether there was a difference between initial and repeat measurements for the severity ratings of root exposure (none to severe) a paired t-test was used (Table
4.20). In order to conduct statistical analysis and because the data was recorded in category ratings the data needed to be manipulated. Each category rating was assigned a number e.g. the category none was assigned the number 0, the category slight was assigned the number 1 and so on. As a result the means fall between 0 and
3 and are representative of each category rating (Table 4.20). There was no difference between initial and repeat measurements for informal recreation areas and a significant difference between initial and repeat measurements for designated recreation areas. Designated recreation areas showed an increase in the severity of root exposure in the repeat survey. Additionally, a two-sample t-test was used to
A.J. Smith Biophysical 184
determine whether there was a difference between informal and designated recreation areas for the severity rating for root exposure (none to severe). Informal recreation areas had a significantly higher severity rating than designated recreation areas (Table 4.20). Finally, a two-sample t-test was used to test whether there was a difference between designated campsites and newly developed campsites for the severity rating of root exposure (none to severe). Designated recreation areas had a significantly higher severity rating than newly developed campsites with no root exposure at newly developed campsites (Table 4.20).
Table 4. 20 Mean and significance for root exposure at study recreation areas Indicator Comparison of means Significance Initial Survey Repeat Survey Severity rating for root exposure – 0.08 1.22 p=0.000 (S) designated campsites* Severity rating for root exposure – 0.83 1.75 p=0.059 (NS) informal campsites* No. of trees with root exposure– 0.15 0.24 p=0.020 (S) Designated campsites* No. of trees with root exposure – 1.83 1.42 p=0.358 (NS) Informal campsites* Designated Informal campsites campsites Severity rating for root exposure** 0.08 0.83 p=0.001a (S) No. of trees with root exposure** 0.15 1.83 p=0.001a (S) Designated Newly developed campsites campsites Severity rating for root exposure** 0.08 0.00 p=0.019a (S) No. of trees with root exposure** 0.15 0.00 p=0.027a (S)
a Levene’s test assumption, equal variances not assumed NS = not significant * Paired t-test used S = significant ** Two-sample t-test used
Number of trees with root exposure
Only a relatively low number of trees per campsite in the recreation areas had root exposure (Table 4.21). Most of the designated campsites had very few trees with root exposure. Campsites in Honeymoon Pool Family and Warner Glen were the only areas that had root exposures. The number of trees in these campsites with root
A.J. Smith Biophysical 185
exposure was low. All of the informal campsites had trees with some root exposure however the mean number of trees was relatively low (Table 4.21).
Table 4. 21 Mean number and standard deviation of trees with root exposure at study recreation areas Recreation Area Root exposure – mean and standard deviation Initial Repeat DESIGNATED LP – Charlie’s Flat (n=16) 0 ± 0 0 ± 0 LP – Tony’s Bend (n=14) 0 ± 0 0 ± 0 LP – Yarragil (n=2) 0 ± 0 0 ± 0 HP – Family (n=24) 0.4 ± 1.0 0 ± 0 HP – Group (n=3) 0 ± 0 0 ± 0 Warner Glen (n=12) 0.3 ± 0.9 0.8 ± 1.3 Sues Bridge (n=16) 0 ± 0 0.1 ± 0.5 NEWLY DEVELOPED Warren (n=17) 0 ± 0 0 ± 0 Warren Group (n=6) 0 ± 0 0 ± 0 INFORMAL LP – Informal (n=5) 1.0 ± 1.4 0.6 ± 0.5 HP – Informal (n=3) 3.0 ± 0.8 0.3 ± 0.6 Denny Road – Informal (n=4) 2.0 ± 0.8 1.3 ± 1.5 LP = Lane Poole HP = Honeymoon Pool
In the repeat survey, designated campsites at Warner Glen and Sues Bridge showed an increase in the mean number of trees with root exposure (Table 4.21) while the informal recreation areas showed fewer trees with root exposure. However, as indicated above (Fig. 4.12), the levels of severity changed at some of these campsites.
To determine if there was a difference between initial and repeat measurements for the number of trees with root exposure a paired t-test was used (Table 4.20). There was no significant difference for informal campsites, however designated campsites had significantly more trees with root exposure in the repeat survey than in the initial survey (0.24 vs. 0.15 trees with root exposure). Additionally, the number of trees
A.J. Smith Biophysical 186
with root exposure was significantly higher at informal campsites than at designated campsites (1.83 vs. 0.15 trees with root exposure) (Table 4.20). Finally, a two- sample t-test was used to determine whether there was a difference between designated campsites and newly developed campsites for the number of trees with root exposure. There was a significant difference with designated campsites having more root exposure than newly developed campsites which had no root exposure
(Table 4.20).
4.10.2.5. Firewood provision and coarse woody debris As part of the impact inventory the provision of firewood was recorded in the initial survey. Where management provided firewood the distance from the campsite to the delivery point was recorded. Further, evidence was also recorded of the presence of coarse woody debris at each campsite. Firewood was provided by management at
Honeymoon Pool, Warner Glen, and Sues Bridge designated recreation areas (Fig.
4.13). At the recreation areas where firewood was not supplied (Lane Poole and all informal recreation areas), evidence was also recorded of some type of firewood collection whether it was twigs, branches and logs collected in piles or charcoal scatter (Fig. 4.13). It was also evident that all of the campsites had a fire ring, either a user-made stone fire ring or a management provided cement/steel fire ring (see Sect.
4.10.1.4., Table 4.12).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 187
200
150
100
collection/delivery 50
% of campsites with evidence firewood 0 (n=14) (n=16) (n=4) LP-Tony's Bend LP-Tony's HP-Group (n=3) LP-Charlie's Flat LP-Charlie's LP-Yarragil (n=3) LP-Informal (n=5) LP-Informal HP-Family (n=24) HP-Informal (n=3) Denny Rd-Informal Sues Bridge (n=16) Warner Glen (n=12) Recreation areas nil DCLM provided twigs, branches, logs milled timber near fire site charcoal scatter
LP = Lane Poole HP = Honeymoon Pool
Figure 4. 13 Percentage of recreation area campsites with evidence of firewood collection or delivery
For those designated recreation areas where firewood was provided the distance from the firewood delivery point was recorded. At Honeymoon Pool family the majority of the campsites were located at greater than 90m from the firewood delivery point
(Fig. 4.14). The firewood delivery point however was located near the central bin facility and also near the toilets. At Honeymoon Pool group and Warner Glen the majority of the campsites were located within 90m of the firewood delivery point and as for Honeymoon Pool family, the firewood delivery point was located near the central bin facility and also near the toilets. Sues Bridge campsites were mostly located greater than 30m from the firewood delivery point (Fig. 4.14).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 188
100 not provided 80 >90m
60-90m 60 30-60m
40 <30m
20
0 % of campsites distance to firewood source (n=16) (n=12) (n=14) (n=16) (n=4) Sues Bridge Warner Glen Warner LP-Tony's Bend LP-Tony's HP-Group (n=3) LP-Charlie's Flat LP-Charlie's LP-Yarragil (n=3) LP-Informal (n=5) LP-Informal HP-Family (n=24) HP-Informal (n=3) Denny Rd-Informal Recreation areas
LP = Lane Poole HP = Honeymoon Pool
Figure 4. 14 Distance to firewood source from campsites in study recreation areas
For most of the diameter size classes, the control/undisturbed sites had a higher number of contacts per 30m of transect than the recreation areas (Table 4.22). The most frequently recorded diameter size classes were smaller pieces of coarse woody debris in the 10-25mm and 25-70mm size classes. The informal campsites had on average a higher number of contacts per 30m of transect than the designated campsites in the 10-25mm size classes (Table 4.22). Larger size classes (>300mm diameter) were generally fallen trees and were therefore less frequently encountered.
The size classes of most interest from the viewpoint of collection as firewood were in the size classes <70mm as these size classes can be removed manually or chopped with an axe.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 189
Table 4. 22 Mean number of coarse woody debris contacts by diameter class for study recreation areas Recreation Area Mean and standard deviation of number of contacts by diameter class 10-25mm 25-70mm 70-300mm 300-600mm >600mm DESIGNATED LP – Charlie’s Flat (n=16) 5.0 ± 2.5 0.7 ± 0.7 0.1 ± 0.3 - 0.1 ± 0.3 Control 18.2 ± 4.6 1.6 ± 1.5 0.2 ± 0.4 0.4 ± 0.5 0.4 ± 0.9 LP – Tony’s Bend (n=14) 5.3 ± 3.3 0.2 ± 0.4 - - - Control 17.0 ± 4.0 2.0 ± 1.9 0.4 ± 0.5 - 0.2 ± 0.4 LP – Yarragil (n=2) 10.0 ± 7.1 0.5 ± 0.7 0.5 ± 0.7 - 0.5 ± 0.7 Control 25.0 ± 0.0 3.0 ± 0.0 2.0 ± 0..0 1.0 ± 0.0 - HP (n=27) 20.0 ± 5.4 3.3 ± 2.9 0.5 ± 0.8 0.8 ± 1.2 0.5 ± 0.8 Control 67.5 ± 46.0 14.5 ± 4.9 3.0 ± 4.2 1.0 ± 0.0. 0.5 ± 0.8 Warner Glen (n=12) 23.1 ± 11.6 3.0 ± 2.8 5.7 ± 3.7 3.1 ± 2.7 1.7 ± 1.3 Control 40.0 ± 12.2 14.0 ± 11.4 5.3 ± 1.3 3.0 ± 2.7 2.0 ± 0.8 Sues Bridge (n=16) 25.5 ± 9.3 2.0 ± 1.4 2.6 ± 3.4 2.3 ± 1.7 2.3 ± 1.9 Control 56.3 ± 3.8 13.0 ± 2.4 5.3 ± 4.0 5.0 ± 3.7 1.3 ± 1.9 INFORMAL LP – Informal (n=5) 55.5 ± 18.6 2.8 ± 2.1 - - 0.3 ± 0.5 Control 129.5 ± 2.1 15.5 ± 10.6 4.5 ± 3.5 - 0.5 ± 0.7 HP – Informal (n=3) 28.8 ± 15.4 3.4 ± 2.6 0.6 ± 1.0 0.4 ± 0.7 - Control 46.2 ± 17.1 12.6 ± 7.2 2.7 ± 2.3 1.5 ± 2.1 - Denny Road – Informal (n=4) 27.5 ± 10.6 1.5 ± 0.7 - - - Control 56.5 ± 16.3 15.5 ± 4.9 2.5 ± 0.7 - - LP = Lane Poole HP = Honeymoon Pool
For coarse woody debris sized 10-25 mm in diameter, the designated campsites had less coarse woody debris than the adjacent control (Table 4.22). Of the designated recreation areas, campsites at Warner Glen and Sues Bridge had the highest average quantities of coarse woody debris. For the informal recreation areas, campsites had less coarse woody debris than the control and on average more coarse woody debris in this size class than the designated campsites (Table 4.22). For coarse woody debris sized 25-70mm in diameter, the designated campsites had less coarse woody debris than the control. For the informal recreation areas, campsites had on average 74% to
91% less coarse woody debris than the controls and on average 38% more than the designated campsites (Table 4.22). For coarse woody debris sized 70-300mm, the
A.J. Smith Biophysical 190
designated campsites had on average more than 50% less coarse woody debris than the control, while Warner Glen had 7% more coarse woody debris in this size class than the control (Table 4.22). At the informal recreation areas, campsites had on average 78% to 100% less coarse woody debris than the control and on average 88% less than the designated campsites (Table 4.22).
For coarse woody debris sized 10-25mm and 25-70mm there was no significant difference between designated and informal campsites. However, designated campsites had significantly higher quantities of coarse woody debris sized 70-
300mm than the informal campsites (Table 4.23). Comparisons were also made between designated campsites and the control and informal campsites and the control. The control had significantly more coarse woody debris sized 10-25mm and
25-70mm than the designated campsites. When the control was compared to informal campsites, the control had significantly more coarse woody debris sized 10-25mm,
25-70mm and 70-300mm than the informal campsites (Table 4.23).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 191
Table 4. 23 Means and significance for coarse woody debris Indicator Comparison of means Significance Designated sites Informal Sites Coarse woody debris – 10-25mm* 17.70 18.62 p=0.812 (NS) Coarse woody debris – 26-70mm* 2.10 1.86 p=0.709 (NS) Coarse woody debris – 71-300mm* 2.17 0.29 p=0.005a (S) Designated sites Control Coarse woody debris – 10-25mm* 17.70 43.93 p=0.000a (S) Coarse woody debris – 26-70mm* 2.10 11.11 p=0.000a (S) Coarse woody debris – 71-300mm* 2.17 3.00 p=0.308 (NS) Informal sites Control Coarse woody debris – 10-25mm* 18.62 43.93 p=0.000 (S) Coarse woody debris – 26-70mm* 1.86 11.11 p=0.000a (S) Coarse woody debris – 71-300mm* 0.29 3.00 p=0.000a (S)
a Levene’s test assumption, equal variances not assumed NS = not significant * two sample t-test used S = significant
A further impact of permitting campfires and wood supplied barbecues is tree damage where bark is peeled from trees in the campsite area to be used as kindle. It was observed on several occasions that trees were stripped of bark and evidence was found at the fire ring where visitors had stockpiled bark for later use.
4.10.2.6. Impacts to mineral soil Penetrometry was taken in the initial survey to determine the extent of compaction occurring at designated campsites, newly developed campsites, informal campsites and at associated control/undisturbed sites. There were three distinct zones of compaction on the campsite. These were the centre, middle and perimeter parts of the campsite. The centre for both designated and informal campsites was the most compacted part of the campsite (Fig. 4.15, Table 4.24). In comparing designated and informal recreation areas, the designated campsites were significantly more compacted at the centre of the campsite than the centre of informal campsites (Table
4.24). The second zone, the middle part of the campsites was significantly more compacted than the perimeter at designated and informal campsites. Designated
A.J. Smith Biophysical 192
campsites were also significantly more compacted than informal campsites for the middle part (Fig. 4.15, Table 4.24).
0.4 Centre Middle Perimeter 0.3 Control
0.2
0.1
Mean penetrometry measure (kN/cm2) 0 (n=14) (n=16) (n=4) Warren (n=17) LP-Tony's Bend LP-Tony's HP-Group (n=3) LP-Charlie's Flat LP-Charlie's LP-Yarragil (n=3) LP-Informal (n=5) LP-Informal HP-Family (n=24) HP-Informal (n=3) HP-Informal Denny Rd-Informal Sues Bridge (n=16) Sues Bridge Warner Glen (n=12) Glen Warner Warren Group (n=6) Recreation areas
LP = Lane Poole HP = Honeymoon Pool
Figure 4. 15 Mean penetrometry (kN/cm2) for study recreation areas
A.J. Smith Biophysical 193
Table 4. 24 Means and significance for soil penetrometry (kN/cm2) Indicator Comparison of means Designated Informal campsites campsites Penetrometry centre 0.2418 0.2093 middle* 0.2056 p=0.000 (S) 0.1717 p=0.000 (S) Penetrometry centre 0.2418 0.2093 perimeter* 0.0982 p=0.000 (S) 0.0726 p=0.000 (S) Penetrometry middle 0.2056 0.1717 perimeter* 0.0982 p=0.000 (S) 0.0726 p=0.000 (S) Designated Informal campsites Significance campsites Penetrometry – centre** 0.2418 0.2093 p=0.000a (S) Penetrometry – middle** 0.2056 0.1717 p=0.002 (S) Penetrometry – perimeter** 0.0982 0.0726 p=0.000a (S) Designated Newly developed campsites campsites Penetrometry – centre** 0.2418 0.1299 p=0.000a (S) Penetrometry – middle** 0.2056 0.0771 p=0.000a (S) Penetrometry – perimeter** 0.0982 0.1020 p=0.549a (NS) Designated Control campsites Penetrometry – perimeter** 0.0982 0.0342 p=0.000a (S) Informal campsites Control Penetrometry – centre** 0.2093 0.0342 p=0.000a (S) Penetrometry – middle** 0.1717 0.0342 p=0.000a (S) Penetrometry – perimeter** 0.0726 0.0342 p=0.000a (S) Newly developed Control campsites Penetrometry – centre** 0.1299 0.0342 p=0.000a (S) Penetrometry – middle** 0.0771 0.0342 p=0.000a (S) Penetrometry – perimeter** 0.1020 0.0342 p=0.000a (S)
a Levene’s test assumption, equal variances not assumed NS = not significant * Paired t-test used S = significant ** Two-sample t-test used
Designated campsites were significantly more compacted at the centre and middle than the newly developed campsites (Table 4.24). The perimeter of the designated campsites was also compared to the control as the perimeter is considered the interface between the campsite and natural environment. The perimeter of the designated campsites was significantly more compacted than the control (Table
4.24).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 194
Informal campsites and newly developed campsites were also compared to controls.
There were significant differences between informal and newly developed campsites and the associated control. Informal campsites and newly developed campsites were significantly more compacted at the centre, middle and perimeter of the campsite than the control (Table 4.24).
4.10.2.7. Evidence of human activities that contribute to soil erosion Evidence of human activities that contribute to soil erosion such as tent ditching and drainage channels that are caused by visitors were measured at designated and informal campsites. Data was collected as the percentage of campsites with human activities (e.g. tent ditching and drainage channels) that contribute to soil erosion.
Where tent ditching or drainage channels were evident at a campsite, the depth and width of these impacts were measured and placed into a severity rating (negligible to high). These impacts are described in Sect. 4.7.6. In the initial survey, Honeymoon
Pool informal and Lane Poole Yarragil had the highest prevalence of human activities that contribute to soil erosion at the campsites followed by Warner Glen.
Tent ditching was evident at more than 50% of campsites at Lane Poole Yarragil and
Honeymoon Pool informal while drainage channels were evident at Lane Poole
Yarragil at 50% of campsites (Table 4.25).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 195
Table 4. 25 Percentage of recreation area campsites with tent ditching and drainage channels Recreation Area % of campsites Tent ditching Drainage channels Initial Repeat Initial Repeat DESIGNATED LP – Charlie’s Flat (n=16) 19 25 0 31 LP – Tony’s Bend (n=14) 14 43 0 64 LP – Yarragil (n=2) 50 50 50 50 HP – Family (n=24) 0 13 33 17 HP – Group (n=3) 0 0 33 33 Warner Glen (n=12) 45 0 0 18 Sues Bridge (n=16) 6 0 13 19 NEWLY DEVELOPED Warren (n=17) 0 0 0 6 Warren Group (n=6) 0 0 0 0 INFORMAL LP – Informal (n=5) 20 0 20 0 HP – Informal (n=3) 67 33 33 67 Denny Road – Informal (n=4) 0 0 0 0 LP = Lane Poole HP = Honeymoon Pool
In the repeat survey, tent ditching and drainage channels were still evident at most of the campsites except at Warren group campsites and Denny Road informal where none were recorded. An increase in tent ditching was noticed at Lane Poole Charlie’s
Flat, Tony’s Bend and Honeymoon Pool Family. Additionally an increase in drainage channels was recorded at most of the campsites. With exception,
Honeymoon Pool Family and Lane Poole informal campsites which experienced a reduction (Table 4.25).
A negligible to high severity rating was given to drainage channels and tent ditching as described in Sect. 4.7.6., Table 4.5. The results from the initial and repeat survey are shown below (Table 4.26). Generally, only negligible to low levels of tent ditching and drainage channels were recorded at most campsites. In the initial survey, campsites in informal recreation areas had a median severity rating of negligible. Honeymoon Pool informal had the highest percentage of campsites with
A.J. Smith Biophysical 196
high levels of human activities that contribute to erosion (tent ditching and drainage channels), while Honeymoon Pool informal also showed moderate levels at some campsites (Table 4.26). Designated recreation areas also had a median severity rating of negligible with Warner Glen also showing moderate levels (Table 4.26).
Table 4. 26 Severity rating for tent ditching and drainage channels at campsites in study recreation areas (negligible to high) Recreation Area % of campsites with tent ditching and drainage channels in applicable severity rating Severity Rating Negligible Low Moderate High Initial Repeat Initial Repeat Initial Repeat Initial Repeat DESIGNATED LP – Charlie’s Flat (n=16) 13 25 6 6 - 6 - 6 LP – Tony’s Bend (n=14) 7 21 7 50 - - - - LP – Yarragil (n=2) - - 50 - - 50 - - HP – Family (n=24) 24 21 4 4 - - 4 - HP – Group (n=3) - 33 ------Warner Glen (n=12) 9 27 9 18 18 - 9 - Sues Bridge (n=16) 6 6 6 13 - - - - NEWLY DEVELOPED Warren (n=17) - - - 6 - - - - Warren Group (n=6) ------INFORMAL LP – Informal (n=5) 20 ------HP – Informal (n=3) - - 33 67 33 - 67 33 Denny Road – Informal ------(n=4) LP = Lane Poole HP = Honeymoon Pool
In the repeat survey, most campsites still generally had only negligible to low levels of human activities that contribute to erosion (tent ditching and drainage channels)
(Table 4.26). The median severity rating for both designated and informal campsites remained unchanged (negligible). Lane Poole Yarragil showed an increase from being low to moderate while Warren family campsites showed an increase from having no impact to low levels of impact. Lane Poole Charlie’s Flat campsites also showed an increase in the level of impact with some campsites having moderate to high levels of impact (Table 4.26). Lane Poole Tony’s Bend and Honeymoon Pool group also showed an increase in the level of impact at campsites (Table 4.26). The
A.J. Smith Biophysical 197
differences in severity ratings between the initial and repeat survey were, however, not significant (Table 4.27).
In order to conduct statistical analysis and because the data were recorded in category ratings the data needed to be manipulated. Each category rating was assigned a number e.g. the category negligible was assigned the number 1, the category low was assigned the number 2 and so on. As a result the means fall between 1 and 4 and are representative of each category rating. Results were taken from the initial survey. In addition to comparisons between initial and repeat measures, comparisons were also made between designated and informal campsites.
No significant difference was noted for human activities that contribute to erosion for designated and informal campsites (Table 4.27). There was, however, a significant difference between designated and newly developed campsites. No tent ditching or drainage channels had been excavated by visitors at the newly developed campsites
(Table 4.27).
Table 4. 27 Means and significance for human activities that contribute to soil erosion (e.g. tent ditching and drainage channels), negligible to high severity rating Indicator Comparison of means Significance Initial Survey Repeat Survey Tent ditching/drainage channels – 0.42 0.66 p=0.058 (NS) designated campsites* Tent ditching/drainage channels – 1.08 0.92 p=0.658 (NS) informal campsites* Designated Informal campsites campsites Tent ditching/drainage channels** 0.42 1.08 p=0.203a (NS) Designated Newly developed campsites campsites Tent ditching/drainage channels** 0.42 0.00 p=0.000a (S)
a Levene’s test assumption, equal variances not assumed NS = not significant * Paired t-test used S = significant ** Two-sample t-test used
A.J. Smith Biophysical 198
4.10.2.8. Cleanliness There was evidence of human sourced litter at campsites in all of the recreation areas
(Table 4.28). In the initial survey, campsites in designated recreation areas had a range of 0 to 40 pieces of litter. Honeymoon Pool Group had the highest mean in the initial survey (Table 4.28). At the informal recreation areas, campsites at
Honeymoon Pool informal had the highest mean in the initial surveys. Informal campsites had a range of 0 to 63 pieces of litter. In the repeat survey, Honeymoon
Pool Group had the highest mean and Warren Group had the lowest. The range for designated recreation areas in the repeat survey was 0 to 140. At the informal campsites, Honeymoon Pool informal had the highest mean with the range for informal campsites being 4 to 182 (Table 4.28).
Table 4. 28 Mean and standard deviation of the number of pieces of human sourced litter at recreation areas Recreation Area Mean and standard deviation of number of pieces of human sourced litter Initial Repeat DESIGNATED LP – Charlie’s Flat (n=16) 5.6 ± 6.2 31.6 ± 23.8 LP – Tony’s Bend (n=14) 4.8 ± 2.3 27.5 ± 23.3 LP – Yarragil (n=2) 5.0 ± 2.8 25.5 ± 3.5 HP – Family (n=24) 6.4 ± 3.8 26.2 ± 15.7 HP – Group (n=3) 26.3 ± 19.5 109.3 ± 27.2 Warner Glen (n=12) 3.8 ± 1.8 11.8 ± 8.3 Sues Bridge (n=16) 1.7 ± 2.1 5.8 ± 4.6 NEWLY DEVELOPED Warren (n=17) 0.0 ± 0.0 5.0 ± 6.7 Warren Group (n=6) 0.0 ± 0.0 2.8 ± 4.8 INFORMAL LP – Informal (n=5) 12.2 ± 6.5 45.8 ± 25.9 HP – Informal (n=3) 43.7 ± 22.1 94.0 ± 77.5 Denny Road – Informal (n=4) 16.9 ± 12.0 18.3 ± 12.0 LP = Lane Poole HP = Honeymoon Pool
A.J. Smith Biophysical 199
Designated and informal campsites had significantly more litter in the repeat survey than in the initial survey (Table 4.29). There was however, no difference between designated and informal recreation areas for the number of pieces of litter. A comparison was also made between the amount of litter at designated and newly developed campsites. The newly developed campsites had no litter which was significantly less than the designated campsites (Table 4.29).
Table 4. 29 Means and significance of human sourced litter (none to >6 pieces) Indicator Comparison of means Significance Initial Survey Repeat Survey Litter – Designated campsites* 5.47 26.73 p=0.000 (S) Litter – Informal campsites* 17.25 48.67 p=0.008 (S) Designated Informal campsites campsites Litter** 5.47 17.23 p=0.060a (NS) Designated Newly developed campsites campsites Litter** 5.47 0.00 p=0.000a (S)
a Levene’s test assumption, equal variances not assumed NS = not significant * Paired t-test used S = significant ** Two-sample t-test used
The percentage of campsites with toilet paper was recorded. In the initial survey, the majority of designated campsites had no pieces of toilet paper (Table 4.30). A higher prevalence of toilet paper was noted at informal campsites than designated campsites. Honeymoon Pool informal campsites had >5 pieces of toilet paper (up to
11 pieces of toilet paper was recorded at one campsite) (Table 4.30). Lane Poole informal campsites had 1 to 4 pieces of toilet paper at 60% of campsites and none at the remaining campsites, while Denny Road informal campsites had up to 2 pieces of toilet paper at a small percentage of campsites (Table 4.30).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 200
Table 4. 30 Percentage of campsites with toilet paper in the study recreation areas Recreation Area % of campsites with toilet paper
None 1-2 pieces of 3-4 pieces of ≥5 pieces of toilet paper toilet paper toilet paper Initial Repeat Initial Repeat Initial Repeat Initial Repeat DESIGNATED LP – Charlie’s Flat (n=16) 100 94 - 6 - - - - LP – Tony’s Bend (n=14) 100 93 - 7 - - - - LP – Yarragil (n=2) 100 100 ------HP – Family (n=24) 100 100 ------HP – Group (n=3) 100 100 ------Warner Glen (n=12) 100 100 ------Sues Bridge (n=16) 94 100 - - - - 6 - NEWLY DEVELOPED Warren (n=17) - 94 - 6 - - - - Warren Group (n=6) - 83 - 17 - - - - INFORMAL LP – Informal (n=5) 40 - 20 40 40 40 - 20 HP – Informal (n=3) - - - - - 33 100 67 Denny Road – Informal 75 100 25 - - - - - (n=4) LP = Lane Poole HP = Honeymoon Pool
In the repeat survey, the majority of recreation areas also had no pieces of toilet paper with Honeymoon Pool informal campsites again being the exception but showing a slight reduction in the amount of toilet paper by having 33% of the campsites with 3 to 4 pieces of toilet paper and 67% having >5 pieces of toilet paper
(Table 4.30). Lane Poole informal showed an increase having at least 1-4 pieces of toilet paper at 80% of the campsites and 20% having >5 pieces of toilet paper (Table
4.30). Lane Poole Charlie’s Flat and Lane Poole Tony’s Bend also had only a small percentage of campsites with 1 to 2 pieces of toilet paper (Table 4.30). However, the differences between the amount of litter in the initial and repeat survey for both designated and informal recreation areas were not significant (Table 4.31).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 201
Table 4. 31 Mean and significance of the presence of toilet paper (none to >6 pieces) Indicator Comparison of means Significance Initial Survey Repeat Survey Toilet paper – Designated campsites* 0.03 0.02 p=0.765 (NS) Toilet paper – Informal campsites* 1.25 1.42 p=0.504 (NS) Designated Informal campsites campsites Toilet paper** 0.03 1.25 p=0.008a (S) Designated Newly developed campsites campsites Toilet paper** 0.03 0.00 p=0.615 (NS)
a Levene’s test assumption, equal variances not assumed NS = not significant * Paired t-test used S = significant ** Two-sample t-test used
Using the results from the initial survey, there was a significant difference in the number of pieces of toilet paper at designated and informal campsites, with informal campsites having significantly more toilet paper than the designated campsites
(Table 4.31). Further, when the number of pieces of toilet paper was compared for the designated and newly developed campsites a significant difference was not noted
(Table 4.31).
4.10.2.9. Social trails The number of trails, including discernible trails, leading from campsites in the study recreation areas were counted in the initial and repeat survey. In the initial and repeat survey, the designated campsites, Lane Poole Charlie’s Flat, Tony’s Bend,
Honeymoon Pool group, Warner Glen and Sues Bridge had up to five trails radiating from the perimeter of the campsite (Table 4.32). Honeymoon Pool Family had less trails radiating from campsites than other recreation areas with 46% of the campsites having no trails in the initial survey and 42% of the campsites having no trails in the repeat survey (Table 4.32). In the repeat survey, a significant increase for the number of trails radiating from the campsites in the designated recreation areas was recorded
(Table 4.33).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 202
Table 4. 32 Number of social trails leading from campsites for study recreation areas Recreation Area % of campsites with trails 1 trail 2 trails 3 trails 4 trails 5 trails Initial Repeat Initial Repeat Initial Repeat Initial Repeat Initial Repeat DESIGNATED LP – Charlie’s Flat 13 13 31 25 31 31 25 25 - 6 (n=16) LP – Tony’s Bend 21 14 36 29 43 36 - 14 - 7 (n=14) LP – Yarragil (n=2) 100 50 - - - - - 50 - - HP – Family (n=24) 21 21 13 21 13 13 8 4 - - HP – Group (n=3) 33 - - 33 33 33 33 - - 33 Warner Glen (n=12) 36 - 18 18 18 27 9 36 - 18 Sues Bridge (n=16) 31 - 19 19 - 31 13 31 13 19 NEWLY DEVELOPED Warren (n=17) - 25 - 19 - 13 - - - - Warren Group (n=6) - - - 33 ------INFORMAL LP – Informal (n=5) - - 40 - - 40 40 60 20 - HP – Informal (n=3) - - 33 - 67 33 - 33 - 33 Denny Road – 25 - - - 25 25 - 75 50 - Informal (n=4) LP = Lane Poole HP = Honeymoon Pool
Table 4. 33 Mean and significance of the number of social trails radiating from campsites in study recreation areas Indicator Comparison of means Significance Initial Survey Repeat Survey Trails – Designated campsites* 1.08 1.99 p=0.000 (S) Trails – Informal campsites* 2.17 2.50 p=0.517 (NS) Designated Informal campsites campsites Trails** 1.08 2.17 p=0.013 (S) Designated Newly developed campsites campsites Trails** 1.08 0.00 p=0.000a (S)
a Levene’s test assumption, equal variances not assumed NS = not significant * Paired t-test used S = significant ** Two-sample t-test used
In the initial survey for the informal recreation areas, campsites at Denny Road had at least one social trail while the campsites at Lane Poole and Honeymoon Pool had from 2 to 5 social trails radiating from the campsites (Table 4.32). The number of trails in the repeat survey increased however this increase was not significant (Table
4.33).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 203
To determine if there was a difference between designated and informal campsites and designated and newly developed campsites for the number of social trails radiating from campsites a two-sample t-test was used. Informal campsites had significantly more social trails than designated campsites and the newly developed campsites had no social trails radiating from campsites (Table 4.33).
4.10.3. Multiple Indicator Ratings In the initial survey, designated campsites achieved a mean score that allocated them to a moderate impact class with exception to Sues Bridge which had a mean impact score that allocated the campsites to a low impact class (Fig. 4.16). For informal campsites, Lane Poole, and Denny Road had a mean score that classified the impact as moderate while Honeymoon Pool had a mean score that classified the campsites as high in the initial survey. Warren National Park newly developed campsites had a mean score that put the campsites in a low impact class (Fig. 4.16).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 204
50
Severe 40
High 30
Moderate 20
Mean cumulative impact score 10 Low
0 Initial survey Repeat survey Warren (n=17) HP-Group (n=3) LP-Yarragil (n=3) LP-Informal (n=5) LP-Informal HP-Family (n=24) HP-Informal (n=3) Sues Bridge (n=16) Sues Bridge Warner Glen (n=12) Glen Warner Warren Group (n=6) Group Warren LP-Tony's Bend (n=14) LP-Tony's LP-Charlie's Flat (n=16) Flat LP-Charlie's Denny Rd-Informal (n=4) Denny Rd-Informal Recreation areas
LP = Lane Poole HP = Honeymoon Pool
Figure 4. 16 Mean impact scores derived for study campsites
In the repeat survey, an increase in the mean impact score was noticed for designated and informal campsites. The campsites in the designated recreation areas obtained scores that were categorised into an impact class of moderate and all of the informal campsites were categorised with a high impact class. Warren National Park campsites showed an increase in the mean impact score but were still categorised into a low impact class (Fig. 4.16). The repeat survey showed a significant increase in the mean impact scores obtained at designated campsites however, there was no significant difference for informal campsites (Table 4.34).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 205
Table 4. 34 Mean and significance for mean impact classes for study parks Indicator Comparison of means Significance Initial Survey Repeat Survey Designated campsites* 23 28 p=0.000 (S) Informal campsites* 33 36 p=0.094 (NS) Designated Informal campsites campsites Impact Class** 23 33 p=0.000 (S) Designated Newly developed campsites campsites Impact Class** 23 8 p=0.000a (S)
a Levene’s test assumption, equal variances not assumed NS = not significant * Paired t-test used S = significant ** Two-sample t-test used
To determine if there was a difference between designated and informal campsites and designated and newly developed campsites for the mean impact score a two- sample t-test was used. Results from the initial survey were used for this analysis. A significant difference in the mean impact score was recorded for designated and informal campsites (Table 4.34). Designated campsites had a mean impact score of
23 (moderate) while informal campsites had a mean impact score of 28 (high).
Further, a significant difference was noted between newly developed campsites and designated campsites with newly developed campsites having a significantly lower mean impact score (Table 4.34).
4.10.4. Efficiency of Methods The efficiency of methods was tested by using scatter plots from the initial survey for designated sites (App. 3). As suggested by Leung and Marion (1999b), individual impact indicators are often evaluated separately with little consideration for the interrelationships among indicators. The purpose of conducting these tests was to see whether there was a relationship between indicators. If indicators were shown to correlate then it is possible that the indicator that provides the least information could be omitted without compromising impact assessment and monitoring objectives.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 206
Using the results for designated campsites obtained in the initial survey, there was no correlation between indicators (Table 4.35). The r-squared values were not close to 1 except for the number of trees with root exposure and the severity rating for root exposure (Table 4.35). This would be expected as they are similar measures.
Table 4. 35 r-squared values for indicators in designated recreation areas using initial survey data to show correlation between indicators Indicators Indicators r-squared values Area Seedlings Tree % tree Root Root Litter Toilet Trails Erosion damage damage exposure exposure paper (severity) (#) (severity) Area - 0.0015 0.0006 0.0206 0.0476 0.0219 0.0500 - 0.0110 0.1060 Seedlings - - 0.0264 0.0054 0.0000 0.0005 0.0087 0.0087 0.0002 0.0027 Tree damage - - - 0.2233 0.0226 0.0351 0.0047 - 0.0339 0.0073 (severity) % tree damage - - - - 0.0239 0.0314 0.0329 0.0157 0.0091 0.0105 Root exposure - - - - - 0.9126 0.0282 - 0.0002 0.2167 (#) Root exposure ------0.0515 - 0.0019 0.1503 (severity) Litter ------0.0054 0.0017 0.0069 Toilet paper ------Trails ------0.0122 Erosion ------
A.J. Smith Biophysical 207
4.11. Discussion
The following discussion is separated into three parts. The first part describes the impact of visitor use to these campsites. Impacts are discussed in groups related to a common set of causes, these groupings are: area disturbance, soil and groundcover damage, tree damage and social.
The second part discusses the application of indicators to a multiple indicator rating and the advantages and disadvantages of this approach. Finally, the third part discusses the efficiency and effectiveness of developing a monitoring program for campsites in southwest Western Australia.
4.11.1. Describing the Impacts of Visitor Use The previous section explored the biophysical impacts of recreational use of campsites in the temperate eucalypt forests of southern Western Australia. The results show that informal campsites were significantly more impacted than designated campsites. The following discussion is ordered according to the approach taken by Leung and Marion (1999b) in their Great Smoky Mountains National Park work (Table 4.36). A fourth, social component is added from this study, including vandalism and cleanliness because of the high importance afforded them by the visitors and managers surveyed.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 208
Table 4. 36 Groupings of indicators for camping impacts Camping impacts Indicators Description Area Disturbance Campsite area (estimate m2) The level of off-site Social trails (#) disturbance and potential Firewood collection (Coarse woody campsite expansion and debris quantities) proliferation. Soil and Groundcover Trees with exposed roots (#, % and Related to trampling and Damage severity rating) associated soil exposure and Tree seedlings at perimeter (#) erosion Impacts to mineral soil (penetrometry) Human activities that contribute to erosion (# of campsites with tent ditching and drainage channels and severity) Tree Related Damage Tree damage (#, % and severity) Linked to depreciative visitor behaviour. Social Vandalism Linked to depreciative visitor Cleanliness (Toilet paper and litter) behaviour Adapted from: Leung and Marion (1999b)
4.11.1.1. Area disturbance
Campsite area
Using estimations and placing these estimations into categories, the informal campsites in this study were significantly larger than designated campsites.
Measuring the area of a campsite is important because it determines the areal extent of impact. Various other studies have found the mean campsite size in backcountry campsites ranged from as low as 40m2 to 405m2, however, the majority of these studies found that campsite area was greater than 100m2 (Table 4.36). In contrast to this study, campsites in designated and non-designated areas in the United States are accessed by foot, horse (packstock) or canoe.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 209
Table 4. 37 Campsite area for selected parks and wilderness areas Area name and location Mean Campsite Camping policy Citation Area (m2) Isle Royale National Park, 68 Designated backcountry Marion and Farrell (2002) Michigan, USA campsites Kibale National Park, Uganda 198 Designated campsites Obua and Harding (1997) Delaware Water Gap National 127 Designated backcountry Cole and Fichtler (1983), Recreation Area, Pennsylvania campsites Cole and Marion (1988), and New Jersey, USA Marion (1995) Boundary Waters Canoe Area 220 Designated backcountry Cole and Fichtler (1983), Wilderness, Minnesota, USA campsites Cole and Marion (1988), Marion (1995) Cascade Mountains of western Range 40 to 188 Non-designated Cole et al. (1997) Oregon and Washington, USA backcountry campsites Jefferson National Forest, Range 103 to 262 Non-designated Leung and Marion Virginia, USA backcountry campsites (2002b) Eagle Cap Wilderness, Oregon, 200 Non-designated Cole and Fichtler (1983), USA backcountry campsites Cole and Marion (1988), Marion (1995) Bob Marshall Wilderness, 405 Non-designated Cole and Fichtler (1983), Montana, USA backcountry campsites Cole and Marion (1988), Marion (1995)
The backcountry campsites in the United States in both designated and non- designated backcountry campsites are similar in size to the informal campsites in this study (Table 4.37). Many of these campsites have developed in a similar manner to the informal campsites in this study. In contrast, the average size of campsites in the designated recreation areas in this study is considerably smaller than those found in backcountry areas in the US with exception to Isle Royale National Park, USA. Isle
Royale National Park had a mean campsite area of 68m2 and a range of 12 to 239m2
(Marion and Farrell, 2002). Similarly, the designated campsites in this study, campsites in Isle Royale National Park have been constructed and all woody vegetation, rocks and stumps removed to provide a cleared camping area and facilities are provided. Isle Royale National Park receives up to 60,000 overnight visitors per annum and the campsites have been established since the 1970’s (30 years). Marion and Farrell (2002) considered the provision of designated campsites a
A.J. Smith Biophysical 210
success in spatially concentrating camping activities and reducing camping disturbance.
A further study that examined campsites that had been cleared of natural vegetation in the initial development stages was in Kibale National Park, Uganda (Obua and
Harding, 1997). These campsites are accessed by motor vehicles and the average campsite area was 198m2 with a range of 110 to 500m2 (Table 4.37). Campsites in
Kibale National Park, Uganda have been established for 11 years and receive 5,000 visitors per annum. These campsites are generally larger than the designated campsites in this study, which have been established for 5-14 years, with the exception of Warren National Park, and receive an estimated 4,000 to 10,000 overnight visitors and 10,000 to 184,000 total visitors per annum (Table 2.1).
Campsites in Isle Royale National Park, USA were more similar in size to the designated campsites in this study although received a higher number of overnight visitors and were accessed by non-motorised means. It is, however, difficult to determine how much change has occurred since the initial development stage in
Kibale National Park and Isle Royale National Park as the campsite size that was imposed during initial construction has not been reported.
Social trails
The number of social trails radiating from a campsite may be attributed in part, to the level of off-site disturbance and the potential for campsite expansion and therefore area disturbance (Leung and Marion, 1999a). Social trails indicate inappropriate use of an area and are often difficult to control (Cole, 1990a).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 211
In this study, informal campsites had significantly more social trails than designated campsites. In examining the literature it would appear that the number of social trails radiating from a campsite is associated with the size of the campsite. As discussed previously, informal campsites are significantly larger than designated campsites in this study therefore it would be expected that there were more social trails. In the south central United States in four wilderness areas the mean campsite area at the
Upper Buffalo and Caney Creek wilderness was 62m2 and 65m2 respectively and the mean number of trails at both areas was 1.9 (McEwen et al., 1996). The campsite area and number of trails in these wilderness areas is similar to the designated campsites in this study.
Alternatively, in the original survey at Warren National Park, Western Australia the informal campsites had a mean of 3 social trails radiating from the campsites and the mean campsite area was 177m2 (Smith and Newsome, 2002). This campsite area and mean number of social trails is similar to informal campsites at all of the study parks in this study. Similar findings were also reported in the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park, USA where informal backcountry campsites had a mean area of
157m2 and the mean number of social trails was 2.8 (Marion and Leung, 1997).
The association between campsite area and number of social trails is further highlighted in examining other campsites in Great Smoky National Park, USA. On
237 backcountry, designated campsites where use limits are not imposed, the mean campsite area was 400m2 and the mean number of social trails was 4.4 (Marion and
Leung, 1997).
A.J. Smith Biophysical 212
Firewood provision and coarse woody debris
The removal of coarse woody debris contributes to off-site disturbance and increases the potential for campsite expansion and therefore area of disturbance. As discussed previously (Sect. 3.2.1.3.), as a result of firewood collection, the area affected by camping and day use activities is greatly enlarged. Where campfires are allowed there is a gradual decline in the quantities of coarse woody debris (Cole, 1990a;
Liddle, 1997). As discussed previously (Sect. 3.2.1.3.), the removal of coarse woody debris from an area can have significant ecological implications. At designated and informal campsites, depletion of coarse woody debris is of most interest at the perimeter and within the natural vegetation surrounding the campsite, as this is where most firewood collection takes place.
Firewood was provided at designated campsites at Honeymoon Pool, Warner Glen,
Sues Bridge and Warren National Park. It was also evident that all of the campsites in the study parks had either a user-made stone fire ring (informal campsites) or a management provided cement/steel fire ring (designated campsites), except at the newly developed campsites at Warren National Park. The provision of fire rings is to concentrate use but more importantly to reduce the fire hazard. Fire restrictions can be applied at the discretion of CALM management and are most likely to be applicable in the parks during the summer months when a total fire ban may be imposed (CALM, 1994). Despite the provision of firewood, designated campsites showed a significant decline in quantities of coarse woody debris when compared to an undisturbed natural area (control) for the class sizes 10-25mm diameter and 25-
70mm diameter. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the designated and informal campsites for coarse woody debris in these size classes. This
A.J. Smith Biophysical 213
suggests that the firewood supplied at designated campsites is too large to use as kindle and visitors are collecting smaller pieces of wood from the area surrounding the campsite.
Similarly, results from the study on the original campsites at Warren National Park,
Western Australia showed that designated and informal campsites had less coarse woody debris than the control (Smith and Newsome, 2002). Firewood was provided at the designated campsites. The mean number of contacts for coarse woody debris sized <70mm in diameter at designated campsites was 5 which was 93% lower than the control and at informal campsites the mean number of contacts was 30 which was
58% lower than the control (Smith and Newsome, 2002). In contrast, the results from the original survey in Warren National Park showed that informal campsites had higher levels of coarse woody debris for the <70mm diameter size class than designated campsites, however, the significance is not known.
Similar results to this study have also been found in backcountry campsites in the
United States in regards to depletion of coarse woody debris from the perimeter and natural area surrounding the campsite. Hall and Farrell (2001), as discussed in Sect.
3.3.2.6, found a significant reduction of coarse woody debris on campsites compared to control areas. Further it was stated that evidence from the study suggested that impacts to coarse woody debris are more extensive than impacts to ground vegetation in terms of areal extent of damage. The outer ring, which incorporated the perimeter of the campsite and surrounding natural vegetation, had lost 41% of coarse woody debris from 60mm to >76mm diameter. Bratton et al. (1982) also found that coarse woody debris in the 25mm and 76mm diameter size class were preferred for
A.J. Smith Biophysical 214
firewood. A decrease was noted for all types of coarse woody debris with exception to coarse woody debris >76mm in diameter.
4.11.1.2. Soil and groundcover damage
Root exposure
Root exposure is a form of tree damage that results from recreation. Root exposure is an indicator of trampling, soil exposure and erosion (Leung and Marion, 1999a). As discussed in Sect. 3.2.1.2, severe erosion of soils around tree roots may cause mortality or reduce vigour in trees. Jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) possesses both a shallow widely spreading root system and a deeper penetrating one. A dense lateral and feeder root system is present in the top 1m of soil, with a secondary dense layer of feeder roots at considerable depth (15-40m) near the water table (Abbott and
Loneragan, 1986). Most of the total root length of jarrah consists of fine roots with the majority of the root system occurring in the topsoil (Abbott and Loneragan,
1986). Most of the study parks have Eucalyptus marginata as part of the forest vegetation, therefore root exposure could become a significant problem if erosion around roots were to become severe. A further impact as a result of the presence of trees with root exposure is the negative impact on the quality of the visitor experience.
There was a significant difference for the average severity of root exposure and the number of trees with root exposure at designated and informal campsites. Informal campsites had significantly more trees with root exposure than designated campsites.
In the repeat survey a significant increase in the severity rating for root exposure was noted for designated campsites, however, informal campsites showed no change.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 215
Various studies in backcountry campsites in the US have found similar levels of root exposure as the informal campsites in this study. In Great Smoky Mountains
National Park Marion and Leung (1997) found that the mean number of trees per campsite with root exposure was 1.3 with 42% of campsites having no root exposure and at Eagle Cap Wilderness, the mean number of trees with root exposure was 5 with 50% of campsites having no root exposure (Cole and Hall, 1992; Hall and
Shelby, 1994). Similarly, in the original survey at Warren National Park, Western
Australia, 2-8 trees had root exposure at the original designated campsites with >8 trees with exposed roots at the riverbank (Smith and Newsome, 2002).
The increased amount of root exposure at informal campsites could be due to motor vehicles not being confined to a parking area as is the case at designated campsites.
Motor vehicles are able to drive over the entire campsite area whereas in designated recreation areas car parking facilities are provided at each campsite and vehicles are excluded from the tent area by barriers.
Tree seedlings
Informal campsites had significantly more tree seedlings at their perimeter than designated campsites. The centre of both informal and designated campsites was generally devoid of tree seedlings. Seedlings were measured at the perimeter to determine how much trampling had occurred at the boundary between the campsite and the natural area and therefore were regarded as representative of the potential for campsite expansion.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 216
Various other studies in the US have reported the loss of seedlings from backcountry campsites (Cole, 1982a; Cole and Fichtler, 1983; Cole, 1986b). However, these findings are not comparable to the campsites in this study. In the US studies, seedlings were counted in the disturbed campsite area and the perimeter was not included.
Impacts to mineral soil
Penetration resistance was taken to assess the extent of compaction occurring on the campsites and associated control areas. Penetrometry produces results that can be displayed with small error terms and an apparent high degree of accuracy when compared with bulk density measurements, due to a larger number of readings being able to be taken more quickly and in a shorter time frame (Liddle, 1997).
The results from this study show that the centre, middle and perimeter of the campsite are distinct zones of impact in terms of compaction. At designated and informal campsites the centre of the campsites was significantly more compacted than the middle and the perimeter and the middle was significantly more compacted than the perimeter.
Designated campsites in this study were significantly more compacted than informal campsites in all three zones. This could be due to the provision of facilities that concentrate use and the construction process where soil is pushed to the perimeter.
Also, compaction and provision of dense soil material is an integral part of site development. Concentration of use around facilities have been reported in various studies in the US that found that visitors at developed campsites spend more than three-quarters of their in-camp time close to the table, tent pad and fire site (Cole,
A.J. Smith Biophysical 217
1990a; Marion, 1995; Hammitt and Cole, 1998). At designated campsites, the centre of the campsite in this study was defined as the area surrounding the fire site or picnic table, while the centre of the informal campsites was the area surrounding the fire site. Therefore the findings in this study are consistent with the above.
Designated, informal and newly developed campsites in this study were significantly more impacted than the controls. It is difficult to compare measures of compaction with other studies due to differences in campsite conditions and varying measurement technology used (Hammitt and Cole, 1998). However, various studies in US backcountry campsites showed considerable increases in the amount of compaction on campsites as compared to controls. Increases ranged from 71% in
Bob Marshall Wilderness, to 220% in Boundary Waters Canoe Area (Hammitt and
Cole, 1998). Further, in Western Australia in the original survey in Warren National
Park, designated campsites were 304% more compacted than the controls and the informal campsites were 172% more compacted than the control (Smith and
Newsome, 2002).
In designated, developed campsites it is expected that the campsite area would be compacted. Even in newly developed campsites the campsite area is more compacted than the undisturbed control. Compaction of a campsite becomes and issue when water is no longer infiltrating into the soil and pools on the surface. This creates the necessity for visitors to excavate trenches around tents and for drainage therefore increasing the risk of campsite erosion.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 218
Evidence of human activities that contribute to soil erosion
As discussed in Sect. 3.2.1.1, soil compaction reduces infiltration rates. In flat areas,
such as the campsites in the study parks, reduced infiltration causes the campsite to
become saturated and boggy (Fig. 4.17). Soil particles become dispersed in water and
can form a crust on the soil surface after they have dried and settled (Wisconsin Dept
of Natural Resources, 2002; Gunn, 2003). Puddling can form due to water
accumulating in depressions or when the soil becomes compacted as a result of
trampling and vegetation removal or from the tyres or tracks of vehicles (Wisconsin
Dept of Natural Resources, 2002). The pooling of water on the surface increases the
need for visitors to excavate trenches around tents (tent ditching) and to dig drainage
channels to divert water away from the campsite area. There was no significant
difference between designated and informal campsites for tent ditching or human
formed drainage channels. These impacts were evident at most of the recreation
areas.
Area of puddling
Figure 4. 17 Water puddling on surface of informal campsite in Wellington Forest, Honeymoon Pool (Photo: A. Smith)
A.J. Smith Biophysical 219
Excavation of drainage channels and tent ditches can be a factor in soil erosion in that it contributes to the removal of topsoil and related deposition off-site possibly causing sedimentation of waterways in close proximity to the campsite, although only on a small scale (Gunn, 2003). Further, visitors’ excavating the campsite not only exacerbates erosion but may also contribute to the exposure of roots in the topsoil. Further impacts are the visual impact excavated trenches have on the quality of the visitor experience, the possible risk to visitor safety and degradation of the management footprint.
4.11.1.3. Tree damage Human damage to trees such as axe marks was significantly more severe at informal campsites than at designated campsites, however there was no significant difference between informal and designated campsites for the total percentage of trees damaged per campsite. Tree damage was present at all campsites. The major type of damage at both designated and informal campsites was axe marks followed by embedded nails, rope and initials carved into trees. Some of the informal campsites also had bullet holes in the trees.
For comparison with other studies, designated recreation areas had a mean of 6.4, a median of 5 trees damaged per campsite and a range of 1 to 10, while informal campsites had a mean of 12.5, a median of 10.5 trees damaged per campsite and a range of 1 to 33. In the US tree damage was more prevalent in some high use backcountry areas than in the campsites in the designated or informal recreation areas in this study. For example in riparian forested wilderness areas, Eagle Cap and
Bob Marshall wilderness areas had a median number of damaged trees per campsite of 12 and 63 respectively (Cole and Fichtler, 1983; Cole, 1986b; Cole and Marion,
A.J. Smith Biophysical 220
1988; Cole and Hall, 1992). These studies reported that while the majority of tree damage was relatively minor, such as nails driven into trunks, a considerable amount of trees bore scars from chopping, had branches mechanically removed or had been felled. At Eagle Cap it was reported that 96% of trees at campsites were damaged
(Cole and Fichtler, 1983), 77% of trees were damaged at Delaware Water Gap
National Recreation Area (Marion and Cole, 1996), and at Great Smoky Mountains
National Park a median of 63% of trees were damaged at campsites (Marion and
Leung, 1997). The percentage of trees damaged at Great Smoky Mountains National
Park is similar to the percentage of trees damaged in the repeat survey at informal campsites in this study.
In contrast, the original campsite survey at Warren National Park, Western Australia found that designated campsites had higher levels of tree damage than informal campsites. The majority of trees had at least one or two different types of human damage and these levels were considered high (2-8 trees damaged) at designated campsites and low (≤2 trees damaged) at informal campsites (Smith and Newsome,
2002). These findings from the designated campsites at Warren National Park are more consistent with the findings at designated campsites in this study, while the informal campsites in the original survey at Warren National Park had less tree damage.
Tree damage has been reported to not necessarily compromise the long-term health of mature trees (Sect. 3.2.1.2), however various studies have shown that extensive carving or chopping can kill small trees and badly damage old trees (Brown et al.,
1977). It may be considered that the main consequence of human damage to trees is
A.J. Smith Biophysical 221
the impact that such damage has on the visitor experience (Sect. 5.2.5.). Most tree damage is caused by a few destructive parties (Cole and Fichtler, 1983). This damage can have a negative impact on visitor quality and is linked to depreciative visitor behaviour (Leung and Marion, 1999a).
4.11.1.4. Social
Vandalism
Facilities are provided at designated recreation areas. The provision of facilities coupled with clearly signposted campsites encourages the spatial concentration of camping activities. It was shown in the repeat survey that some campsites had a reduction in the number of facilities provided. This reduction in facilities was due to vandalism and was particularly noticeable in Lane Poole for fire rings (Fig. 4.18)
(Moore, 2003). Those campsites that showed an increase in the number of facilities was due to management replacing items such as picnic table/benches with other seating such as constructed seats or logs with seating grooves or vice versa. While vandalism of facilities has no effect on the natural environment it has implications for the quality of the visitor experience because it represents depreciative behaviour.
Figure 4. 18 Vandalism of facilities (fire ring) at designated campsites (Photo: A. Smith)
A.J. Smith Biophysical 222
Cleanliness
Human sourced litter evokes strong responses from visitors and they react particularly negatively to even small amounts of litter (Sect. 5.2.5). Litter at the designated campsites was often found in association with facilities such as fire rings and picnic tables/benches where food is prepared. The most frequently recorded types of litter at informal and designated campsites were small pieces of litter such as, plastic, ring pulls and bottle tops, cigarette butts and aluminium foil. There was no significant difference between the number of pieces of litter at designated and informal campsites even though bins are provided for rubbish disposal at designated campsites (Sect. 2.2, Table 2.3).
In the original study conducted by Smith and Newsome (2002) at Warren National
Park, Western Australia, designated campsites had a mean of 5 pieces of litter and informal campsites had a mean of 6 pieces of litter with the maximum being 13.
Informal campsites exceeded acceptable standards although litter levels were still considered low. The relatively low levels of litter at designated campsites were attributed to the presence of bins. The figures for the original survey at Warren
National Park are considerably lower than those found in this study.
A centrally located bin facility is located at Lane Poole, Honeymoon Pool and
Warner Glen while Sues Bridge has bins at each individual campsite. Of these designated recreation areas, Sues Bridge had the lowest mean number of pieces of litter and these levels were more similar to the levels at the original survey at Warren
National Park. The survey at the newly developed campsites in Warren National Park after use had begun also showed similar mean levels of litter to the original survey in
A.J. Smith Biophysical 223
this park. This could imply that providing individual bins at a campsite encourages visitors to properly dispose of even small pieces of litter, however, the amount of litter is also dependent on the time of year i.e. peak periods, amount of use and the management effort in cleaning it up.
The major consequence of litter in natural areas is the effect that its presence has on the visitor experience. Indirect impacts of litter include: injury or mortality of certain types of wildlife; attraction of wildlife causing a change in natural feeding habits; an additional source of pollution to waterways; and food waste can increase nutrient concentrations in the soil (Kuss et al., 1990; Hammitt and Cole, 1998).
Improper disposal and concentration of human faeces is a recognized problem with the predominant issues being aesthetics and water contamination with the resultant potential for disease transmission (Cilimburg et al., 2000). At all of the designated recreation areas pit toilets or flush toilets on septic tanks (Honeymoon Pool) were provided. No toilets were provided at informal recreation areas. Designated campsites had only a low occurrence of toilet paper. All of the informal campsites had the presence of toilet paper ranging from 1 to 11 piles recorded. Informal campsites had significantly more toilet paper than designated campsites. This would be attributed to the lack of toilets and the improper burial of human waste by visitors.
The issue of improper disposal of human waste is an additional concern at informal campsites due to their close proximity to a water body. All of the informal campsites are located 1 to 30m from the water body with many of them being located directly on the bank of the water body. Cilimburg et al. (2000) suggested that the potential
A.J. Smith Biophysical 224
for contamination of water systems and the resultant potential for disease transmission is an overriding concern for campsites located in close proximity to water bodies. Further, improperly disposed human waste has a negative impact on the quality of the visitor experience. A setback of 60m from water bodies is recommended to reduce the chance of wastes entering water systems and faeces should be buried in ‘cat holes’ 15-20cm deep and covered over, not left on the surface (Cilimburg et al., 2000).
4.11.2. Multiple Indicator Ratings Using impact scores and ratings enable the volume of data collected in visitor monitoring programmes to be reduced into simple yet meaningful information
(Leung and Marion, 1998). Leung and Marion (1998) described the benefits of using impact classes, they: (1) quantify information on site and environmental conditions,
(2) they summarise and integrate information making it more comprehensive and useful to policy makers, and (3) they simplify and therefore facilitate communication among scientists, resource managers and the public. As discussed in Sect. 3.3.2.3., there are inherent limitations in using multiple indicator ratings. One of these limitations is the mathematical appropriateness of summing ordinal scale measurements. Another is that the process of summing the ratings from different parameters and then noting the resultant sum gives only an estimate of impact (Cole, pers. comm., 2003).
Informal campsites obtained a significantly higher impact score than designated campsites. There was also a significant difference between designated and newly developed campsites, with designated campsites obtaining a significantly higher impact score than newly developed campsites.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 225
Obua and Harding (1997) used multiple indicator ratings in nine motor accessed, developed campsites in Kibale National Park, Uganda. As mentioned previously, these sites were cleared of vegetation during development. The multiple indicator rating system was based on Cole (1989) that includes ratings and weights (Table
3.7). The impact classes are as described in Sect. 3.3.2.3. Obua and Harding (1997) defined four impact classes that ranged from low to severe. The rating system applied at Kibale National Park was developed for backcountry campsites. Weights were modified from Cole (1989), however, vegetation loss, mineral soil increase and development were included even though the campsites were initially cleared of vegetation. Further, these indicators had weights applied that implied they were important in determining the amount of impact a site receives as a result of recreational use. For example, vegetation loss was calculated by measuring the percentage cover of vegetation on-site compared with nearby undisturbed forest. The weight applied to vegetation loss was 2 out of a possible weight of 1-3. Further discussion of modifying backcountry rating systems for developed campsites is provided in Sect. 4.7.8.
As no previous studies have modified indicator ratings for developed campsites comparison of the impact scores cannot be made. The study by Obua and Harding
(1997) highlights the necessity to tailor multiple indicator ratings to each individual situation. Impact parameters and associated weightings applied in a backcountry area may not be applicable to developed, designated campsites due to the inclusion of indicators that define how changed the campsite is from natural condition. The
A.J. Smith Biophysical 226
selection of indicators and the associated weights used in this study were discussed in detail in Sect. 4.10.3.
4.11.3. Developing a Monitoring Program for Campsites Monitoring provides reliable information on changing resource conditions and essential information for evaluating the acceptability of recreational impacts and of management actions implemented to correct such problems (Marion and Leung,
1997). The combined monitoring approach outlined in this study (App. 1) takes on average 26 minutes (range 19-38 minutes) to complete the initial survey and 12 minutes (range 6-26 minutes) to complete a repeat survey (as outlined in Sect. 4.1) and uses minimal but affordable equipment to conduct measures. The combined system approach (Sect. 4.2) was shown to be effective and efficient in determining the impacts associated with developed, designated campsites in the temperate eucalypt forest of southwest Western Australia.
In comparing designated to informal campsites this study shows a designated campsite policy reduces the amount of impact experienced as a result of recreation.
However, in order to determine the amount of impact that occurred on designated campsites as a result of recreational use it was desirable that these campsites be compared to newly developed campsites. As discussed previously, existing research on backcountry campsites compares the amount of impact to undisturbed controls.
The use of an undisturbed control in comparing impacts at developed, designated campsites is not desirable because a management footprint is imposed. Therefore, before recreation use begins the area is already modified from natural condition. In comparing developed campsites to an undisturbed control, the perceived impact would not be representative of the impact caused by recreation use, rather it
A.J. Smith Biophysical 227
represents, in part, the impact imposed by the management footprint. Therefore, collecting data on newly developed campsites and then comparing this data to existing developed campsites enables managers to determine how changed from initial development (before use begins) the developed campsites have become as a result of recreational use.
This study was the first attempt to modify rating systems that have traditionally been developed and applied in backcountry areas in the United States. It was necessary to modify backcountry rating systems because indicators such as campsite area, vegetation loss and bare ground are weighted heavily. For example, Cole (1989) applied a weight of four to the indicator for camp area, which is the highest possible weight for indicators in that rating system. Further, indicators such as mineral soil increase (the percentage of the campsite without live ground cover vegetation or duff compared to an undisturbed control) and vegetation loss have a weight of three and two applied respectively (Cole, 1989). Additionally, indicators such as development are included in backcountry rating systems because facilities such as fire rings are seen as undesirable (Roggenbuck et al., 1993). In developed, designated campsites, an area cleared of vegetation and the provision of facilities is desirable and makes the site more functional. Therefore, including indicators such as vegetation loss, development and soil exposure would result in inflated impact ratings and are therefore not applicable impact indicators for developed campsites. Impact ratings developed for backcountry areas could be applied to informal campsites because these campsites have developed over time by users and a management footprint is not imposed. However, for ease of comparison with designated campsites the rating system developed in this study was applied.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 228
Results from this study show that indicators such as the number of tree seedlings at the perimeter might not be a good predictor of change. Measures for tree seedlings at the perimeter had high standard deviations. Tree seedlings may not be a good indicator of change because there is so much natural variation. The presence or absence of tree seedlings is not directly attributed to recreation use (trampling) at the perimeter but is also affected by a range of environmental variables.
Results on the efficiency of methods indicated that there was no correlation between impact indicators. The lack of correlation between indicators suggests that all of the indicators should be measured so as not to compromise impact assessment and monitoring objectives. An exception to this was the number of trees with root exposure and the severity of root exposure. These results suggest that one of these measures could be omitted or left out. However, no such correlation was found between the number and severity of trees damaged. Only measuring the number of trees damaged or with root exposure is also problematic because counting the number of trees does not indicate how severe the extent of damage is. The number of trees with damage is enhanced by including the severity of damage. For example, if two campsites both have 60% of the trees damaged it does not necessarily mean that both campsites have equal impact. If one of the campsites had the majority of trees with only one or two axe marks and the other had extensive mutilations then the latter would be more severely impacted even though the same number of trees were damaged. Therefore, to add to the interpretation as to the amount of tree damage and root exposure it would be preferable that both severity and counts were included even though there are inherent problems with evaluating the severity of damage.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 229
Cole (1989) and Marion and Leung (1997) commented on the difficulty of evaluating the extent of tree damage and root exposure on campsites. Measuring tree damage and root exposure by applying a severity rating is problematic due to the inherent subjectivity in judgements. To improve the precision for these indicators, photographs illustrating the extent of damage can be used. More detailed or quantitatively derived definitions would not likely be effective due to the significant diversity in tree sizes and types and arrangement of tree damage or root exposure
(Marion and Leung, 1997). A further issue in defining the extent of impact is that trees are often assessed on-site while trees that are damaged off-site are not included
(Cole, 1989). A count of trees only damaged on-site is problematic because the amount of tree damage is likely to be underestimated. Further, the problem with counting tree damage off-site is that evaluators may go different distances from the campsite to search for damaged trees (Cole, 1989).
In this study, many of these concerns as to the applicability of measuring the extent of tree damage and root exposure and the number of trees with damage or root exposure were considered. Only the researcher assigned tree damage and root exposure to severity ratings thereby eliminating some of the subjectivity of judgements. Further, photographs were included for guidance. To address the concern of only measuring tree damage on-site and to eliminate the variability in distance from the campsite for off-site measures, trees were counted on-site and up to
2m from the perimeter. This distance was chosen because, due to the developed nature of the campsites only a few metres of natural vegetation act as a barrier between campsites and this vegetation is relatively dense. Further, preliminary trials
A.J. Smith Biophysical 230
were conducted to determine how far from the campsite this type of damage extended. It was found that the majority of tree damage occurred within this 2m distance.
4.12. Conclusion
In summary, designated campsites were significantly less severely impacted than informal campsites. They were generally smaller, had less tree damage and root exposure, had a less frequent occurrence of inadequately disposed human waste and had less social trails radiating from the campsite. Similar values were recorded for the quantities of coarse woody debris, the percentage of trees damaged per campsite and the number of pieces of litter. Designated campsites did however have significantly higher values for soil compaction. While informal campsites were clearly more impacted than designated campsites, the designated campsites have also been altered by recreation use. Designated campsites are significantly more impacted than newly developed campsites (Warren National Park) for all of the indicators except the presence of inadequately disposed human waste and compaction at the perimeter of the campsite where levels were similar. The seedlings at the perimeter were also significantly higher at the designated campsites but this would be expected due to the construction process at newly developed campsites eliminating seedlings.
The previous chapters examined the biophysical impacts of recreation use of campsites. In order to provide an integrated analysis of the impacts as a result of recreational use of campsites it is necessary that the social component is also considered. The following chapter offers a literature review determining the social impacts from recreation in natural areas and assessment and monitoring of social conditions.
A.J. Smith Biophysical 231
PART III: SOCIAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
Chapter 5 Assessing Social Impacts and Considerations
5.1. Introduction
This chapter explores the social characteristics and impacts of recreational use of campsites. This chapter is divided into two sections. Section one reviews the current literature to describe the social impacts of recreation at camping areas. Social impacts as a result of recreation in natural areas can be considered human effects on biophysical and social conditions that detract from or enhance associated values.
These values can be considered as social values and socio-cultural values (Cessford,
2000a). Social perceptions of biophysical impacts and social conditions such as solitude are the focus of this study. The discussion concentrates on six research themes, these include: visitor outcomes; use and user characteristics; recreation conflict; evaluating management outcomes; perception of resource impacts which includes a discussion on defining social indicators and standards; and social values.
Section two reviews the methods described in the current literature to monitor social conditions in camping areas. Various monitoring techniques are discussed including: counting visitors; questionnaires and personal interviews; site-based surveying; and observing visitors.
5.2. Social Impacts from Recreation in Natural Areas
Accurate information on visitor needs and expectations and on levels and patterns of use is essential for managers to make informed decisions on the provision and
A.J. Smith Social 232
management of nature-based recreation and tourism opportunities and the ongoing monitoring of visitor activities (CALM, 2000c). Pitts and Smith (1993) stated that without baseline information on visitors, there is no benchmark information for monitoring the effectiveness of future management plans and for revising planning documents. Furthermore, management practices tend to be based on the personal intuition of the manager and are often dictated by external pressures such as finance availability and staff constraints in the absence of visitor data (Hammitt and Cole,
1998).
Visitor information is needed for:
Preparation of regional and area management plans;
Broad-scale recreation resource planning;
Detailed site design;
Scheduling of facility maintenance activities and other field operations;
Visitor management and interpretive planning;
Output based management and budgeting;
Business planning and the preparation of economic analyses and forecasts;
Visitor communications, marketing and information dissemination;
Performance evaluation, and
Environmental and social impact assessment and monitoring.
(CALM, 2000c; Newsome et al., 2002a)
On-site recreation activities can have major effects on the social conditions prevailing at a site, some of which may represent serious impacts on desired social values (Cessford, 2000a; Cole and McCool, 2000; Manning and Lime, 2000).
A.J. Smith Social 233
Visitors are affected by a series of interrelated impacts that result from recreational use of natural areas and there seems to be no single predictable response of visitors to varying use levels (Kuss et al., 1990). Various studies in the US have found that visitors are often more concerned with basic managerial (e.g. restroom facilities) and social conditions such as noise, crowding, conflict among visitors and littering rather than resource conditions such as campsite and trail impacts (Buckley and Pannell,
1990; Hendee et al., 1990; Lucas, 1990a, b; Hammitt and Cole, 1998; Tarrant et al.,
1999). Alternatively, Morin (1996) in Nuyts Wilderness Area, Western Australia,
Smith and Newsome (2002) in Warren National Park, Western Australia and
Roggenbuck et al. (1993) in four wilderness areas in the southern US, found that survey respondents were more concerned about biophysical impacts such as the number of trees damaged, amount of vegetation loss and bare ground and erosion rather than social impacts such as size and number of other groups.
Social characteristics and impacts and on-site recreation activities provide the focus of this study. Table 5.1 discusses a variety of research questions and themes that exist in assessing social characteristics and impacts. These themes, as mentioned previously, are all interrelated even though they are described separately below. The social impact themes of most interest in this study are theme 2, characteristics, theme
4, evaluating management outcomes and theme 5, perception of resource impacts
(Table 5.1). These themes will be discussed in the most detail and a brief overview of the others.
A.J. Smith Social 234
Table 5. 1 Major research themes in determining social impacts associated with recreation use Research themes Description Recent examples (1) Visitor outcomes Satisfaction/disappointment Robertson and Colletti Suggestions and comments (1994) Visitor experience Tarrant et al. (1999) Behan et al. (2000)
(2) Characteristics Visitor profiling e.g. demographic and socio- Watson et al. (1992) (Use and User) economic attributes of individuals, reasons for Cole et al. (1995) visiting, attitudes, motivations, preferences, Hall and Shelby (1998) expectations, information needs Spencer et al. (1999) Visitor numbers including mode of arrival (e.g. bus or car), entry and exit points Use patterns e.g. sites visited, seasonal use patterns, group size, length of stay, frequency of visits and activities undertaken Visitor motivation and expectations
(3) Recreation conflict Inter-activity conflict characteristics Watson et al. (1993) Social conflict processes Watson et al. (1994) Crowding and conflict perceptions Watson and Niccolucci Enhance site capacity e.g. carrying capacity (1995) Site succession Kearsley and Coughlan Site and activity specificity (1999) Coping strategies Farrell and Marion (2000) Inappropriate uses and behaviours Off-site intrusion
(4) Evaluating management Classify management options Vorkinn (1998) outcomes Evaluate management option effectiveness White and Lovett (1999) Determine success of management Richer and Christensen interventions (1999) Visitor use restrictions and controls Morin et al. (1997) Provision of visitor facilities and services Conservation operations Visitor preferences
(5) Perception of resource Impact tolerances Morin et al. (1997) impacts Acceptability of impacts Kim and Shelby (1998) Indicators and standards Chin et al. (2000) Key performance indicators Smith and Newsome (2002) Moore et al. (in press)
(6) Social values Sense of place e.g. investigates the nature of Williams (1998) ‘place’ values associated with defined sites Sharpe and Ewert (2000) Visitor preferences Warzecha et al. (2000) Value classifications e.g. similarities and Borrie and Birzell (2001) differences in social value patterns among Cole (2001) different groups Place and activity attachment Site quality
A.J. Smith Social 235
5.2.1. Visitor Outcomes Managers often require feedback from visitors on the things that satisfy or dissatisfy them (Hendee et al., 1990). Satisfaction is one of the most commonly used indicators to assess the quality of the recreation experience (Kuss et al., 1990; Borrie and
Birzell, 2001). The majority of the literature on recreational satisfaction recognises that satisfaction is influenced by a variety of subjective and situational variables
(Kuss et al., 1990; Borrie and Birzell, 2001). Visitor satisfaction is influenced not only by the conditions one encounters at a recreation area, but also by what the visitor was hoping to achieve through their visit. Recent examples of studies that deal with visitor outcomes are given in Table 5.1.
5.2.2. Characteristics (Use and User) Use and user characteristics include information about factors such as: how many people visit a recreation area, who the visitors are, what activities they participate in, what type of group they visit in, where they come from, the types of trips they take, the places they visit, what time of year they visit, their behaviour, knowledge and experience (Watson and Cole, 1992; Cole and McCool, 2000) (Table 5.1). Without knowledge of the characteristics of use and users, management of recreation in natural areas is extremely difficult (Roggenbuck and Lucas, 1987; Lucas, 1990a).
Defining visitor and visit characteristics has received a considerable amount of attention from researchers since the 1960s (Roggenbuck and Lucas, 1987; Cole and
McCool, 2000).
A variety of information can be obtained by assessing characteristics and a range of studies address a combination of use and user characteristic information. Examples of studies that have covered a variety of relevant topics are reported below.
A.J. Smith Social 236
Information on total visitation allows comparison of use levels among areas and over time, which allows managers to focus on areas with the greatest real or potential problems (Roggenbuck and Watson, 1988; Lucas and Stankey, 1989; Cole et al.,
1995; Hall and Shelby, 1998). Knowledge of the distribution of use can narrow the focus to site-specific actions to deal with the impacts of recreation (Hall and Shelby,
1998; Spencer et al., 1999). Length of stay information has implications for on-site visitor management and education, for example, impacts relating to camping may be targeted in areas with mainly overnight use (Watson et al., 1992; Cole et al., 1995;
Cole, 2001). Understanding how many visitors are repeat users can also assist in planning long-term education programmes and in anticipating lag times in behavioural changes (Cole et al., 1995; Hall and Shelby, 1998; Cole, 2001).
Knowledge of method of travel is useful in addressing user-specific impacts while information on where visitors live can help managers plan educational programs in appropriate locations (Watson et al., 1992; Williams et al., 1992; Hall and Shelby,
1998; Spencer et al., 1999).
5.2.3. Recreation Conflict Recreation conflict consists of a variety of different conflict issues and includes inter-group encounters and conflicts, intra group encounters and conflicts, inappropriate uses and behaviours and off-site intrusions (Table 5.1). These issues are discussed briefly below.
5.2.3.1. Inter-group encounters and conflicts Social interactions among visitors to natural areas and with other stakeholders (e.g. locals versus tourists, management versus users) usually involves inter-group conflict due to negative perceptions of the presence, behaviour and characteristics of other people depending on the normative behaviour and conditions accepted for the
A.J. Smith Social 237
situation and setting (Lucas, 1990b; Cessford, 2000a). Conflicting groups are typically of different activity types (e.g. hikers versus horse riding i.e. Watson et al.
(1993), motorised versus non-motorised) that are sharing sites and competing for access to their desired recreation experiences (Cessford, 2000a; Cole and McCool,
2000). Recent examples of studies that deal with recreation conflict are given in
Table 5.1.
5.2.3.2. Intra-group encounters and conflicts Recreation crowding has been the most common focus of intra-group conflict research. Recreation crowding reflects how different use-levels and behaviour-styles within an activity are interpreted as appropriate. Intra-group conflicts may arise between people involved in the same activity but who differ in terms of the primary qualities they expect to experience (Table 5.1) (Lucas, 1990c; Cessford, 2000a; Cole and McCool, 2000; Manning and Lime, 2000). Kearsley & Coughlan (1999) used a mail-back questionnaire (n=970, response rate 46.5%) at 22 sites within the New
Zealand backcountry to explore the extent to which displacement was occurring in natural areas. Half of the overall sample felt that they had experienced more people than expected on their trip. As a result, respondents that expressed dissatisfaction with their trip employed a range of cognitive and behavioural coping mechanisms to deal with crowding such as: deciding to go elsewhere next time (inter-site displacement); saw it necessary to re-evaluate their trip (product shift) and change their thoughts about the trail they were on; walked side-trails branching off from the main route to avoid crowds (intra-site displacement); or planned their trip to avoid busy times of the day or season (Kearsley and Coughlan, 1999). Other recent examples of studies that deal with recreation conflict are given in Table 5.1.
A.J. Smith Social 238
5.2.3.3. Inappropriate uses and behaviours Some activities and actions have more obtrusive effects than others. Obtrusive activities, use-styles and behaviours are most likely to consistently generate social impacts with others that consider such effects inappropriate and unacceptable (Table
5.1) (Cessford, 2000a; Manning and Lime, 2000). For example, Bayfield (1986) found that visitors considered the impact of off-road vehicles and the associated tracks in the Cairngorms, Scotland to be intrusive to their outdoor experience. A further example is in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, where winter use increased over a 10-year period. The emphasis was placed on snowmobiles as the primary mode of transportation. This brought into focus a host of winter-related issues, including air pollution, unwanted sound, wildlife impacts and the adequacy of agency budgets, staff and infrastructure to manage the burgeoning use (Sacklin et al.,
2000).
5.2.3.4. Off-site intrusions Social impacts can arise due to human activity on the land, airspace or water beyond direct management control e.g. aircraft over-flights, activities on lakes and rivers and activities on adjacent lands (Table 5.1) (Lucas, 1990c; Cessford, 2000a, b).
Intrusions by effects such as noise, light, the presence of unacceptable activities, developments or land-uses can have a negative effect on the recreation experience and sociocultural values (Lucas, 1990c; Cessford, 2000a, b). For example, Cessford
(2000b) found in a study conducted at a collection of trails known as the ‘Great
Walks’, which include the most popular and well-known multi-day walking trails in
New Zealand, that some noise effects e.g. noise from motorboats were noticed at very loud levels, and a varied range of tolerance for these was noted. Aircraft noise
A.J. Smith Social 239
provided the most extreme impact example, while noise impacts from motorboats and social behaviour in huts were also noticed (Cessford, 2000b).
5.2.4. Evaluating Management Outcomes Evaluating management outcomes includes evaluating management option effectiveness, determining the success of management interventions, visitor use restrictions and controls, the provision of facilities and services, visitor preferences, and classifying management options (Table 5.1). The impacts from management interventions may be direct or indirect, planned or unplanned, and have positive and negative consequences. Management intervention aims to change the physical conditions of sites and the social conditions of related recreation experiences through various actions, for example: provision of certain facilities (direct); visitor safety or facility maintenance (indirect) (Cessford, 2000a; Manning and Lime, 2000). The impacts from these actions may be limited to some visitors while others will regard the actions as a positive outcome. Examples of studies that deal with evaluating management outcomes include Vorkinn (1998) who examined the effects of behavioral regulations in a nature area in southern Norway. Additionally, White and
Lovett (1999) studied visitors willingness-to-pay within the UK's North York Moors
National Park. Richer and Christensen (1999) also studied the willingness-to-pay in the Desolation Wilderness in the United States. A further example of evaluating management outcomes is visitors’ preferences for proposed management actions. An example of this is given in the following section.
A.J. Smith Social 240
5.2.4.1. Visitors’ preferences for proposed management actions Managers often seek visitors’ preferences for proposed management actions to ensure that such actions do not affect the quality of the visitor experience or satisfaction (Table 5.1). Morin et al. (1997) in the survey conducted in Nuyts
Wilderness Area, Western Australia asked respondents their views, from strongly support to strongly oppose, on potential management actions to deal with threats to
Nuyts. Overall, the respondents supported all of the potential management actions with the most preferred actions being: to educate users more about minimal impact use and camping techniques; rehabilitate degraded areas; take remedial action to stop the spread of dieback16 by foot traffic into the area; provide instructive maps of the area at main trail-head at Tinglewood; limit the number of people per group; and discourage the use of over-used areas. A similar survey by Chin et al. (2000) in
Borneo also found support for regulatory actions such as limiting forest use and the number of visitors and indirect actions such as visitor education. A further study in three wilderness areas in Oregon found that regulating visitors through restricting access and site closures was generally supported (Shindler and Shelby, 1993).
Studies such as these indicate that there was a reasonable level of support for increased regulation and management intervention. This may be due to the strong belief that damage is caused by others and enforcement will deal with others’ misdemeanours and further that the main concern associated with social conditions was the poor behaviour by people in other groups as supported by the BC survey
(B.C. Forest Service, 1995; Morin et al., 1997).
16 Dieback: the introduced plant pathogen Phytophthora cinnamomi can cause death of native plant species in southwest Western Australia and is known as ‘dieback’ disease (Brown et al., 1998). A.J. Smith Social 241
5.2.5. Perception of Resource Impacts Perception of resource impacts include examining tolerances to impacts, the acceptability of impacts, defining indicators and standards and key performance indicators (Table 5.1). Resource impacts can affect the recreation experience by creating undesirable conditions. For example, campsites with root exposure may decrease the functional utility of a campsite, while litter and tree damage may be considered a visual impact and adversely affect the visitors’ experience.
A significant body of research addresses visitors’ perceptions of site conditions
(resource and social). Accompanying interest in conditions, is determining impacts of importance e.g. tree damage and litter. Ideally this perceptual work precedes and determines the focus of biophysical monitoring, as detailed in the previous chapter.
The presence of litter is an example of visitors’ perceptions of site conditions having a negative influence on the quality of the visitor experience. Various studies have found that many visitors react particularly negatively and evoke strong responses to even small amounts of litter (Martin et al., 1989; Lucas, 1990a, b; Roggenbuck et al.,
1993; Morin et al., 1997; Kim and Shelby, 1998; Chin et al., 2000; Smith and
Newsome, 2002). The amount of litter is directly linked to visitor behaviour and as such is related to the moods and motivational forces underlying individual behaviour while on site (Hammitt and Cole, 1998). Lucas (1990a, b) commented that such strong responses might be because littering is viewed as a violation of strongly held norms and thus, seen as evidence of abuse rather than normal use.
A.J. Smith Social 242
As described above, a variety of resource impacts can have a negative influence on the visitor experience. As mentioned previously, planning frameworks such as Limit of Acceptable Change (LAC) that aim to minimise the discrepancy between existing conditions and management objectives have increased the interest in the development of indicators and standards (Cole and McCool, 2000). The use of biophysical indicators and standards have been previously discussed in Sect. 3.3.1, the following section discusses indicators and standards with emphasis on the social component.
5.2.5.1. Defining indicators and standards As discussed previously, an important aspect in natural area planning is gaining the consensus of natural area users regarding what constitutes the desired natural area conditions and how those conditions should be maintained (Morin et al., 1997).
Biophysical and social indicators and standards are selected as part of the planning process for frameworks such as Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC), Visitor Impact
Management (VIM), Tourism Optimisation Management Model (TOMM) and
Visitor Experience Resource Protection (VERP) (Nilsen and Tayler, 1997). Visitor impact frameworks use indicators to guide what to monitor and against what standards (Newsome et al., 2002a; Moore et al., in press). Public input is an important component of planning frameworks, because selecting indicators and standards for resource and social conditions involves identifying which resource conditions are most important and what level of impacts are acceptable (White et al.,
2001). This is particularly important for policies such as concentrating use in designated areas, it is important that the impacts and conditions in these areas are acceptable to visitors for the policies to be effective (White et al., 2001).
A.J. Smith Social 243
Social indicators have received some research attention but not to the same extent as resource indicators (Roggenbuck and Lucas, 1987; Watson and Cole, 1992;
Roggenbuck et al., 1993; Morin et al., 1997; Manning and Lime, 2000). The social indicators most commonly measured, usually via a written questionnaire, include number of other parties encountered (for trails, rivers and lakes) and number of parties camped within site or sound (Williams et al., 1992; Ashor, 2000; Lah, 2000;
Cole and Stewart, 2002; Moore et al., in press).
Morin et al. (1997) conducted research to identify and formulate indicators and associated standards, via a mail-back survey conducted in 1995, for the management of recreation impacts in Nuyts Wilderness Area on the south coast of Western
Australia. Standards were determined for two biophysical indicators – tree damage and vegetation loss – and four social indicators – number and size of groups, litter and human-made structures such as signs. Morin et al. (1997) found that the environmental conditions of greatest influence on the quality of visitor experience were amount of litter, inadequate disposal of human waste, presence of wildlife, walk trail erosion, vegetation loss and tree damage. Further, respondents had the lowest level of tolerance and set the highest standards for litter and damage to trees while tolerance for social effects such as the number of other groups seen were higher.
Questions related to both resource and social conditions associated with campsites and walk trails. The results of this study implied that management efforts should be differentially directed towards indicators of greatest concern, such as litter and tree damage (Morin et al., 1997).
A.J. Smith Social 244
5.2.6. Social Values Natural areas are considered important to people for a variety of reasons and as such social values are attached to natural areas (Table 5.1). An emotional bond commonly develops between visitors and these places and can become “their place”, “a favourite place”, or the “only place” for natural area recreation pursuits (Hammitt and Cole, 1998). Place or activity attachment produces a state of psychological well- being experienced by a person as a result of the mere presence, vicinity or accessibility of the natural area or involvement in the desired activity (Sharpe and
Ewert, 2000; Warzecha et al., 2000).
Sharpe and Ewert (2000) defined three main implications that place attachment has in natural areas. First, visitors who area attached to the natural area may have a more meaningful experience. The natural are becomes an integral component of the recreation experience. Second, place attachment can play a role in the enduring nature of the experience e.g. a common thread among environmentalists was the development of an attachment to a natural setting in childhood, and also the intensity of emotion felt toward an environmental state was a significant predictor for environmental behavior. Third, place attachment has potential applications as a tool to classify visitors. Place-oriented visitors, or visitors whose main motivation for visiting an area is to enjoy the place itself, have been found to be more sensitive to ecological impacts at the site of the attachment, as well as to intrusions of sight, sound and other recreationists
A.J. Smith Social 245
The above findings highlight the necessity for managers to recognize the importance of place attachment and incorporate it into the planning process to fulfill differing visitor needs. Place attachment can also affect responses from visitors in surveys distributed by managers. Warzecha et al. (2000) found that respondents indicated different levels of acceptance for potential management actions, depending on the strength of their attachment to the resource.
5.3. Assessment and Monitoring of Social Conditions
Monitoring is essential for managers who are increasingly being required to report on the outcomes of their activities. A comprehensive monitoring programme will collect data on the natural environment and its visitors (Pitts and Smith, 1993; Newsome et al., 2002a). Four distinct components of visitor monitoring have been identified
(Table 5.2). The use of questionnaires for monitoring is of most interest in this study.
Therefore, focus is placed on this component of monitoring. A brief overview will be given of counting visitors, site-based surveying and observing visitors.
A.J. Smith Social 246
Table 5. 2 Visitor monitoring data uses, advantages and disadvantages Monitoring technique Advantages Disadvantages Counting visitors i) provides a basis for estimating i) accuracy is variable and i) Manual counts and observations the number of visitors to a depends on the adequacy of ii) Automated counting particular location when no other sampling. Requires considerable method is possible sampling intensity with resulting ii) high levels of accuracy obtained high costs and a large amount of ii) high cost associated with information is provided. Lower hardware and computer costs than manual counts and software; prone to breakdown; observations in terms of staff may have a significant margin of time error
Questionnaires and personal - questionnaires provide - Can be expensive to design, interviews comprehensive information on administer and analyse. visitors, their activities and - mail-back questionnaires are expectations largely dependent upon the - questionnaires are widely used recall of the visitor about visits or making results comparable with experiences those obtained elsewhere - interviews can intrude on the - personal interviews enable in- visitor’s recreational experience depth information to be obtained - interviews have a high response rate
Site-based surveying - provides an estimate of visitor - not a representative sample of (Convenience or judgement use where no other information the population sampling) is available - use of human judgment results in biased sample selection - data quality low Observing visitors - large amount of information can - accuracy depends on the be obtained adequacy of sampling - considerable effort required - high costs associated with staff time Source: Roggenbuck and Lucas (1987), CALM (2000c), Watson et al. (2000), Horneman et al. (2002), Newsome et al. (2002a)
5.3.1. Counting Visitors There is a range of methods and techniques used to compile information about visitor use levels and patterns of use. Counters record the passage of vehicles and people past a fixed point. The most commonly used traffic counters are automated infrared, photoelectric and seismic pad counters, sensor-plate and loop-type counters
(Roggenbuck and Lucas, 1987; Watson et al., 2000). Counters can provide a reliable record of visitor movements over time providing they are properly installed, calibrated and maintained. The main disadvantages of counter devices are the cost of the associated hardware and computer software and some devices are prone to
A.J. Smith Social 247
breakdown and may have a significant margin of error (Table 5.2) (CALM, 2000c;
Watson et al., 2000).
Other alternative methods of counting visitors are in use. Numbers may be observed and estimated by staff or volunteers or recorded by self-registration (visitor books or self-registration books), entry passes purchased (gate receipts, park passes or camping passes), revenue returns from licensed commercial tour operators and the recorded activities or organised recreation groups, or by obtaining use permits from the management agency where use is controlled (Roggenbuck and Lucas, 1987; Hall and Shelby, 1998; CALM, 2000c; Watson et al., 2000). Accuracy is variable and depends on the adequacy of sampling (Watson et al., 2000) (Table 5.2).
5.3.2. Questionnaires and Personal Interviews Visitor surveys are the most frequently used method of obtaining detailed information on visitor characteristics, visitor attitudes and visitor preferences
(Watson et al., 2000) (Table 5.2). Visitor surveys generally consist of two parts (i) visitor contact (where a sample of visitors are contacted either at trailheads, within the natural area, or at home); and (ii) obtaining visitor use information by either interview or by asking visitors to respond in a questionnaire (Watson et al., 2000).
Questionnaire distribution or interviews can be conducted either along roads, trails or other access routes or at a specified recreation site. On-site interviews enable in- depth information to be obtained providing the interviewer does not excessively intrude on the visitor’s recreational experience (CALM, 2000c) (Table 5.2).
Interviews have the highest response rate followed by questionnaires handed out and back on-site due to the more personalised level of contact whereas mail-out mail-
A.J. Smith Social 248
back questionnaires achieve much lower response rates (Roggenbuck and Lucas,
1987; White and Lovett, 1999; Newsome et al., 2002a) (Table 5.2). Mail-back questionnaires are more open to bias because they are largely dependent upon the recall of the visitor about visits or experiences that may have occurred some time ago
(CALM, 2000c). A further method is where visitors are contacted over the phone to solicit information about their recreational activities and needs and/or attitudes on various planning and management issues (CALM, 2000c).
The following examples highlight the variety of means of distributing questionnaires.
Chin et al. (2000) surveyed visitors in Bako National Park, Borneo using a questionnaire handed out and returned in the park. Morin et al. (1997) used trailhead registration details from Nuyts Wilderness in Western Australia to distribute a mail- back questionnaire.
Roggenbuck et al. (1993) obtained contact information on-site from all parties entering and leaving four wilderness areas (Cohutta, Georgia; Caney Creek,
Arkansas; Rattlesnake, Montana; and Upland Island, Texas) and then sent a mail- back questionnaire to respondents. Contact information obtained on-site and a mail- back questionnaire was also used in three national parks in the south-eastern United
States (Noe et al., 1997) and at 22 backcountry sites that are part of the Great Walks in New Zealand (n=970, response rate 46.5%) (Kearsley and Coughlan, 1999).
Attention to sampling design is important in both questionnaires and personal interviews because conclusions are drawn for the whole population of users
(Newsome et al., 2002a). How questionnaires and interviews are presented,
A.J. Smith Social 249
conducted and worded all affect visitor responses and a number of design choices need to be made in the development of the interview or questionnaire (Horneman et al., 2002; Newsome et al., 2002a). One choice is whether questions are open- or close-ended. Open-ended questions provide more information but can be more difficult to analyse then close-ended ones (Newsome et al., 2002a). Close-ended questions are easier to analyse but may bias the results by limiting the choices that visitors have. Questions also need to be carefully worded so that they do not lead or threaten respondents (McArthur and Hall, 1996; Newsome et al., 2002a).
5.3.3. Site-based Surveying (convenience or judgement sampling) Site-based surveying is a means of obtaining data from a specific internal location where all visitors encountered in that particular location are interviewed or asked to complete an on-site questionnaire. Convenience sampling is not a representative sample of the population because the amount of associated bias is unknown and you cannot statistically generalise to the broader population (Watson et al., 2000) (Table
5.2). Methods based on “professional judgment”, “best guesses”, or “common sense” are the most frequently used sampling techniques (Watson et al., 2000).
McClaran and Cole (1993) surveyed wilderness managers (covering 423 out of a total of 440 wilderness areas) in the US and reported that 63% relied on “best guesses” to estimate visitor use and 61% relied on “professional judgment” to formulate regulations. Additionally, various studies have used judgment sampling to estimate the use an area within a park receives where no other information is available. This use may then be categorised into high or low use based on the professional judgment of management staff and researchers. Examples where high
A.J. Smith Social 250
use/low use estimates have been used include: (Cole, 1982a, 1986a, b; Cole and Hall,
1992; Cole, 1993).
An example of site-based surveying is by Hoss and Brunson (2000) where visitors
(n=97) to nine wilderness areas in the western US were surveyed using semi- structured interviews. The interviewer sampled wilderness visitors at trailheads, attraction points, campsites or beside trails on weekends or other times, such as university vacations, when use was expected to be the highest and impacts
(especially social impacts) were expected to be most salient to the respondents. The focus of the research was to explore the meaning of acceptability judgments for wilderness conditions using a qualitative research approach (Hoss and Brunson,
2000).
5.3.4. Observing Visitors Observing visitors involves the visual observation of individuals or groups either at specific locations within the natural area or as they enter or leave (Watson et al.,
2000). Observations are conducted by either management or volunteers stationed at a particular location (e.g. trailhead or entry/exit point). A considerable amount of information about visitor numbers, activities, length of stay, behaviour, origin and travel patterns can be obtained (CALM, 2000c; Watson et al., 2000). Accuracy depends on the adequacy of sampling and considerable effort is required for even modest levels of accuracy (Roggenbuck and Lucas, 1987) (Table 5.2).
It is most likely however that a combination of techniques would be used by managers to provide accurate and meaningful information. Ashor (2000) used wilderness visitor contact record forms to keep track of the number of float groups
A.J. Smith Social 251
encountered in the Bear Trap Canyon Wilderness, Montana, USA, along with use levels on the river and on the shore in combination with visitor registration stations and electronic traffic counters. Resource and social indicators and standards were established through the use of the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) process and ten years of data was analysed to determine if standards were being met (Ashor,
2000).
5.4. Conclusion
This literature sets direction for social research covered in Chapter 6. Having explored the relevant literature relating to the social impacts associated with recreation in natural areas and the associated methods, it was determined that a survey needed to be conducted of visitors in designated campsites and the managers of these recreation areas. The literature review was used to guide questionnaire development and the effectiveness and efficiency of existing techniques were assessed for surveying the social impacts of tourism activities in the southwest temperate eucalypt forests.
A.J. Smith Social 252
Chapter 6 Investigations into the Social Component: Temperate Eucalypt Forests of Western Australia
This chapter explores the social characteristics and impacts of recreational use of campsites in the temperate eucalypt forests of southwestern Australia. From the extensive literature review, methods were applied that would adequately describe the characteristics and activities of visitors using the surveyed campsites. Further, the conditions, indicators and standards associated with use of these areas were assessed and management preferences were identified. This chapter is divided into three sections. Section one reports the methods used in this study to investigate the social characteristics and impacts in the temperate eucalypt forests of Western Australia while section two presents the results found in this study.
Finally, the third section provides the discussion. The discussion is separated into four sections: visit and visitor characteristics; potential indicators; social encounters and the standards for potential indicators. Also discussed are potential management actions as defined in the social survey and how these actions can be applied to designated recreation areas to ameliorate impact as a result of recreation.
6.1 Introduction and Objectives
Two surveys were conducted to determine the social characteristics and impacts of recreational use of campsites in the temperate eucalypt forests of southwestern
Australia. The Recreation and Tourism Visitor Survey (App. 4) was used to fully describe the characteristics and activities of visitors using the designated campsites in the study parks. Further the conditions, indicators and standards associated with the use of these areas were also determined and management preferences of these
A.J. Smith Social 253
visitors were identified. The Recreation and Tourism Survey for Managers (App. 5) was used to determine if there was a difference between the standards that visitors and managers set and also to compare management’s attitudes toward potential management actions with those of visitors.
6.2. The Sampling Strategy
6.2.1. Recreation and Tourism Visitor Survey A sample of the population of visitors to the study parks were surveyed onsite (as discussed in Sect. 6.1.). The sampling frame was visitors camping at designated study recreation areas in the study parks. All visitors in the study recreation areas at the time of survey were approached and asked to fill in a questionnaire. The study population included people 16 years and over who camped in the designated recreation areas at least one night in one of the study parks. Sampling was conducted on randomly selected days, stratified by weekdays, weekends and holidays. All parks with exception to Warren National Park were surveyed. Warren National Park was excluded from the visitor survey because during the survey period, new camping areas were still in the construction phase. Additionally, a survey of visitors to Warren
National Park had previously been conducted in 1998, these results are reported in
Smith and Newsome (2002). Prior to conducting field trials the survey was reviewed by university colleagues, the Murdoch University Human Ethics Research
Committee, and CALM staff.
On-site surveys were considered preferable due to an interest in accurate recall. The on-site survey approach had a high response rate (69%) therefore confidence is assured that a broad sample population of users were surveyed. A similar approach
A.J. Smith Social 254
has been applied elsewhere within Western Australia, which probably has a shared/same population of users. The response rate in the original survey at Warren
National Park (n=117) was also high (78%) (Smith, 1998).
A written questionnaire was chosen rather than interviews because of the lower costs involved and to avoid personal influence and bias. Further, it was desirable that anonymity was maintained (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, 1992). A combination of open- and closed-ended questions were included. Additionally, ranking was used so that the degree of importance relating to certain conditions could be obtained (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, 1992). Leading or threatening questions were avoided.
In order to determine standards for potential indicators a written description was used. This method was considered preferable to other approaches such as photographs because it is less time consuming and costly.
6.2.2. Recreation and Tourism Survey for Managers Management staff from the Department of Conservation and Land Management
(CALM) (n=15) working in the study parks were contacted to complete the
Recreation and Tourism Survey for Managers. Participants were staff that were responsible for recreation and tourism in the study parks.
6.3. Questionnaire structure and content
The Recreation and Tourism Visitor Survey was used to establish how, and to what extent, existing recreational opportunities within the study parks were being used and conducted (App. 4). The visitor survey was organised into five parts: Part I – most
A.J. Smith Social 255
recent visit characteristics, Part II – reasons for visiting the park, Part III – visitors’ perceptions and attitudes toward the existing environmental (biophysical and social) conditions and management preferences, Part IV – encountering other groups, and finally, Part V – visitor characteristics. Questions in the survey addressed visit and visitor characteristics, visitor perceptions of current conditions, their acceptability of recreation impacts on conditions, and attitudes towards potential management actions to minimise impacts.
The Recreation and Tourism Survey for Managers was used assess management’s acceptability of recreation impacts on conditions, and attitudes towards potential management actions to minimise impacts (App. 5). The managers’ survey was organised into two parts: Part I – existing environmental conditions and management preferences and Part II – encountering other groups. Similar to the visitor survey, respondents were also to formulate indicators and standards for determining acceptable limits to recreation impacts in the area. Questions relating to visit characteristics were excluded, as they were not relevant to management. This survey was conducted to enhance the current understanding of management’s perceptions of indicators and standards.
Survey respondents were also to formulate indicators and standards for determining acceptable limits to recreation impacts in the area and their most recent visit characteristics. This survey was conducted to enhance the current understanding of social recreation impacts in temperate eucalypt forests and to provide a mechanism to identify social indicators and standards. Research conducted by Morin (1996), the
Northeastern British Columbia Recreation Survey B.C. Forest Service (1995) and
A.J. Smith Social 256
Smith (1998) formed the basis of the questionnaire and the social component of this study is based largely on that research, however questions were formulated according to their applicability to the southwest temperate eucalypt forest.
Survey participants were asked to indicate what conditions they found acceptable, unacceptable and preferred. To assist respondents in defining a set of standards for a list of potential indicators the following example was given to demonstrate the scale
(Table 6.1).
Table 6. 1 Example question from Recreation and Tourism Visitor Survey a. Is there a range of values along the scale provided that is completely unacceptable? If so, please indicate the unacceptable range by drawing a line above it, as shown in the example below.
b. Is there a range of values that you feel is acceptable? If so, please indicate with a line below the scale, as shown in the example.
c. Is there a point on this scale that is most preferred? If so, please indicate by placing an x on that point, as shown in the example.
EXAMPLE: PREFERRED UNACCEPTABLE The number of mosquito bites x I receive on a single visit. 0 ------10------20------30------40 ------50
ACCEPTABLE
In this example this person prefers not to receive any mosquito bites, but would accept up to 20; 30 or more bitres would be unacceptable; this person is uncertain about the acceptability between 20 and 30 and therefore the acceptable and unacceptable lines do not meet.
6.4. Pilot Survey
A pilot survey was conducted in October 2000 at Lane Poole Reserve to identify any potential misunderstandings associated with the format or manner of question presentation in the Recreation and Tourism Visitor Survey. The sample (n=10) used in the pilot survey consisted of a group of individuals all visiting on the same day and participating in the same activities within Lane Poole. Anomalies were found with some questions, these were clarified verbally and changed to provide a clearer
A.J. Smith Social 257
understanding without changing the context of the question for surveys issued after this period. The data from this pilot survey are not reported in this thesis.
6.5. Distribution and Analysis
For the Recreation and Tourism Visitor Survey, The questionnaires were distributed either by the researcher or by CALM staff and trained volunteers (camp hosts).
Visitors were given the option to take the survey with them and then return it to the surveyor before they left the park. Visitors camping in the campsites during the survey period were approached by surveyors and asked if they would fill out a short,
10-15 minute questionnaire. The survey data were collated and analysed, using the software spreadsheet program Microsoft Excel 2000 and SPSS 11.00. Study results are presented in both tabular and graphic form. Descriptive statistics, means and standard deviations are reported.
In the management survey, Recreation Planning and Visitor Services management staff from the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) were contacted and asked if they would fill out a short, 10-15 minute questionnaire. The number of surveys distributed to each regional office responsible for management of the study parks was indicated by a CALM staff contact within each regional office.
This person then distributed the surveys to the relevant staff members, collected them and posted them back. It was requested that all staff that had direct involvement in the study areas complete the questionnaire e.g. park rangers or recreation officers.
The survey data were collated and analysed, using the software spreadsheet program
Microsoft Excel 2000 and SPSS 11.00. Study results are presented in both tabular and graphic form. Descriptive statistics, means and standard deviations are reported.
A.J. Smith Social 258
The results regarding standards were interpreted to provide two standards for each indicator, one based on the impact acceptable to 50% of visitors and the other based on the impact acceptable to 75% of visitors. These percentages are the guidelines recommended in similar studies examining recreation impacts in which indicators and standards were also formulated (Roggenbuck et al., 1993; B.C. Forest Service,
1995; Morin et al., 1997). When responding to visitors’ preferences, the manager’s task is made easier if there is a broad agreement. Focus is placed on the 50% and
75% levels because it is impractical to please all visitors, but it is considered that managers should aim to please more than 50% of visitors (Roggenbuck et al., 1993).
The 75% standard is more stringent than the 50% one as it implies acceptability to three-quarters rather than half of all visitors (Morin et al., 1997). The two levels of standards were calculated using cumulative percentages.
To determine whether two means were significantly different, t-tests were used. The assumptions associated with the tests included: populations were random, independent, had equal variances, and were normally distributed (Kinnear and Gray,
2000; Taplin, pers. comm., 2003). The null hypothesis was rejected if p<0.025 for a two sample t-test and p<0.05 for a paired t-test. Where the significance in the
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances was less than 0.1, equal variances were not assumed (Kinnear and Gray, 2000).
To address the research objective relating to indicators and standards associated with the use of the study recreation areas, data from the visitor and managers survey were used. A two sample t-test was used to determine if there was a difference between visitors and managers proposing standards for the potential indicators.
A.J. Smith Social 259
To determine if there was a difference between preferred and acceptable standards for the indicators for both visitors and managers a paired t-test was used. Finally, an two sample t-test was used to determine if there was a difference between visitors and managers describing influences for a number of factors or conditions relating to the quality of their visit.
6.6. Social Survey Results
This section reports the results from the Recreation and Tourism Visitor Survey
(App. 4) and where relevant, results from the Recreation and Tourism Survey for
Managers (App. 5) is included. The results relating to the social survey are presented in the following parts: visit and visitor characteristics; reasons for visiting, identification of indicators; standards for potential indicators; encountering other groups, potential management actions and actual management actions.
6.6.1. Social Survey Response Rates A total of 450 Recreation and Tourism Visitor Surveys were distributed in designated recreation areas from April 2001 until September 2002 throughout the study parks, of those 311 were returned, representing a response rate of 69%. The number of questionnaires distributed and completed at designated recreation areas varied, with the largest proportion coming from Lane Poole Reserve (n=142, 46%) and Honeymoon Pool (n=88, 28%). Sues Bridge (n=59, 19%) and Warner Glen
(n=22, 7%) had the smallest proportion of the surveys.
A.J. Smith Social 260
A total of 15 Recreation and Tourism Surveys for Managers were distributed in
November 2002. Of those 12 were returned representing a response of 80%. The sample included staff with direct involvement with the recreation areas within the five study parks.
6.6.2. Visit Characteristics This section reports on the results of Part I of the Recreation and Tourism Visitor
Survey (App. 4). The questions in this section address respondents’ most recent visit to the study park in which they were surveyed. Questions addressed characteristics such as details of previous visit; length of stay of most recent visit; season of visit; type and size of group; activities in which respondents participated; most important reasons for visiting; and visits to other sites and towns in the south-west of Western
Australia.
6.6.2.1. Visit characteristics Visitors were surveyed at the study recreation areas over the period April 2001 to
September 2002 therefore this was the timing of their most recent visit. The largest proportion of survey respondents visited the study parks during the summer months and at the Easter break and school holidays. These figures are in accordance with
CALM visitor statistics (VISTAT) (Chapter 2).
Forty-one percent of all respondents were visiting a particular study park for the first time. On a park basis, at Lane Poole (68%) and Honeymoon Pool (69%) the majority of visitors had visited previously whereas Warner Glen and Sues Bridge had fewer visitors that had visited previously (Fig. 6.1).
A.J. Smith Social 261
70 Lane Poole (n=142) Honeymoon Pool (n=88) 60 Warner Glen (n=22) 50 Sues Bridge (n=59) All study sites (n=311) 40
30
% of respondents 20
10
0 Yes First visit
Figure 6. 1 First visit to a particular study park
Of those who had previously visited a particular study park, the year of first visit ranged from 1962 to 2002 (Fig. 6.2). The results for this question were based on those visitors who had previously visited the study park they were currently visiting.
More than half of the respondents had first visited a study park in the 1990’s and
2000’s. For each study park, almost half of the respondents visited Lane Poole in the
1990’s followed by the 2000’s and the most frequently listed year was 1998. This trend was also apparent for Honeymoon Pool and Warner Glen however Warner
Glen’s most frequently listed years were 1992, 1999 and 2002 (29%). For Sues
Bridge almost half of the respondents had visited previously in the 2000’s (Fig. 6.2).
A.J. Smith Social 262
60 Lane Poole (n=96) Honeymoon Pool (n=61) 50 Warner Glen (n=7) Sues Bridge (n=18) 40 All study sites (n=182)
30
20 % of respondents
10
0 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's 2000's Year of first visit
Figure 6. 2 Year of first visit to study park
The number of previous visits undertaken by survey respondents prior to their most recent visit ranged from one to more than thirty or numerous (Fig. 6.3). The majority of respondents had visited the study park they were currently visiting on at least two occasions with the second highest response being on 10 occasions. Sues Bridge had the highest responses for one previous visit while Warner Glen also had high responses for 10 and 12 previous visits (Fig. 6.3).
40 Lane Poole (n=96) Honeymoon Pool (n=61) Warner Glen (n=7) Sues Bridge (n=18) 30 All study sites (n=182)
20 % of respondents 10
0 13579121620numerous Number of previous visits
Figure 6. 3 Number of previous visits to study park
A.J. Smith Social 263
The number of visits per year to a particular study park ranged from less than one to twelve and numerous (Fig. 6.4). More than half of the respondents visit the study park they were currently visiting one to two times per year with the most common being once per year. Almost 30% of Warner Glen respondents also visit the park up to four times per year.
60 Lane Poole (n=96)
Honeymoon Pool 50 (n=61) Warner Glen (n=7)
40 Sues Bridge (n=18)
All study sites (n=182) 30
% of respondents 20
10
0 <11234561012numerous Number of visits per year
Figure 6. 4 Number of visits per year to study park
The most common response for more than 50% of the total respondents was that they stayed at the study park for a period between two to three nights, this trend was also most commonly reported on a park basis (Fig. 6.5). More than 20% of the total respondents stayed 1 night while less than 10% of visitors stayed half a day to a day.
On a park basis, 31% of respondents for Honeymoon Pool typically stayed more than three nights and only 10% stayed for one night or less. At Sues Bridge 27% of respondents stayed one night and 22% stayed >3 nights. Finally, at Lane Poole respondents typically stayed for 1 to 3 nights.
A.J. Smith Social 264
60 Lane Poole (n=142) Honeymoon Pool (n=88) 50 Warner Glen (n=22) Sues Bridge (n=59) 40 All study sites (n=311) 30
20 % of respondents 10
0 < half a day Half a day to 1 night 2-3 nights >3 nights a day Length of stay
Figure 6. 5 Length of stay at study park during most recent visit
The seasons that respondents were most likely to visit the study park were during spring (43%) but also during autumn (39%), summer (35%) and all seasons (27%) with fewer respondents likely to visit during winter (Fig. 6.6). On a park basis, the majority of visitors to Warner Glen (73%) were likely to visit during summer followed by spring (46%). More than half of Lane Poole visitors were likely to visit during spring.
80 Lane Poole (n=142)
70 Honeymoon Pool (n=88) Warner Glen (n=22) 60 Sues Bridge (n=59) 50 All study sites (n=311)
40
30
% of respondents 20
10
0 Spring Summer Autumn Winter All Seasons Seasons likely to visit
Figure 6. 6 Seasons likely to visit study park
A.J. Smith Social 265
Respondents were most likely to visit with a spouse or partner, with family or with family and friends (Fig. 6.7). On a park basis, Warner Glen had the majority of respondents indicating that they visited with a spouse or partner (73%). Honeymoon
Pool had a higher response for family and friends (44%) and friends (24%) than for with spouse or partner.
Lane Poole (n=142) 70 Honeymoon Pool (n=88) 60 Warner Glen (n=22) Sues Bridge (n=59) 50 All study sites (n=311) 40
30
% of respondents 20
10
0 With friends With family By yourself With friends With family & With club or spouse/partner organised group organised Number of previous visits
Figure 6. 7 Type of group with whom respondents visited study park
More than 30% of respondents visited in groups of two people. On a park basis, the majority of respondents visited in groups of two with exception to Honeymoon Pool where 18% of respondents visited in groups of three and 13% visited in groups of four (Fig. 6.8).
A.J. Smith Social 266
80 Lane Poole (n=142) Honeymoon Pool (n=88) 70 Warner Glen (n=22) 60 Sues Bridge (n=59) 50 All study sites (n=311)
40
30
% of respondents 20
10
0 12345678910>10 Group size
Figure 6. 8 Size of group with whom respondents visited study park
6.6.2.2. Activities Visitors were asked to report on the types of activities that they participated in during their visit to the study park (Table 6.2). Respondents were asked to identify as many activities as were applicable. The most commonly reported activities participated in at all study sites were camping (95%), appreciating nature and scenery (84%) and walking/hiking (71%). Over half of the respondents identified viewing wildlife and socialising as activities they participated in. Alternatively, Honeymoon Pool respondents listed appreciating nature and scenery (94%) as the most common reason for visiting closely followed by camping (93%) and then walking/hiking (80%), swimming (73%) and socialising (72%). Half of the Warner Glen respondents listed fishing and marroning before socialising and for Sues Bridge respondents swimming was listed more frequently than socialising (Table 6.2). Additionally, numerous visitors participated in swimming, picnicking, bird watching and canoeing/boating.
A.J. Smith Social 267
Table 6. 2 Activities participated in while visiting study park Lane Poole Honeymoon Warner Sues Bridge All study Pool Glen sites (n=142) (n=88) (n=22) (n=59) (n=311) Activities % of respondents Appreciating nature & scenery 79 94 82 80 84 Socialising 52 72 32 42 54 Viewing wildlife 59 56 59 54 57 Photography 25 38 27 29 30 Walking/hiking 68 80 77 59 71 Mountain bike riding 6 9 9 0 6 To learn about nature 8 13 9 10 10 (environmental education) Bird watching 39 42 41 42 41 Picnicking 47 43 9 41 42 Four-wheel driving 16 32 5 7 18 Camping 92 93 96 97 95 Swimming 30 73 41 44 45 Fishing/marroning 21 35 50 25 28 Canoeing/boating 26 43 32 22 31
The final activity that respondents were asked to comment on was to indicate if the study park they were currently visiting was the only stop in the area or if other sites or towns were visited. Over half of the respondents indicated that they either did not visit any other sites/towns or did not specify other sites/towns. Thirty-four sites or towns were listed, of these the towns nearest a particular study site were the ones most frequently visited. The most common sites visited were Dwellingup (Lane
Poole), Collie (Honeymoon Pool) and Margaret River (Sues Bridge and Warner
Glen). Touring around the southwest was also a common response.
A.J. Smith Social 268
6.6.3. Visitor Characteristics Survey respondents were asked a series of questions in Part V of the Recreation and
Tourism Visitor Survey (App. 4) relating to where they live, their age and their gender. The majority of respondents were from the Perth area (69%) with 14% being from the southwest, 8% from interstate, 2% from other Western Australia and 2% from overseas (Fig. 6.9). Overseas visitors came from Bali, USA, Singapore and the
United Kingdom.
90 Lane Poole (n=142) 80 Honeymoon Pool (n=88) Warner Glen (n=22) 70 Sues Bridge (n=59) All study sites (n=311) 60
50
40
30 % of respondents 20
10
0 Local Other South West Perth Other WA Interstate Overseas
Usual place of residence
Figure 6. 9 Usual place of residence of survey respondents
Respondents were mostly in the 25-39 (42%) and 40-59 (37%) age range, followed by 16-24 (14%) (Fig. 6.10). Sues Bridge had a higher proportion of over 60 year olds than other sites and Warner Glen had more than half of its respondents in the age range 40-59, while Lane Poole also had more than half of its respondents in the 25-
39 age range. The survey respondents were equally split between male and female.
A.J. Smith Social 269
60 Lane Poole (n=142) Honeymoon Pool (n=88) 50 Warner Glen (n=22) Sues Bridge (n=59) All study sites (n=311) 40
30
% of respondents 20
10
0 under 15 16-24 25-39 40-59 60 and over Age of respondents
Figure 6. 10 Age of survey respondents
6.6.4. Reasons for Visiting The following section reports on Part II from the Recreation and Tourism Visitor
Survey (App. 4). This is related to questions that targeted the activities survey respondents participated in on their most recent visit to a particular study park and the possible reasons for survey respondents visiting a particular area. Survey respondents were asked to indicate how important each reason for visiting a particular study park was, ranging from not important to extremely important (App.
7).
Of the various possible reasons, ‘to camp’ and ‘to spend time with my companion(s)’ were identified as extremely important by the majority of respondents. When the results for extremely important and very important were combined, more than half of the respondents cited ‘to camp’, ‘to spend time with my companion(s)’, ‘to be in and enjoy natural environment’, ‘to get away from the city’, ‘to view the scenery’, ‘to enjoy outdoor activities’ and ‘solitude’ (Fig. 6.11). On a park basis, more than half of
A.J. Smith Social 270
Warner Glen and Sues Bridge respondents also cited ‘to enjoy an area free of vehicles’ as extremely/very important reasons to visit and also to ‘observe wildlife’ for Sues Bridge respondents.
Lane Poole (n=142) Honeymoon Pool (n=88) Warner Glen (n=22) 100 Sues Bridge (n=59) 90 All study sites (n=311) 80 70 60 50 40
% of respondents 30 20 10 0 Solitude Camping Natural activities environment Enjoy outdoor companion(s) Spend time with View the scenery Get away from city away from Get Reasons for respondents to visit study park
Figure 6. 11 Very/Extremely important reasons for respondents to visit study park
When the results for not at all important and minor importance were combined, respondents identified ‘fishing/marroning’, ‘physical exercise/challenge’ and ‘to learn about nature (environmental education)’ as the least important reasons for visiting (Fig. 6.12).
A.J. Smith Social 271
100 Lane Poole (n=142)
90 Honeymoon Pool (n=88) Warner Glen (n=22) 80 Sues Bridge (n=59) 70 All study sites (n=311) 60
50
40 % of respondents 30
20
10
0 To fish/marron Physical exercise To learn about nature Reasons for respondents to visit study park
Figure 6. 12 Not/minor important reasons for respondents to visit study park
6.6.5. Visitor Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Existing Environmental Conditions and Management Preferences This section reports on Part III of the Recreation and Tourism Visitor Survey (App.
4) and Part I of the Recreation and Tourism Survey for Managers (App.5). The key objectives of this section were to provide: the indicators of biophysical and social conditions; the quantitative standards for a subset of these indicators; and potential management actions for various impacts at a particular study park.
6.6.5.1. The indicators A list of eleven items representing the existing environmental conditions or factors that visitors may have encountered during their most recent visit to a particular study park was presented. Visitors were asked to indicate what type of influence the factors or conditions would have in determining the quality of their experience while recreating in the area. Managers were also asked the same question in the Recreation and Tourism Survey for Managers, except the question was worded, “What type of influence do you think the following factors or conditions would have on the quality
A.J. Smith Social 272
of experience offered by a recreation site”. The level of influence in both surveys was presented as a series of influences ranging from very negative influence to very positive influence (App. 7).
In the visitor survey, the factors considered important by the majority of respondents for all study parks (n=311) contributing in the quality of the visitor experience was the presence of litter (79%) followed by the presence of wildlife (78%) and inadequate disposal of human waste (73%). In the managers’ survey (n=12), the most important factors were number of trees damaged (75%), inadequate disposal of human waste (58%), presence of wildlife (58%) and number (58%) and condition/quality of walk trails (58%). To give an overview of conditions that the influence was negative, positive or no influence, the results from very negative and negative, and very positive and positive were combined. When the results for very negative and negative influence were combined, more than 70% of the visitor respondents listed, in descending order: presence of litter; inadequate disposal of human waste; number of trees damaged around a camp/picnic site or along trails; erosion of banks at access points to water areas/features caused by humans; and amount of vegetation loss and bare ground around a campsite or picnic area exceeding what currently exists. More than 70% of managers listed in descending order: number of trees damaged, inadequate disposal of human waste, erosion of banks at access points, amount of vegetation loss, presence of litter and presence of domestic pets.
When positive and very positive influence was combined for visitors, more than 70% of respondents indicated: presence of wildlife, number of walk trails and the
A.J. Smith Social 273
condition/quality of walk trails were factors/conditions that influenced the quality of their visit. Conditions that generally had no influence for half of the visitor respondents on the quality of experience included: width of walk trails and evidence of four-wheel-drive vehicles on tracks. When positive and very positive influence was combined for managers, more than 70% of respondents indicated: the presence of wildlife, while more than 50% indicated: number of walk trails and the condition/quality of walk trails.
In order to conduct statistical analysis and because the data was recorded in category ratings the data needed to be manipulated. Each category rating was assigned a number e.g. the category very negative influence was assigned the number 1, the category negative influence was assigned the number 2 and so on. As a result the means fall between 1 and 5 and are representative of each category rating.
To determine if there was a difference between visitors and managers in describing the influence a number of factors or conditions had on the quality of the visit a two- sample t-test was used (Table 6.3). There was no significant difference for any of the factors with exception of the presence of domestic pets. Visitors were more tolerant of pets.
A.J. Smith Social 274
Table 6. 3 Mean, Standard Deviation and p-value for influence on quality of visitor experience while visiting a study park, visitors and managers – very negative, negative, no, positive, very positive influence Influence on quality of visitor experience Visitors Management (mean ± SD) (mean ± SD) p
Tree damage 1.67 ± 0.80 1.82 ± 0.41 p=0.280a (NS) Amount of vegetation loss and bare ground 1.90 ± 0.90 1.73 ± 0.65 p=0.532 (NS) Erosion of banks 1.93 ± 0.85 1.64 ± 0.51 p=0.254 (NS) Presence of domestic pets 2.54 ± 1.22 1.73 ± 0.65 p=0.002a (S) Evidence of four-wheel-drive vehicles 2.56 ± 0.97 2.18 ± 0.60 p=0.067a (NS) Presence of wildlife 4.74 ± 0.62 4.64 ± 0.51 p=0.595 (NS) Presence of litter 1.24 ± 0.56 1.55 ± 0.69 p=0.084 (NS) Number of walk trails 4.06 ± 0.72 3.90 ± 0.57 p=0.500 (NS) Inadequate disposal of human waste 1.59 ± 1.06 1.36 ± 0.51 p=0.193a (NS) a Levene’s Test assumption, equal variances not assumed NS=not significant Influence score: S=significant 1 = very negative influence * 2 = negative influence 3 = no influence 4 = positive influence 5 = very positive influence
Visitor and management respondents were asked whether they noticed any additional environmental impacts in a particular study park that they believed were caused by inappropriate behaviour by others. If the respondent answered yes, they were asked to describe the impact, its location and the type of behaviour they believed caused it.
Only the study parks where the impacts were noticed are listed in the table below
(Table 6.4).
A.J. Smith Social 275
Table 6. 4 Additional park specific environmental impacts noticed by survey respondents Environmental Parks noticed % of respondents Believed cause(s) % of Impact for environmental respondents impacts Loud music and noise Honeymoon Pool 44% visitors Disrespect 23% visitors at other campsites Lane Poole 13% managers Sues Bridge Warren National Park Litter Honeymoon Pool 31% visitors Inconsiderate & 39% visitors Lane Poole 13% managers Thoughtless Sues Bridge Warner Glen Warren National Park Tree damage Honeymoon Pool 19% visitors Irresponsible, 28% visitors Lane Poole 38% managers Reckless and 51% managers Sues Bridge drunken behaviour Vegetation loss Honeymoon Pool 8% visitors Stupidity :& 16% visitors Lane Poole 51% managers Ignorance 100% managers Warner Glen Warren National Park Vehicle related Honeymoon Pool 11% visitors Poor planning 16% visitors impacts including Sues Bridge 51% managers four-wheel-drives and Warner Glen trail bikes Warren National Park Vandalism and Honeymoon Pool 9% visitors Overcrowding 3% visitors Hooligan behaviour Lane Poole 25% managers 13% managers Warren National Park Erosion of tracks, Honeymoon Pool 8% visitors Collecting wood for 7% visitors roads and riverbanks Lane Poole firewood 25% managers Dogs barking and Honeymoon Pool 6% visitors roaming off leash at Lane Poole campsites Sues Bridge Weeds Honeymoon Pool 4% visitors Lane Poole Toilet paper in bush Lane Poole 4% visitors near campsites Sues Bridge Wild pig activity Sues Bridge 13% managers increased Warner Glen Illegal marroning Sues Bridge 13% Managers Warner Glen n=102 visitors n=8 managers
In the Recreation and Tourism Visitor Survey, more than half of the respondents did not notice any additional impacts. Of those that did notice additional impacts, loud music/loud noise at other campsites, litter at campsites and walk trails and tree damage at campsites were most commonly reported (Table 6.4). The type of behaviour/s reported to cause impacts were most commonly reported as: inconsideration and thoughtlessness; irresponsible; reckless and drunken behaviour; disrespect; stupidity and ignorance; and poor planning by management (Table 6.4).
A.J. Smith Social 276
In the Recreation and Tourism Survey for Managers, 33% of respondents observed no other additional impacts. Of those that did notice additional impacts, vegetation loss, vehicle related impacts including use of four-wheel-drives and trail bikes, tree damage, and vandalism and hooligan behaviour were most commonly reported
(Table 6.4). The type of behaviour/s reported to cause the impacts most commonly reported by managers were: stupidity and ignorance; and irresponsible, reckless and drunken behaviour (Table 6.4)
6.6.5.2. The standards for potential indicators Survey respondents in the Recreation and Tourism Visitor Survey and the Recreation and Tourism Survey for Managers were asked to define standards for potential indicators. Reported in these results are the acceptable and preferred standards for
50% and 75% of the respondents.
It was found that survey respondents had some difficulty in responding to this question and as a result almost 30% of the total number of visitor respondents indicated a no response or only partial response to this question. The results were calculated for only those individuals who did complete the relevant sections with the sample size being indicated in the relevant table. The results are presented in two separate sections, one describing the biophysical standards (Table 6.5) and the other describing the social standards (Table 6.6).
Biophysical standards
The following section presents the standards for the biophysical indicators, these included: percentage of trees damaged by humans at a campsite (e.g. initials, axe marks, tree stumps) and percentage of trees with exposed roots caused by human
A.J. Smith Social 277
trampling at a campsite. Visitors and managers set similar acceptable standards for percentage of trees damaged at a campsite (Table 6.5). For, the percentage of trees with exposed roots, managers’ and visitors’ acceptable standards differed with managers being more stringent than visitors for both the 50% and 75% acceptable standards (Table 6.5). The means were not significantly different.
Table 6. 5 Standards and means for potential biophysical indicators in the study parks Potential Indicator Damaged trees (%) Root exposures (%) Acceptable Standards and Mean 50% 75% Mean 50% 75% Mean Managers 10 0 8.5 10 0 15.0 Visitors 10 0 14.4 20 10 19.6 Significance (Independent samples p=0.178 (NS) p=0.396 (NS) test) n =237 n =233 visitors visitors nmanagers=10 nmanagers=10 Preferred Standards and Mean 50% 75% Mean 50% 75% Mean Managers 0 0 0.5 0 0 1.0 Visitors 0 0 4.1 0 0 5.8
Significance (Independent samples a a p=0.000 (S) p=0.001 (S) test) n =241 n =232 visitors visitors nmanagers=10 nmanagers=10 Significance of Acceptable and preferred standards (paired samples test) Managers p=0.005 (NS) p=0.013 (NS) Visitors p=0.000 (S) p=0.000 (S)
NS=not significant a Levene’s Test assumption, equal variances not assumed S=significant
The difference between acceptable and preferred standards for managers was not significant. However, for visitors the preferred standard for tree damage and root exposure was significantly lower than the acceptable standards defined by visitors
(Table 6.5).
A.J. Smith Social 278
Social standards
The following section reviews the standards selected for the social indicators that include: pieces of litter seen on any one day; the number of walk trails leading from a campsite; and the number of human made structures seen in a campsite (i.e. benches, fire surrounds). Encounters with other groups will be discussed in Sect.6.6.5.3.
Acceptable standards for the 50% standards differed for managers and visitors for pieces of litter and for the 50% and 75% standards for the number of walk trails, however these differences were not significant (Table 6.6). For preferred standards, managers and visitors set the same standards for litter, while differences were set for the 50% and 75% standards for the number of walk trails, with the means being significantly different, and for number of human made structures, which was not significant (Table 6.6). In comparing the means for acceptable and preferred standards. The difference between acceptable and preferred standards for litter and walk trails for managers were not significant. Managers did however show a significant difference between acceptable and preferred standards for the number of human made structures with the preferred standard being significantly lower than the acceptable standard (Table 6.6). For visitors, the preferred standard for litter, walk trails and human made structures were significantly lower than the acceptable standards (Table 6.6).
A.J. Smith Social 279
Table 6. 6 Standards and means for potential social indicators in the study parks No. of human made Potential Indicator Pieces of litter (#) No. of walk trails (#) structures (#) Acceptable Standards and Mean 50% 75% Mean 50% 75% Mean 50% 75% Mean Managers 4 0 3.6 4 2 4.0 6 4 8.4 Visitors 2 0 2.9 6 4 6.8 6 4 7.5 Significance (Independent p=0.499 (NS) p=0.103 (NS) p=0.557 (NS) samples test) n =229 n =217 n =229 visitors visitors visitors nmanagers=10 nmanagers=7 nmanagers=9 Preferred Standards and Mean 50% 75% Mean 50% 75% Mean 50% 75% Mean Managers 0 0 0.4 2 1 1.9 3 2 2.7 Visitors 0 0 1.3 4 2 5.0 4 2 5.5
Significance (Independent a p=0.479 (NS) p=0.000 (S) p=0.127(NS) samples test) n =237 n =208 n =198 visitors visitors visitors nmanagers=10 nmanagers=7 nmanagers=6 Significance of Acceptable and preferred standards (paired samples test) Managers p=0.006 (NS) p=0.006 (NS) p=0.001 (S) Visitors p=0.000 (S) p=0.000 (S) p=0.002 (S)
NS=not significant a Levene’s Test assumption, equal variances not assumed S=significant
6.6.5.3. Encountering other groups This section reports on Part IV of the Recreation and Tourism Visitor Survey (App.
4) and Part II of the Recreation and Tourism Survey for Managers (App. 5). Survey respondents were asked how many other groups they saw per day during their most recent visit (Fig. 6.13). For all study parks, the most commonly encountered number of groups was more than 10. On a park basis, the most commonly encountered number of groups was more than 10 groups for Lane Poole, Honeymoon Poole and
Sues Bridge, followed by six to ten groups for Lane Poole and Honeymoon Pool and three to five groups at Sues Bridge. At Warner Glen, respondents most frequently encountered three to five groups followed by one to two groups (Fig. 6.13).
A.J. Smith Social 280
70 Lane Poole (n=142) Honeymoon Pool (n=88) 60 Warner Glen (n=22) Sues Bridge (n=59) 50 All study sites (n=311)
40
30 % of respondents 20
10
0 None 1-2 groups 3-5 groups 6-10 >10 groups Don't recall groups Group size
Figure 6. 13 Number of groups seen per day during most recent visit to a particular study park
When asked to respond how they felt about the number of groups they saw per day during their most recent visit to a particular study site, respondents indicated that they saw about the right amount or that it made no difference (Fig. 6.14). Only a minority of respondents felt that they saw too many or saw too few.
All study sites (n=311) Sues Bridge (n=59) Don't recall Warner Glen (n=22) Honeymoon Pool (n=88)
Made no difference Lane Poole (n=142)
Saw too many
About the right amount Number of groups seen per day Saw too few
0 10203040506070 % of respondents
Figure 6. 14 How visitors felt about the number of groups seen per day during most recent visit to a particular study park
A.J. Smith Social 281
Survey respondents were also asked how many other groups they would prefer to see per day while visiting a particular study park (Fig. 6.15). For all study sites, visitors would generally prefer to see 3-5 groups or had no opinion. On a park basis, the majority of responses for Lane Poole, Honeymoon Poole and Sues Bridge varied between three to five groups to respondents having no opinion. One to two groups was the next preferred option at these sites (Fig. 6.15). At Warner Glen respondents preferred to see one to two groups followed by six to ten groups. Alternatively, managers responded that 3-5 and 6-10 other groups is acceptable for visitors to see per day during their visit (Fig. 6.15).
40 Lane Poole (n=142) Honeymoon Pool (n=88) Warner Glen (n=22) 30 Sues Bridge (n=59) All study sites (n=311) Managers 20 % of respondents 10
0 None 1-2 3-5 6-10 >10 No groups groups groups groups opinion Group size
Figure 6. 15 Number of groups visitors would prefer to see per day when visiting a particular study park
The final question in this section addressed the number of groups seen during the most recent visit to the study park they were currently visiting. For all study sites, visitors were fairly evenly divided between 7-10 people per group (25%), >10 people per group (25%) or had no opinion (26%). On a park basis, Lane Poole respondents
A.J. Smith Social 282
(30%) felt that a group with more than ten people would begin to detract from their experience, while 36% of Honeymoon Pool respondents had no opinion and 31% felt that a group of more than ten would also detract from their experience (Fig. 6.16).
Thirty-six percent of Sues Bridge respondents felt that a group of seven to ten people would begin to detract from their experience followed by those having no opinion.
At Warner Glen respondents’ felt that five to six (32%) and seven to ten (32%) people would begin to detract from their experience followed by those having no opinion (Fig. 6.16). Alternatively, managers responded that 7-10 people (42%) or greater than 10 (33%) was the size that groups became too large and began to detract from the quality of the visitor experience (Fig. 6.16).
Lane Poole (n=142) 40 Honeymoon Pool (n=88) Warner Glen (n=22) Sues Bridge (n=59) 30 All study sites (n=311) Managers (n=12)
20 % of respondents 10
0 2-4 people 5-6 people 7-10 people >10 people No opinion No. of people in a group
Figure 6. 16 Size at which other groups become too large and begin to detract from visitors experience when visiting a particular study park
A.J. Smith Social 283
6.6.5.4. Potential management actions Survey respondents in the Recreation and Tourism Visitor Survey and the Recreation and Tourism Survey for Managers were asked to indicate how they felt concerning a list of nineteen management actions, if in the future, visitor use increased to a point where the resources or quality of experiences were threatened (App. 4 & 5). The results displayed in this section are the totals from all study parks and from the manager’s survey (Table 6.7), a more comprehensive table is provided in App. 8.
Generally, survey respondents supported all of the potential management actions.
The majority of visitors most strongly supported refusal of entry to visitors who display inappropriate behaviour such as abusive, offensive language, threatening behaviour; the presence of toilets; and the provision of firewood. When the results from strongly support and support were combined for all study parks, the five most highest responses for visitors were, in descending order: presence of toilets; refusal of entry to visitors who display inappropriate behaviour such as abusive, offensive language, threatening behaviour; provision of firewood; provision of instructive maps of area at main trackhead; and receiving the same percentage of response was visits by CALM ranger and educate users more about minimal impact use and camping techniques (Table 6.7). Other management actions supported were: provision of minimal structures such as stairs and boarding to protect fragile areas; presence of human made structures; provision of interpretive displays describing natural attributes of area; reduce amount of vegetation removal and bare soil in recreation areas; presence of fire rings/places; and provision of signs for direction
(Table 6.7).
A.J. Smith Social 284
The majority of respondents in the managers’ survey, supported refusal of entry to visitors who display inappropriate behaviour such as abusive, offensive language, threatening behaviour; fines imposed for failure to comply with CALM regulations; visits by CALM Ranger; and reduce amount of vegetation removal and bare soil in recreation areas. When the results from strongly support and support were combined, the majority of managers supported all of the management items. The most supported management actions by managers and rated equally were: visits by CALM ranger; presence of toilets; charging of fees for camping in the park; discourage use of overused areas; improve walk trail conditions; educate users more about minimal impact techniques; refusal of entry to visitors who display inappropriate behaviour such as abusive, offensive language, threatening behaviour; and fines imposed for failure to comply with CALM regulations (Table 6.7).
A.J. Smith Social 285
Table 6. 7 Respondents attitudes towards potential management actions, visitors and managers Strongly Strongly Oppose Neither Support oppose support Item Percentage of respondents A M A M A M A M A M Visits by Conservation & Land 2 0 4 0 8 0 51 42 31 50 Management Ranger
The presence of fire rings/places 1 8 2 17 8 17 33 42 43 8
The provision of firewood 0 8 2 8 9 17 35 50 50 8
The presence of toilets 1 0 0 0 5 0 31 67 59 25
The presence of human made structures (such as benches & fire 1 8 3 0 12 17 48 58 32 8 surrounds) The charging of fees for entry into 11 0 18 0 19 8 30 75 12 8 the Park The charging of fees for camping 5 0 5 0 18 0 43 67 24 25 in the Park Limit use (e.g. type of use, level/numbers of people entering 6 0 9 0 20 17 44 33 17 42 park) Discourage use of overused areas 2 0 6 0 18 0 43 58 26 33 & temporarily close areas
Provide minimal structures such as stairs and boarding to protect 1 0 2 0 10 17 43 33 37 42 fragile areas (e.g. river bank)
Improve walk trail condition 2 0 5 0 35 0 46 83 9 8
Reduce amount of vegetation removal and bare soil in 2 0 4 0 14 8 45 33 31 50 recreation areas
Provide signs for direction 0 0 4 0 17 0 48 58 27 25
Provide instructive maps of area 0 0 1 0 11 17 53 42 31 33 at main trackhead Provide interpretive displays describing natural attributes of 0 0 2 0 17 8 54 50 23 33 area Educate users more about minimal impact use & camping 1 0 0 0 13 0 46 58 36 33 techniques
Refusal of entry to visitors who display inappropriate behaviour 0 0 2 0 9 0 19 17 67 75 such as abusive, offensive language, threatening behaviour.
Inspect vehicles & containers for excessive quantities of 10 0 11 0 20 33 23 25 32 33 alcohol/liquor and refusal of entry to visitors who are intoxicated.
Fines imposed for failure to 5 0 2 0 16 0 33 33 39 58 comply with CALM regulations A = All study sites, visitors
M = Managers
A.J. Smith Social 286
When the results from strongly oppose and oppose were combined for all study parks, 29% of visitor respondents opposed the management action: charging of fees for entry into the park; and 21% of visitors respondents opposed inspecting vehicles and containers for excessive quantities of alcohol/liquor and refusal of entry to visitors who are intoxicated. Thirty-five percent of respondents also neither supported nor opposed improving walk trails (Table 6.7).
For managers, 25% of respondents opposed the presence of fire rings and 17% opposed the provision of firewood, while 33% neither supported nor opposed inspecting vehicles and containers for excessive quantities of alcohol/liquor and refusal of entry to visitors who are intoxicated (Table 6.7).
6.6.6. Management Actions Survey respondents were asked a series of questions in the Recreation and Tourism
Survey for Managers (App. 5) relating to management actions. Managers were asked to describe management actions that have been put in place to ameliorate social and biophysical impacts in the last 5 years, whether an increase or decrease in social conflict has occurred as a result of these management actions and whether an increase or decrease in depreciative behaviour has been noticed in the past five years.
The responses from the Recreation and Tourism Survey for Managers relating to management actions can be categorised as actions that limit use, increase ranger or authority figure presence, education and interpretation, and site development (Table
6.8). Increased ranger/authority presence and site development were the two most commonly reported management actions to ameliorate impacts (Table 6.8). Increased ranger/authority presence was reported at Warren National Park, Lane Poole and
A.J. Smith Social 287
Honeymoon Pool. Site development was reported at Sues Bridge, Warner Glen,
Honeymoon Pool and Warren National Park.
Table 6. 8 Management actions that have been put in place to decrease social and biophysical impacts in the study parks in the last 5 years Item % of respondents Limit Use Closure of four-wheel-drive tracks 17
Closure of informal campsites 17
Limiting access to unsustainable campsites 8
Road closures 17 Increase Ranger/authority presence Alcohol restrictions 17
Campground hosts 8
Entry station 8
Increased management presence 8 Increased working hours 8
Late night patrols during peak periods 8
Police patrols 25 Ranger patrols 25 Education and Interpretation Community education 8
Education via signage & interpretation 25 Interpretation publication 25 Site development Boardwalks and platforms 8
Change to campsite location and design 33
Large skip bins in high use areas 8
Redevelopment of recreation sites 17
Rehabilitation fencing in sensitive areas 8
Selecting sustainable sites 8 Site hardening 25
A.J. Smith Social 288
As a result of management actions as listed in Table 6.8, 92% of respondents indicated that there was a decrease in social conflict since the management actions have been in place. Other comments made were that visitors expressed satisfaction and that as a result of site re-development there was an increased distance between groups and therefore more privacy.
The survey asked if an increase or decrease in depreciative behaviour was noticed in the last five years. Fifty percent of respondents said that there was an increase and
25% said that there was no change (Table 6.9). A variety of responses were given in regards to the types of behaviours that managers believed were responsible for the change in depreciative behaviour as shown in Table 6.9. The increase in depreciative behaviour were indicated by factors such as vandalism, change in visitor types, litter and vegetation damage. Alternatively, the decrease in depreciative behaviour was indicated by change in visitor type and feedback from letters.
A.J. Smith Social 289
Table 6. 9 Increase/Decrease in depreciative behaviour in the last 5 years % of % of Item Item respondents respondents Increase in depreciative Decrease in depreciative 50% 17% behaviour behaviour
Vandalism 25 Change in visitor numbers 8
Illegal behaviours 8 Less yobbo’s17, more families 8
More socially responsible with Theft of forest produce 8 17 alcohol
Change in type of visitors (more 8 Positive feedback via letters 8 yobbo’s)
Increase in visitor numbers 17 None or few letters of complaints 8
Four-wheel-drive access to 8 previously inaccessible areas
Toilet paper in bush 8
Large amounts of rubbish 8
Grass trees (native vegetation) 8 removed to burn in fires
Vegetation cleared for tent sites to 8 accommodate large groups
Bush pushed down for parking 8 bays
Damage to vegetation through 8 firewood collection
6.7. Discussion
This section discusses the results of this chapter in the following sections: visit and visitor characteristics, potential indicators, social encounters, standards for potential indicators and potential management actions and recommendations. It is the intent of this discussion to determine the social characteristics and impacts of recreational use of campsites in the temperate eucalypt forests of southwestern Australia. Indicators
17 Yobbo: lout or hooligan (Sykes, 1982) A.J. Smith Social 290
and standards associated with use of these areas and the implications of preferred versus acceptable standards for campsite monitoring will also be discussed.
6.7.1. Visit and Visitor Characteristics Successful management of recreation and tourism in natural areas depends on knowledge of both visitor and use characteristics (Buckley and Pannell, 1990; Morin et al., 1997) (Sect. 6.6.2.). Visitor characteristics were quite varied. At least half of the respondents were repeat users that visit the study park at least once per year with some respondents having a long history of visitation to the study park. Smith (1998) found similar visit trends in Warren National Park. At least half of the respondents had visited previously, on at least four occasions and typically at least once per year.
Visitors to Warren National Park had also been visiting since the 1960’s. In the US,
Cole et al. (1995) also found similar trends in return visits. Visitors that return on a regular basis, over a number of years, may be indicative that the recreation experience has not been greatly changed and still possesses many of the attributes that attracted visitors in the first place.
Generally most visitors to the study parks stayed at least two to three nights indicating that management can focus on visitors that only camp for a short period of time. Although day-visitors were not included in the questionnaire distribution, Cole
(2001) commented that day and overnight users were not profoundly different in terms of visit and visitor characteristics, the things that influence the quality of their experience, preferences for conditions and support for management. Various studies in the US found that visitors to wilderness areas generally stayed for short visits of either a day or less, or two to three days, with trips of a week or more accounting for less than one-tenth of all visits (Washburne and Cole, 1983; Roggenbuck and Lucas,
A.J. Smith Social 291
1987; Lucas, 1990a; Watson et al., 1992; Cole et al., 1995). This trend of staying for only a short period of time was also reported in Nuyts Wilderness Area, Western
Australia (Morin et al., 1997) and Cape Range National Park, Western Australia
(Polley, 2002). Therefore, applying management techniques that limit use to reduce impacts such as decreasing the length of stay would be ineffective because most people stay only a short period of time, three days or less.
Respondents were most likely to visit the study parks with a spouse or partner, with family or with family and friends in groups of two to four. Groups of two were the most common for all study parks with exception to Honeymoon Pool where groups consisted of three to four people. These findings are consistent with other studies where party size is generally small, with the majority of visitor parties comprising from two to four people and that most individuals participate as family, friendship, or mixed family and friendship groups (Roggenbuck and Lucas, 1987; Lucas, 1990a;
Watson et al., 1992; Hall and Shelby, 1994; Cole et al., 1995; Cole et al., 1997;
Morin et al., 1997; Smith, 1998; Polley, 2002).
Activities undertaken were quite varied with the majority of visitors camping, appreciating nature and scenery, and walking/hiking, with more than half participating in viewing wildlife and socialising. Swimming also rated highly particularly at Honeymoon Pool. The campsites have easy access to the Collie River which flows in summer when water is released from the dam for irrigation. This can be attributed to the high response rate of visitors being most likely to visit in summer. Water flows at other parks during the summer period is less, as there is no artificial input. Roggenbuck and Lucas (1987) and Lucas (1990c) also found that
A.J. Smith Social 292
visitors in the US participated in a wide variety of activities including hiking, photography, nature study, wildlife observation and swimming. Similarly, Smith
(1998) in Warren National Park, Western Australia, Morin (1997) in Nuyts
Wilderness Area, Western Australia, and Chin (2000) in Bako National Park, Borneo found that visitors participated in activities similar to those above such as appreciating nature, walking or hiking and admiring scenery.
Respondents were asked the importance placed on a range of reasons for visiting the study parks. Camping and spending time with companion(s) were extremely important reasons followed by: to be in and enjoy natural environment; to get away from the city; to view the scenery; to enjoy outdoor activities and for solitude. These findings are consistent with findings in Warren National Park, Western Australia
(Smith, 1998) and Nuyts Wilderness Area, Western Australia (Morin et al., 1997).
Hammitt and Cole (1998) commented that visitors attracted to natural areas to experience and observe nature, and for solitude or passive forms of recreation, are likely to produce fewer impacts than the individual who visits the area for adventure, motorised recreation or as simply a means to escape the home and work environment.
The majority of respondents visiting the study parks lived in the Perth metropolitan area or in the smaller urban centres in the southwest. Such areas are generally in relatively close proximity to the study parks as the parks range from a one hour drive
(Lane Poole Reserve) to a four hour drive to the furthest park (Warren National Park) from the Perth metropolitan area. This outcome is similar to other studies for
Western Australia (Morin et al., 1997) and the US (Roggenbuck and Lucas, 1987;
A.J. Smith Social 293
Lucas, 1990a) where most visitors live relatively close to the area visited and are often from urban areas. Knowing information such as sites and towns visited and where visitors come from enables managers to provide pre-trip information and educational material from relevant outlets in the southwest, especially from Perth and towns nearest a particular study park (Morin et al., 1997). Visitors to the study parks were fairly evenly split between the 25-39 and 40-59 age groups. This is similar to findings from Nuyts Wilderness (Morin et al., 1997), Western Australia but varied from findings for Warren National Park where visitors were younger (Smith, 1998).
6.7.2. Potential Indicators Indicators and standards identified in the social survey allowed the recognition of impacts of concern to visitors. Impact indicators provide a set of reference conditions appropriate and acceptable in natural areas. Identifying indicators through social research enables appropriate parameters to be monitored and a database of site conditions to be established. From these indicators managers are able to establish a set of standards that define specific and measurable limits for the indicators. Further, indicators and standards provided by both visitor surveys and management judgement can further aid in establishing appropriate weightings for monitoring systems such as the multiple indicator rating system, where a summary impact score is used to give an overall impact index for each campsite (Sect. 3.3.2.3.). In this study, results from the social survey were used to determine appropriate indicators and weights in the construction of the index in the multiple indicator rating system
(Sect 4.7.8.). Further, indicators had to be relevant to designated campsites.
Conditions of interest were identified and indicators and questions relating to standards were derived. The questionnaire used in this study was effective and
A.J. Smith Social 294
efficient in determining the social characteristics and impacts associated with use of campsites in the temperate eucalypt forests of southwester Australia.
Survey respondents were generally more concerned about biophysical impacts than they were about social conditions. An exception was the presence of litter, which evoked strong responses as discussed below. The most important biophysical factors for all study parks having a negative influence on the quality of the visitor experience were: number of trees damaged around a camp/picnic site or along trails; erosion of banks at access points to water areas/features caused by human use; and the amount of vegetation loss and bare ground around a campsite or picnic area. Managers were also concerned about similar factors but included the presence of domestic pets as a negative influence. Positive influences included the presence of wildlife, number of walk trails (social trails) and the condition/quality of walk trails for both visitors and managers. Two social impacts that were of greatest concern were presence of litter and inadequate disposal of human waste. Litter was also an important indicator in the
US (Lucas, 1990b; Watson et al., 1992; Manning and Lime, 2000) and in Western
Australia (Morin et al., 1997; Polley, 2002; Smith and Newsome, 2002) and discussed in Sect. 5.2.5. Inadequate disposal of human waste was also considered an issue in these Western Australian studies.
There was no significant difference between visitors and managers in describing the influence indicators had on the quality of the visit, except for the presence of domestic pets. Visitors also responded that domestic pets had a positive influence on their visit. The study parks, with exception to Warren National Park, all currently allow dogs providing they are restrained on a lead. As Honeymoon Pool, Warner
A.J. Smith Social 295
Glen and Sues Bridge are proposed national parks, in the future domestic pets will not be permitted. Domestic pets will however still be permitted in Lane Poole. It is likely that those who bought pets with them would have indicated that pets had a positive influence on their visit. Similarly, in six high-use wilderness destinations in the US Cole (1997) and Cole et al. (1997) also found that encounters with groups with dogs bothered about the same number of people as encounters without dogs.
Generally, respondents in this study reported that the number of people they encountered did not detract from their enjoyment (Cole, 1997; Cole et al., 1997). In respect to visitors and managers showing no difference in describing the influence indicators had on the quality of the visit, Lucas and Krumpe (1986) and Lucas
(1990b) found the opposite and commented that previous research in the US shows that managers tend to consider resource impacts to be more serious than do visitors.
Visitors were also asked an open-ended question regarding any additional impacts, not listed in the question relating to existing conditions, and the behaviour they believed that caused it. Visitors reported impacts that related to unacceptable behaviour such as loud music, noise and tree damage. Managers reported more environmental concerns such as vegetation loss but also included impacts related to unacceptable behaviour. Cole (1997) and Cole et al. (1997) in six high-use wilderness destinations in the US also found that respondents noticed litter, noise from other parties, and tree damage. At least two thirds of the visitors who noticed these impacts reported that they detracted from their enjoyment (Cole, 1997; Cole et al., 1997). Manning and Lime (2000) stated that encounters with other visitors are important in affecting the quality of the visitor experience, and are consistent with recreation literature on crowding and conflict, but also the behaviour of other visitors
A.J. Smith Social 296
and associated noise, and competition related impacts, such as sharing a campsite, are also important.
As discussed in Sect. 5.2., a range of different social and environmental factors or conditions can affect visitors. Various studies in the US have found that visitors are often more concerned with basic managerial and social conditions rather than resource conditions (Lucas, 1990a; Tarrant et al., 1999). While others report that biophysical conditions were of greater concern to visitors than social conditions such as crowding (Watson et al., 1992; Roggenbuck et al., 1993; B.C. Forest Service,
1995; Cole, 1997; Cole et al., 1997; Morin et al., 1997; Chin et al., 2000; Hoss and
Brunson, 2000; Smith and Newsome, 2002). This contrast in findings highlights the need to include environmental and social factors when determining what visitors find acceptable.
6.7.3. Social Encounters Visitors to the study parks generally perceived social conditions to be acceptable with very few indicating that the size of other groups encountered was a problem.
Visitor respondents felt they saw about the right number of other groups or that it made no difference, with only a low percentage indicating that they had seen too many. Visitors and managers generally agreed about the number of groups that are acceptable for visitors to see per day during their visit and the size of group that becomes too large and detracts from the quality of the visitor experience.
Alternatively, a study in the US by Lah (2000) found that manager-defined standards and visitor-defined social standards in relation to acceptable number of social encounters were different. Visitors indicated acceptable encounter levels below the manager-defined standards.
A.J. Smith Social 297
As discussed previously, visitors generally preferred to see 3-5 groups per visit with no more than 7-10 people per group. Similar findings regarding acceptable group encounters and unacceptable group sizes were also reported at Warren National Park
(Smith, 1998). The above results indicate that visitation numbers to the study parks have not reached the level where visitors feel that social encounters are detracting from their experience. It further indicates that respondents would accept or tolerate encountering about the same number of groups they currently encounter. A regular comment by respondents written on the questionnaire and made to the researcher was that it was not necessarily the size of or number of groups encountered rather the behaviour of the individuals within the group that was of concern. Lucas (1990a) and
Manning and Lime (2000) also commented on the behaviour of other visitors as having an impact on the quality of the recreation experience. Further, in the B.C.
Forest Service (1995) study, behaviour of people in other groups was one of the most important social conditions to other visitors. Not only group size but group structure was also reported by Hammitt and Cole (1998) to have an influence of the behaviour of individuals. Hammitt and Cole (1998) found that the type of group in which one participated and the structure of the members within the group are determinants of outdoor recreation behaviour and can influence the amount and type of impacts occurring to the natural area. It was found that organised and friendship groups often use resources differently than family groups. An example given, was when comparing two backcountry camping groups, one a family group and the other a group of teenagers, that the group of teenagers were more likely to succumb to peer group pressure and engage in activities such as vandalism (Hammitt and Cole, 1998).
A.J. Smith Social 298
The number of visitors seen, and the acceptability of group encounters in campsites at Nuyts Wilderness Area, Western Australia was similar (3 to 4 groups), however, more than half of the respondents accepted groups of 4 to 6 people as the maximum
(Morin et al., 1997). Being a wilderness area where only non-motorised access is permitted, may be the reason that lower figures are documented for the number of people per group in Nuyts Wilderness Area when compared to the study parks, which are all accessed by vehicles and visitors are concentrated in a relatively small area (camping areas). This trend of small group size has also been documented in various other studies conducted in wilderness and backcountry areas in the US, where solitude is an important part of the recreation experience (Lucas, 1990b;
Roggenbuck et al., 1993).
6.7.4. Potential Standards A quarter (26%) of the total respondents (n=311) had difficulty in responding to the question relating to standards. It has been suggested by Manning and Lime (2000) that when relatively large numbers of respondents do not report standards that it may be the indicator of quality or impact under study is not important in determining the quality of the recreation experience. This does not seem to be the case in this study for the standards question, as the indicators that were provided were ones that visitors considered as important or extremely important in influencing the quality of their recreation experience. This could however be the case when asked about the number of other groups visitors encountered where a high response rate was given for no opinion, emphasising that they were not encountering more groups than was considered acceptable.
A.J. Smith Social 299
Another possibility for a high no response rate could be due to problems with the question structure. It may have been that some respondents had difficulty in setting standards for some conditions or that the question was misinterpreted or not understood, therefore, the respondent did not answer the question. Polley (2002) also found that respondents had difficulty in quantifying standards. A high no response rate for the amount of erosion and vegetation loss was noted. A further study that commented on the perceived difficulty respondents had in answering questions relating to standards was by Morin et al. (1997). They noted that it was possible that respondents did not indicate a maximum acceptable level of impact because the impact was not important to them or because respondents either guessed or merely provided a number so as not to leave a question blank.
An alternative approach to using written descriptions to determine standards is using photographs in the questionnaire to help people visualise different standards. For example, Manning et al. (1998) surveyed visitors in Acadia National Park, Maine,
USA focusing on use of horse-drawn carriage roads built in the early 1900s and now used for hiking and biking. Their research had two phases, the first was to identify indicators and the second, used photographs to formulate standards. A series of photographs showed a different number of visitors ranging from zero to 30 on a typical 100m section of the carriage roads. The photographs were shown in random order and visitors were asked to rate their acceptability on a scale from minus 4 (very unacceptable) to plus 4 (very acceptable). The results indicate that visitors will accept seeing 14 people in the 100 m section.
A.J. Smith Social 300
Visual approaches, in certain situations, may portray alternative levels of impact more realistically than written descriptions, particularly for crowding related standards (Manning and Lime, 2000). Shelby and Harris (1985) compared site visits, photographs and written descriptions for defining standards. They stated that evaluations based on photographs and written descriptions for impacts such as the amount of bare ground, agreed with on-site evaluations 90% and 80% of the time, respectively. Thus, photographs and written descriptions are valid methods for evaluating impacts. However, written descriptions are a better alternative in mail- back questionnaires and are also less costly than photographic methods. Shelby and
Harris (1985) went on to explain some of the considerations in using photographs.
Photographs are two dimensional images, the distance between the foreground and background may be distorted e.g. the surrounding vegetation may be enhanced creating the appearance that the campsite has less bare ground. Also, photographic evaluations of the sizes of specific features require a reference for scale (Shelby and
Harris, 1985). In this study, surveys were left with respondents in the campsite, therefore, a written description to determine standards was preferable and more cost efficient than photographic techniques.
Visitors and managers showed limited tolerance for impacts such as tree damage and root exposure. There was a great deal of similarity across the study parks for the standards set. Roggenbuck et al. (1993) noted in their study across four wildernesses areas that there was broad agreement across areas on what were considered acceptable conditions.
A.J. Smith Social 301
Visitors and managers set similar acceptable and preferred standards for both biophysical and social indicators. Visitor preferred standards were significantly lower than acceptable standards while managers showed no significant difference between acceptable and preferred standards. Various other studies that have included measures of both preferred and acceptable conditions show that the standards set by visitors relating to encounter related variables for preferred conditions were considerably lower than acceptable conditions (Young et al., 1991; Manning et al.,
1999; Manning and Lime, 2000). Standards based on preferred levels are likely to be restrictive. If preferred standards were applied they would likely offer a high quality recreation experience, however, access would be restricted to a relatively low number of visitors due to the necessity of restrictive management actions necessary to keep impact levels low. Alternatively, standards based on acceptability may result in recreation experiences of a lower quality but would allow access to a larger number of visitors (Manning and Lime, 2000). The provision of information about preferred standards does however provide a greater information base on which standards might be formulated. Preferred standards represent the ideal situation and while not achievable, they provide managers with information about optimal conditions.
There was a great intolerance of damage to trees by managers and visitors. This was in accordance with other studies that found visitors would only tolerate minimal damage to trees (Roggenbuck et al., 1993; Hall and Shelby, 1994; Cole, 1997; Cole et al., 1997; Morin et al., 1997; Smith and Newsome, 2002). Visitors consider trees as being important because the forest is one of the main attractions in the study parks and trees are a highly visible part of the landscape. Further, they provide protection
A.J. Smith Social 302
from the wind and sun and hold considerable aesthetic and utilitarian value for visitors (Morin et al., 1997).
A significant difference in the responses by visitors and managers in the preferred means for tree damage and root exposure were noted. This is because visitors gave a much broader range of responses to the amount of impact preferred than managers, with 3% of visitors indicating they would prefer more than 60% of the trees to have tree damage and root exposure. It is possible that this low percentage of respondents misinterpreted the question or did not find the preferred indicators important in determining the quality of the recreation experience. Alternatively, acceptable standards for these impacts were relatively low and managers and visitors showed no significant difference for the amount of tree damage and root exposure that they would accept. In contrast to the above findings, various studies in the US for wilderness campsite impacts found that visitors reported more restrictive standards for indicators such as tree damage than managers did (Shelby and Harris, 1986;
Martin et al., 1989).
For social standards, 75% and 50% of visitors were willing to accept 0 to 2 pieces of litter while managers were willing to accept 0 to 4, however there was no significant difference between the means. The preferred standards showed that no pieces of litter were acceptable by either parties. There was no variation between parks for this indicator. These findings are in accordance with other studies that have found that visitors react particularly strongly to even small amounts of litter (as discussed in
Sect. 5.2.5.). The standards set are similar to those in Warren National Park, Western
Australia (Smith and Newsome, 2002), Nuyts Wilderness Area, Western Australia
A.J. Smith Social 303
(Morin et al., 1997) and various other wilderness areas in the US (Roggenbuck et al.,
1993). Manning and Lime (2000) suggested that visitors tend to report norms more often in wilderness or backcountry situations than in front-country or more developed areas. It was also stated that standards tend to be lower (or less tolerant) in wilderness or backcountry areas than in front-country or more developed areas. The results in this study contradict these findings in that they are similar to standards reported in wilderness areas.
There was generally a high tolerance for the number of walk trails (social trails) and human made structures in campsites. Managers and visitors did not significantly differ in the mean number acceptable. This tolerance would be expected in designated and developed camping areas, as it would be viewed that they would enhance the visitor experience. These findings were in accordance with standards set in Warren National Park, Western Australia where 50% of respondents would accept
5-10 human made structures and 75% would accept 0-5 (Smith and Newsome,
2002). This tolerance of human made structures was much higher than at Nuyts
Wilderness Area, Western Australia. Morin et al. (1997) found that visitors were generally intolerant of human made structures with 50% of respondents accepting up to 2 structures at campsites. The lower standards set by visitors to Nuyts Wilderness
Area would be expected because visitors expect minimal development in wilderness areas. Similarly, the results from this study differ to those in the US because they have been conducted in backcountry areas and the provision of such facilities can be seen as inconsistent with backcountry settings (Marion and Farrell, 2002).
A.J. Smith Social 304
It is acknowledged that it is problematic relying only on current visitors’ opinions in setting management standards, however this is common practice in social research conducted in natural areas. It is desirable to obtain information from visitors who currently visit a particular natural area and therefore have first hand experience of impacts. This is preferable to a broad scale survey of householders many of whom may have never visited the natural area being studied.
This study has shown that it is important to gain the perception of visitors and managers so that differences or similarities in setting standards can be identified.
Standards based only on users or managers’ perceptions may, in some cases, be too lax or too strict to be realistic and achievable (Martin et al., 1989). While in this study the standards set by visitors and managers were similar, other studies have shown that manager and visitors perceptions differ (Shelby and Harris, 1986; Martin et al., 1989; Lah, 2000). Therefore, managers need to be aware not to assume that their views are congruent with those of visitors. Additionally, regular monitoring is necessary to determine changing visitor attitudes and evaluative standards.
Lah (2000) highlighted the necessity of regular monitoring and public involvement in
Mount Rainier National Park, USA. Standards were developed for encounters per day and encounters per hour based on knowledge gained from public meetings in
1994. A survey was conducted in 1997 to determine if these standards met the current users’ attitudes to encounters. Respondents indicated that acceptable encounter levels were below the manager-defined standards set in 1994.
A.J. Smith Social 305
6.8. Potential Management Actions and Recommendations
Assessing visitors’ perceptions about conditions in an area and their management preferences enables management strategies to be employed that are sensitive to visitors’ desires and needs. In addition to assessing visitors’ perceptions, collecting baseline information is necessary to assess the significance of potential environmental degradation within an area (Buckley, 1991). Managers can control impacts within acceptable limits by manipulating the factors that influence impact patterns (Hammitt and Cole, 1998).
More than 50% of the survey respondents supported all of the potential management actions including those usually regarded as restrictive and unpopular such as limiting the length of stay and use, charging of fees, temporarily closing areas, visits by rangers and enforcing regulations (Table 6.7). This gives managers a wide range of choices including restrictive actions. Morin et al. (1997) in Nuyts Wilderness Area,
Western Australia also found that regulatory management actions were supported. In comparison, the B.C. Forest Service Survey in north-eastern British Columbia reported that respondents most strongly supported educating users more about minimum impact use and rehabilitation of overused areas followed by discouraging or prohibiting the use of over-used areas and providing more patrols to enforce regulations (B.C. Forest Service, 1995). Similarly, Chin et al. (2000) in Bako
National Park, Borneo and Smith and Newsome (2002) in Warren National Park,
Western Australia found that visitors supported all of the management actions.
Educating users more about minimal impact use and camping techniques and conservation were most strongly supported in these studies and also included strong support for regulatory actions (Chin et al., 2000; Smith and Newsome, 2002). Morin
A.J. Smith Social 306
et al. (1997) stated that support for increased enforcement is possibly linked to the strong belief that damage is caused by others and enforcement will deal with others’ misdemeanours.
Managers also supported all of the management actions. Many of the potential management actions have already been put in place in various study parks to reduce the social and biophysical impacts (Sect. 6.6.6., Table 6.8). As a result of these management actions, 92% of manager respondents indicated that there had been a decrease in social conflict since the management actions have been in place however,
50% of respondents indicated that there was an increase in depreciative behaviour in the last 5 years. A continued increased ranger presence and using restrictive actions such as heavy fines may also be used to further reduce impacts and depreciative behaviour.
Designated campsites had higher soil compaction values that increased the need for tent ditching and drainage channels. It would be preferable that adequate drainage is installed to remove water from campsites where this issue is most prominent.
The amount of litter and the number of trees damaged by humans were the two most important factors influencing visitor experiences. Tree damage is a cumulative impact that usually occurs when a campsite is first established and continues with further use. At Warren National Park newly developed campsites, tree damage was noticed after the first two weeks of use and continued to increase a year after.
Considerable increases in the amount of tree damage at the designated and informal campsites were also noticed and trees with fresh scars were recorded at most
A.J. Smith Social 307
campsites. It has been commented that tree damage is linked to only a few destructive parties but the effect is relatively permanent particularly for moderate to severe levels of tree damage. While the impact is considered to have a negative impact on the visitor experience, it is not possible to reverse the damage. To eliminate the need for visitors to bring in axes and therefore potentially damage trees, it would be preferable that dry firewood is provided in different size classes, including kindling size. This would also eliminate the need for visitors to collect firewood from the natural areas surrounding the campsites. Minimal impact education may also emphasise the importance of not collecting firewood and where firewood is not provided to encourage users to bring firewood with them. Further, minimal impact education can highlight the importance of not damaging trees.
A further impact of concern in this study was the presence of toilet paper in the informal campsites. This problem was less significant in the designated campsites where toilets are provided. The provision of toilets can resolve problems with improperly disposed human waste (Leung and Marion, 2000a). It would be preferable that if informal campsites are provided that pit toilets are also included.
This would seem particularly relevant in this study due to the close proximity of the informal campsites to a water source.
Visitors to the study parks strongly supported minimum impact education as a potential management action. Providing information and education is a highly desirable, indirect management action as it enables visitors to have more rewarding experiences as they come closer to the type of experience the are seeking, and have a deeper appreciation of the area (Lucas, 1990b). Further, some impacts can be greatly
A.J. Smith Social 308
reduced through the practice of minimum impact techniques. The appropriate content of an education program will vary for each area, with environmental conditions, management objectives and amount and type of use (Hammitt and Cole, 1998).
There are various communication methods that can be used to convey the message.
Doucette and Cole (1993) provide alternative education techniques for conveying low-impact practices to visitors. Brochures, personnel at agency offices, maps, signs personnel in the backcountry and displays at trailheads were being used in more than half of the wilderness areas in the United States (Doucette and Cole, 1993). Hammitt and Cole (1998) commented that personal contact is often considered the most effective means of communication although brochures can also be effective. A variety of low-impact practices have been described to address impacts in campsites and these education programmes have been shown to decrease the amount of impact at campsites (Cole, 1989a; Hammitt and Cole, 1998; Leung and Marion, 2000a).
6.9. Conclusion
In summary, visitors did not express dissatisfaction with the size or number of groups encountered, with visitors and managers indicating similar acceptable encounter levels. Litter, inadequate disposal of human waste, number of trees damaged, erosion and vegetation loss exceeding current conditions were impacts of greatest concern to both visitors and managers. There was no difference between visitors and managers in describing the influence indicators had on the quality of the visit. Visitors and managers also set similar acceptable and preferred standards for both biophysical and social indicators with survey respondents having the lowest tolerance and setting the highest standards for litter and damage to trees. These findings are in contrast to other surveys in the US that found visitors set lower standards than managers for encounters, and more restrictive standards for indicators
A.J. Smith Social 309
such as tree damage. Further the standards set in this study were similar to standards reported in wilderness areas in the US which is in contrast to suggestions that visitors to more developed areas are more accepting of impacts.
A.J. Smith Social 310
PART III: INTEGRATION AND CONCLUSION
Chapter 7 An Integrated Approach to Monitoring and Study Conclusions
7.1. Introduction
This chapter has two purposes – to complete the discussion of an integrated approach to campsite monitoring and to draw this thesis to a close by returning to answer the research questions that guided the study. The discussion of the integrated approach emphasises the benefits of using social surveys to identify resource and social conditions, indicators and standards of importance to visitors and managers combined with comprehensive monitoring, using a rating system, of biophysical and social conditions. This discussion concludes with comment on how the standards derived in this study were used to determine which campsites had impacts exceeding the standards. The research questions are then reviewed according to the associated research objectives developed to guide this study. A brief summary detailing key contributions concludes the chapter.
7.2. An Integrated Approach to Monitoring
7.2.1. An Overview This study combined biophysical monitoring with a social survey to provide detailed information about visitor impacts and visitors themselves. Integrated approaches are not widespread (Newsome et al., 2002a). In backcountry areas, Cole (1997) and Cole et al. (1997) used an integrated approach in wilderness areas in the Cascade
Mountains in Washington and Oregon. These studies focused on six high-use destination areas using condition class ratings to quantify the areal extent and degree
A.J. Smith Integration 311
of impact of recreation on trails, campsites and lakeshores. Visitors leaving each wilderness area were asked to fill in a questionnaire about their characteristics, expectations and responses to conditions, preferences for management as well as the number of other parties they had encountered. Standards were not sought in this study, therefore comparison between biophysical condition and social acceptance was not provided.
A further study that combined biophysical monitoring with a social survey in backcountry areas was Hall and Shelby (1994) in Eagle Cap Wilderness, Oregon.
Multiple indicator ratings based on Cole (1989) were used to determine campsite conditions. Social encounters were determined by trained observers and rangers counting the number of groups they met by day and destination. Questionnaires were administered at trailheads to obtain information on social encounters, characteristics, support for group size limits, knowledge of regulations, impacts noticed and support for management actions. Standards were sought for the maximum acceptable number of other groups to meet per day in a wilderness area. An integrated discussion was therefore only provided for social encounters where group size standards were compared to observations. Comparisons between biophysical conditions at campsites and visitors acceptance were not provided.
In developed campsites, an integrated study was conducted in Warren National Park,
Western Australia by Smith (1998) and reported in Smith and Newsome (2002). A combination of multiple indicator ratings and measurements were used to determine the level of impact on designated and informal campsites as a result of recreation use.
Questionnaires were distributed in the park and at a nearby café to determine
A.J. Smith Integration 312
characteristics, activities, social encounters, biophysical and social indicators and standards and potential management actions. Comparisons were made between campsite condition and visitor acceptance. It was found that the standards acceptable to 50% of respondents were exceeded at designated campsites for tree damage and vegetation loss. Informal campsites were generally less impacted than designated campsites and conditions were within acceptable standards.
In contrast to the designated campsites in this study, the original campsites at Warren
National Park were sites that had evolved since the 1960s by visitors choosing places to camp or picnic. No formal planning or construction by managers took place in the development of these campsites. Facilities such as fixed fire rings, picnic tables/benches and pit toilets were provided (Smith, 1998). Visitors were clustered into a large cleared area (mean 876m2) (Fig. 7.1). No defined individual campsites were provided. Informal campsites had developed over time by users in an un- planned manner and facilities were not provided (Smith, 1998). Because a management footprint was not imposed in the initial development of designated and informal campsites it was feasible to apply techniques that were developed for backcountry campsites.
A.J. Smith Integration 313
Figure 7. 1 Camping at the original designated campsites (1998) in Warren National Park (Photo: A. Smith)
An integrated monitoring approach seems essential if standards are to be provided for environmental and social conditions of importance to visitors and managers, as highlighted by Smith (1998) and Smith and Newsome (2002). Social and resource components are interrelated and integrated monitoring acknowledges the interconnections between biophysical and human systems (Margerum, 1999).
Integrated monitoring gives a more holistic approach in a shorter period of time. It involves timely analysis and focused research, which is multidisciplinary in nature
(Hicks and Brydges, 1994). Furthermore, it leads to rapid feedback of information, an essential component of effective monitoring.
In view of the importance of integrated monitoring, a rating system was developed in this study for campsites. This rating system incorporates biophysical indicators of importance to managers and visitors with their perceptions of acceptability. The rating system, as discussed in Sect. 4.11.2., incorporates indicators that were grouped in the biophysical discussion (Sect. 4.11.1, Table 4.1) as area disturbance, soil and ground cover damage, tree related damage and social (Table 7.1).
A.J. Smith Integration 314
Further, indicators in the rating system were also considered for their importance to visitors and managers. Existing environmental conditions such as social trails and facilities were seen as positive influences, while human damage to trees and cleanliness were seen as negative influences on the quality of the recreation experience (Table 7.1). As discussed previously, social trails while seen as a positive influence on the visitor experience due to the convenience they afford, are seen as a negative biophysical impact and are indicative of areal disturbance.
Standards were obtained for indicators that were in each of the impact groups and were important to visitors (Table 7.1). Both biophysical and social components were considered. While importance was not sought for root exposure, the standards set implied that visitors and managers consider root exposure an important influence on the quality of the visitor experience. Fifty percent of visitors and managers would only accept 20% and 10% of trees with root exposure respectively and a preferred standard for visitors and managers of zero.
A.J. Smith Integration 315
Table 7. 1 Indicators applicable to integrated monitoring Important to Biophysical Standard Indicator visitors & index obtained managers Area Disturbance Campsite area √
Social trails √ √ (+) √ Coarse woody debris Soil and Groundcover Damage Root exposure in campsite √ √ Impacts to mineral soil Evidence of human activities that contribute to soil erosion at campsites √ (e.g. tent ditching, drainage channels) Tree Related Damage Human damage to trees √ √ (-) √ Social
Facilities √ (+) √ Cleanliness √ √ (-) √ Group size (+) = positive influence
(-) = negative influence
7.2.2. Using Standards to Determine Acceptable Impacts The information collected on biophysical and social standards from the social survey enabled existing conditions at designated, informal and newly developed campsites to be assessed in terms of their acceptability. The following discussion is the last piece of the puzzle of how the biophysical and social components of this study complement one another. Another piece, covered earlier, was using the results from the social surveys to assist in determining the weightings used in constructing the impact indices.
Data for comparison with the standards were taken from the repeat surveys, as these were representative of current conditions. For the newly developed campsites data were taken from a survey conducted 12 months after the first official use by visitors.
A.J. Smith Integration 316
From the results in the social survey, as discussed in Sect. 6.6.2, visitors to the study parks and managers considered human damage to trees to be a very negative influence on the visitor experience. Tolerance for such damage was low (Table 7.2).
The percentage of trees damaged at the designated and informal campsites exceeded the standards that visitors and managers find acceptable (Table 7.2). Conditions at
Warren National Park newly developed campsites are below the standards. Similarly, in the original survey in Warren National Park, Smith and Newsome (2002) found that conditions for the number of trees damaged exceeded acceptable standards of 5 trees damaged for 50% and 75% of visitors.
Table 7. 2 Existing campsite condition versus standards for potential biophysical indicators Potential Indicator Damaged trees (%) Root exposures (%) Acceptable Standards & Mean 50% 75% Mean 50% 75% Mean Managers 10 0 8.5 10 0 15.0 Visitors 10 0 14.4 20 10 19.6 Existing campsite condition (%) Existing campsite condition (%) Mean Mean Designated campsites 49.4 1.0 Informal campsites 62.0 3.3 Newly developed campsites 4.0 0.0
For root exposure, the standard acceptable to 50% of managers was 10% of trees with root exposure, while the standard acceptable to 50% of visitors was 20. The percentage of trees with root exposure at the designated, informal and newly developed campsites were below the 50% standard for managers and visitors but higher than the 75% standard for managers (Table 7.2). Visitors would accept up to
20% of trees with root exposure, however, the mean at designated campsites was only 3% of trees with root exposure present and there were only 1% of trees with root exposures at informal campsites. Root exposure can be considered as an indicator for trampling, soil exposure and erosion as discussed in Sect. 4.11.1.2.
A.J. Smith Integration 317
From the results in the social survey, as discussed in Sect. 6.6.2, visitors to the study parks and managers considered litter as a very negative influence on the visitor experience and 50% of visitors were willing to accept 2 pieces of litter, while 50% of managers were willing to accept 4 pieces of litter (Table 7.3). The existing conditions at designated, informal and newly developed campsites exceeded the acceptable conditions for 50% of managers and visitors (Table 7.3). In contrast, Smith and
Newsome (2002) found that conditions for number of pieces of litter were below the acceptable standards of 5 pieces of litter for 50% and 75% of visitors.
Table 7. 3 Existing campsite condition versus standards for potential social indicators No. of human made Potential Indicator Pieces of litter (#) No. of walk trails (#) structures (#) Acceptable Standards and Mean 50% 75% Mean 50% 75% Mean 50% 75% Mean Managers 4 0 3.6 4 2 4.0 6 4 8.4 Visitors 2 0 2.9 6 4 6.8 6 4 7.5 Existing campsite Existing campsite Existing campsite
condition (#) condition (#) condition (#) Mean Mean Mean Informal campsites 48.7 1.5 1.5 Newly developed campsites 4.4 0.8 0.8
The number of walk trails was seen to have a very positive influence on the quality of the visitor experience as indicated by both visitors and managers. Walk trails refer to any trail that radiates from a campsite. Formal trails in the designated recreation areas did not radiate from an individual campsite. Formal trails were separate and often had car parking facilities at the trailhead. The term walk trails was used to reduce misunderstanding of the question as some visitors may not have known was a social trail refers to. Similar standards were set by visitors and managers (Table 7.3).
The existing conditions at designated, informal and newly developed campsites were below the 50% acceptable standard and except for the designated campsites were
A.J. Smith Integration 318
also below the 75% standards. The number of human structures for designated, informal and newly developed campsites were also below the acceptable standards for 50% and 75% of managers and visitors.
As discussed in Sect. 6.7.4. walk trails (social trails) and facilities are seen as a positive influence on the visitor experience. Visitors see walk trails (social trails) as a positive influence which is reflected in the relatively high standards. In a biophysical context social trails are considered as a negative impact on the natural environment as discussed in Sect. 4.11.1.1. The acceptability of these trails by visitors may be due to the convenience they offer. For example, if a social trail offers a short cut to the toilet facility, then the visitor is going to view this as a positive influence. This highlights the necessity of an adequate network of planned trails to be included in the planning stages of campsite development.
Tree damage and litter were conditions at both the developed and informal campsites that exceeded the standards set by visitors and managers. The social survey showed that standards set for tree damage were similar to studies conducted in wilderness areas in the United States. These results were in contrast to findings in the US where visitors to front country (developed) campsites set higher standards for tree damage than visitors to wilderness areas (Manning and Lime, 2000). Standards set for litter and the negative influence that litter had on the quality of the recreation experience were similar to other studies conducted in the US and Australia (Roggenbuck et al,.
1993; Morin et al., 1997; Smith and Newsome, 2002).
A.J. Smith Integration 319
At the newly developed campsites standards for litter were also exceeded. This would imply that managers need to focus attention on reducing these impacts to within acceptable standards. Standards were not exceeded for root exposure, the number of walk trails and the number of human made structures. Additionally, standards were not exceeded at newly developed campsites for all of the indicators except litter, as discussed above.
7.3. Conclusions
This study had the dual purposes of describing the impacts of camping in Australia’s southern eucalypt forests as well as critiquing current approaches to monitoring and developing new ones. Four related research questions focusing on this purpose guided this study. To bring the study to a close these questions are given and answered below. A brief summary of the key contributions of this research concludes the thesis.
1. What are the biophysical impacts of recreational use of campsites in the
temperate eucalypt forests of southwestern Australia?
The associated objectives were to -
i) Develop a hybrid/new ratings and quantitative measurement system for
monitoring and assessing biophysical impacts at developed campsites in
contrast to most previous work where the focus has been on
undeveloped, backcountry campsites.
Combining multiple indicator ratings and multiple indicator measures to assess the biophysical impacts of recreational use of campsites has been shown to be an
A.J. Smith Integration 320
effective and efficient strategy in determining the impacts in developed, designated campsites accessed by motor vehicles. Adjustments to existing monitoring procedures were made so that the indicators that were studied were applicable to developed campsites where a management footprint has been imposed. Indicators such as vegetation loss were excluded and tree seedlings were only measured at the perimeter. These indicators were not relevant in the deliberately cleared campsite area.
It appeared problematic to compare developed campsites to an undisturbed control in close proximity to the study sites. It seemed obvious that developed campsites were going to be greatly changed from natural condition. Comparing developed, designated campsites to newly developed campsites was shown to be an effective strategy in determining the level of impact at designated campsites.
This was the first attempt to apply combined systems to developed campsites accessed by motor vehicles in Australia. Combined systems have been used in a variety of studies in backcountry areas in the United States, for example, Marion
(1991), Cole (1993), Marion (1995), Marion (1997), Leung and Marion (1999b) and
Marion (1999). Marion and Farrell (2002) also used a combined system to determine impacts in campsites that were created in sloping terrain using side-hill construction techniques to provide gently out-sloped benches for camping. These campsites were located in Isle Royale National Park, USA in backcountry areas that were accessed by hiking trails and/or boats. All woody vegetation, rocks and stumps were removed during construction and the ground was smoothed and gently out-sloped for drainage. Camp areas were identified by a camping post and consisted of 1-3
A.J. Smith Integration 321
individual campsites or 3-5 group campsites. Vegetation loss and the extent of exposed soil were indicators that were included in this study (Marion and Farrell,
2002).
This is similar to a study by Obua and Harding (1997) in Kibale National Park,
Uganda in which campsites were cleared of vegetation in the initial development stage and then vegetation loss was used as an impact parameter. These studies both compared the developed campsites to a nearby undisturbed control. As discussed previously, including parameters such as vegetation loss would seem improper in developed campsites as these areas have been deliberately cleared of vegetation.
ii) Describe and compare the impacts at developed and informal campsites
using the above techniques.
Designated campsites were significantly less severely impacted than informal campsites. While impacts at designated campsites were less severe than informal campsites, the designated campsites still however, had an overall mean score that classified the impact as moderate and some conditions exceeded the standards considered acceptable by visitors and managers. Alternatively, informal campsites had an overall mean score that classified the impact as high and some conditions also exceeded the standards considered acceptable by visitors and managers. Further, designated campsites were significantly more impacted than newly developed campsites (Warren National Park).
This study showed that the provision of developed, designated camping areas is an effective management strategy in reducing the amount of impact caused by camping
A.J. Smith Integration 322
in natural areas. Campsite condition was compared between designated campsites and informal campsites. The newly developed campsites show that the planned campsite area is less than 50m2 for individual use and 50-200m2 for group use.
Campsites of this size would therefore appear to be optimal. It is important to provide campsites for both groups and individuals to cater for different visitor needs.
Further, providing campsites for larger groups and encouraging visitors in this group type to camp in the provided area, avoids expansion pressures caused when large groups attempt to camp on small campsites (Hammitt and Cole, 1998; Marion and
Farrell, 2002). As shown, in this study informal campsites were much larger in size than designated campsites, were located directly on the bank of the waterway and extended up to several kilometres along the waterway. Management does not visit these campsites often and therefore visitor activities in these informal campsites are largely unregulated.
Camping restricted in designated campsites is preferable because they limit the areal extent of camping related resource disturbance (Marion and Farrell, 2002).
Campsites clustered into camping areas also increases the efficiency of maintenance and visitor contact/enforcement activities and the provision of facilities such as toilets (Marion and Farrell, 2002). Visitor dispersal, which spreads use sufficiently to avoid or minimise long-term impacts, and visitor containment, which concentrates use to limit the areal extent of impact are two strategies used to influence the spatial distribution of use (Leung and Marion, 2000a). In this study, the informal campsites are representative of visitor dispersal strategies while designated campsites represent concentrating use.
A.J. Smith Integration 323
Designated campsites were significantly less severely impacted than informal campsites. Informal campsites have developed by users over time and are generally located at large distances from one another. They have similarities to backcountry campsites, however, the amount of use that the campsites received is not sufficiently low enough to retain low impact levels. Dispersed strategies are most effective when they are located on resistant surfaces with use not exceeding more than a couple of nights of use/year (Leung and Marion, 200a). The advantage of concentrated use is that impacts are concentrated in a relatively small area and the provision of facilities can further reduce resource damage due to visitors spending time in the vicinity of such facilities (Hammitt and Cole, 1998; Leung and Marion, 2000a).
Marion (1995) in Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, USA, found that designating individual campsites and the provision of fire grates reduced the total area of disturbance on canoe-accessed backcountry campsites by 50% in just five years. Fire grates provided a focal point for camping activities, allowing peripheral areas to recover (Marion, 1995). Marion and Farrell (2002) also found that the provision of facilities in designated campsites was effective in limiting the areal extent of impact.
Some of the disadvantages of clustering campsites into a single camping area are that the campsites are in relatively close proximity, as illustrated in this study. The close proximity of campsites increases the potential for problems with crowding, noise, and conflicts with other visitors (Marion and Farrell, 2002). Roggenbuck et al.
(1993) and Cole et al. (1997) showed that visitors are less tolerant of contact with other visitors at their campsites than along trails.
A.J. Smith Integration 324
2. What are the social characteristics and impacts of recreational use of
campsites in the temperate eucalypt forests of southwestern Australia?
The associated objectives were to -
i) Fully describe the characteristics and activities of visitors using the
surveyed campsites.
Visitors generally stayed for short visits, visiting with a spouse or partner or family and friends in groups of two to four persons. A wide variety of activities were undertaken and the majority of respondents lived relatively close to the park visited and were often from urban areas. Visitor characteristics for developed campsites showed a large amount of similarities to studies conducted in backcountry areas in the United States e.g. Roggenbuck and Lucas (1987), Watson et al. (1992), Hall and
Shelby (1994), Cole et al. (1995), Morin et al. (1997), Chin (2000), Smith and
Newsome (2002).
ii) Identify the conditions, indicators and standards associated with use of
these areas.
Respondents were generally more concerned about biophysical impacts than they were about social conditions, however, indicators of cleanliness were also important.
Litter, inadequate disposal of human waste, number of trees damaged, erosion and vegetation loss exceeding current conditions were impacts of greatest concern to both visitors and managers. In surveying visitors and managers about the indicators that influence the quality of the recreation experience, it was found in this study that visitors and managers felt the same. This is in contrast to findings in the US where
A.J. Smith Integration 325
managers consider resource impacts more serious than visitors (Lucas and Krumpe,
1986; Lucas, 1990b).
Visitors did not express dissatisfaction with the size or number of groups encountered, with visitors and managers indicating similar acceptable encounter levels. These similarities are in contrast to studies in the US that found that visitor and manager defined encounter levels were different (Lah, 2000). Differences were also noted in the size of groups that visitors to backcountry areas would accept.
Generally, visitors in backcountry areas in the US accepted smaller group sizes and a lower number of encounters (Lucas, 1990b; Roggenbuck et al., 1993).
Visitors and managers also set similar acceptable standards for both biophysical and social indicators with survey respondents having the lowest tolerance and setting the highest standards for litter and damage to trees. These findings are in contrast to other surveys in the US that found visitors set lower standards than managers for encounters, and more restrictive standards for indicators such as tree damage (Shelby and Harris, 1986; Martin et al., 1989).
The findings from this study show that for designated, developed campsites, visitors and managers generally concur about indicators of importance and standards of quality. Additionally, visitors to designated, developed campsites generally tolerate more group encounters and a larger group size than in undeveloped areas such as backcountry or wilderness areas.
A.J. Smith Integration 326
iii) Identify the management preferences of these visitors.
Visitors and managers generally supported all of the potential management actions including those usually regarded as restrictive. Many of the potential management actions were already in place in various study parks and as a result managers commented that there had been a decrease in social conflict. Depreciative behaviour continued to be an issue of concern with mangers commenting that such behaviours increased in the last 5 years at designated campsites.
While this study highlighted that concentrating use and providing developed campsites reduces the overall impact and makes maintenance easier it does not eliminate factors such as depreciative behaviour. Depreciative behaviour was indicated by factors such as tree damage, vandalism and was indicated in the social survey as a factor that affects the quality of the visitor experience. These findings were supported by various other studies e.g. Lucas (1990a), B.C. Forest Service
(1995), Leung and Marion (2000a), and Manning and Lime (2000), Smith and
Newsome (2002). A variety of management recommendations were provided in Sect.
6.8.
iv) Explore the implications of preferred versus acceptable standards for
campsite monitoring.
There was no significant difference between acceptable and preferred standards for managers, while visitor preferred standards were significantly lower than acceptable standards. These findings for visitors were consistent with other studies e.g. Young et al. (1991), Manning et al. (1999) and Manning and Lime (2000). While preferred standards are unattainable they represent the ideal situation and therefore provide
A.J. Smith Integration 327
managers with information about optimal conditions. It can therefore be considered that collecting data on preferred standards is useful to managers as they provide a benchmark for acceptable standards.
3. How can integrated assessments of campsites be undertaken to provide
managers with information that can be used to manage biophysical and
social impacts in an integrated way?
The associated objectives were to -
i) Draw on indicators and standards identified by visitors to identify the
“most important” biophysical indicators and the level at which these
impacts become unacceptable.
Indicators and standards and their relevant importance and acceptability to visitors and managers have been discussed in the previous research question. Impact indicators of importance to managers and visitors provide a set of reference conditions that reflect the degree of naturalness and quality of visitor experiences considered appropriate and acceptable in natural areas. Appropriate parameters were identified in the social survey and these parameters were monitored. Standards based on social and biophysical data defined specific and measurable limits for the selected indicators.
Impacts in designated and informal campsites can be considered as either on-site
(within the boundary or cleared area of a recreation site) or off-site (at or beyond the perimeter of a recreation site) impacts. Such impacts have important implications for management. On-site impacts have the greatest implications for visitors and can
A.J. Smith Integration 328
greatly affect the quality of their experience. On-site impacts include such impacts as tree damage and litter. Visitors express concern about such impacts and find them unacceptable. As discussed previously, the standards for these impacts were also exceeded.
The perimeter of a site is expected and managed to be in a natural, undisturbed (or minimally disturbed) condition. Off-site impacts include such impacts as the proliferation of social trails and collection of firewood. These impacts are primarily ecological and physical as they expand the area of impact and proliferate into the area surrounding the cleared site. Visitors generally viewed the presence of social trails as a positive influence on the quality of their experience. Informal campsites had significantly more social trails radiating from the campsite than the designated campsites. The mean number of trails radiating from the campsites in this study was similar to various studies on backcountry campsites in the United States e.g. Marion and Leung (1997), McEwan et al. (1996).
Additionally, the removal of coarse woody debris also contributes to the areal extent of impact. Even though firewood was provided at the designated campsites, with exception to Lane Poole, a significant decline in the amount of coarse woody debris was shown. This implies that visitors are going beyond the campsite boundary to collect coarse woody debris for firewood. This has ecological and physical consequences and management actions should be put in place to reduce the necessity to search for firewood.
A.J. Smith Integration 329
ii) Develop an index/rating system for campsites that integrates biophysical
indicators of importance to managers and visitors with their perceptions
of acceptability.
The rating system incorporated indicators from each of the impact groupings (Table
4.1) and also considered indicators of importance to visitors and managers. Defining campsite impacts using rating systems to give an overall score or impact class was shown to be an effective way to reduce the volume of data on site and environmental conditions. The rating system was modified to suit the developed conditions of the campsites in this study. The impact classes provide a general overview of campsite condition however, caution should be considered due to the inappropriateness of summing ordinal data. As a consequence, impact classes obtained should be used as an estimate only of campsite condition and more detailed information such as measurements e.g. number of trees damaged should also be considered.
4. How can these impacts be effectively and efficiently surveyed and monitored?
The associated objectives were to -
i) Explore the efficiency and effectiveness of the new/hybrid approach for
developed and informal campsite monitoring.
This study showed that designated and informal campsites can be effectively and efficiently surveyed and monitored. This study showed that campsite monitoring could be conducted in a relatively short period of time, using minimal equipment and training. Accurate and meaningful, replicable information was provided. The results showed that a significant change could be identified within a relatively short period of time for certain indicators. While the results on the efficiency of method showed there was no correlation between impact indicators guidance was sought from other
A.J. Smith Integration 330
studies that showed a distinct dimensional structure or grouping of camping impacts e.g. Leung and Marion (2000a).
Due to the small number of campsites in each of the study parks, it is preferable that the monitoring procedures outlined in this study are applied to all available campsites at some specified interval of time. The results in this study showed that a significant change could be identified within a relatively short period of time (12 months) for indicators such as seedlings at the perimeter, tree damage, root exposure, pieces of toilet paper, and social trails at the designated campsites. An advantage of monitoring all available campsites is that all campsites are assessed, permitting park- wide evaluation of site-specific changes, aggregate change and to assess indicators against pre-determined standards (Marion and Leung, 1997). Annual monitoring could be conducted at the same time as the annual recreation site and asset information (facility inventory). Management visit each campsite in the study recreation areas at this time and it would be efficient to also monitor campsite condition at the same time. Alternatively, other monitoring studies suggest assessment periods of once every 2 to 3 years if use levels are substantially increasing or once every 5 years if visitor use levels remain the same or use levels are decreasing (Marion and Leung, 1997).
The on-site survey approach was an effective and efficient survey instrument in providing visitor information about conditions, indicators and standards applicable to designated campsites. Further, results from the questionnaire enabled weights to be determined by assessing indicators of importance to visitors and managers.
A.J. Smith Integration 331
7.4. Study Contributions
This study contributes to the fields of recreation ecology, visitor management, sustainable tourism and natural area management. The results from this study provide valuable information as to the impacts that recreation, in particular camping, have on the biophysical/resource and social conditions in the temperate eucalypt forests of southwestern Australia. The monitoring system, effectively and efficiently surveyed and monitored these conditions and therefore could be generalised for other forested areas in Australia. It further provided an example of how integrated monitoring considers both the social and biophysical/resource component of recreational use of campsites and provided information so that campsites can be managed in a sustainable manner.
This study is a significant contribution to our understanding of impacts in designated, developed campsites. It also provides information about informal campsites, which were shown to have similarities to backcountry campsites in the United States. This was one of the first attempts to modify existing monitoring systems developed for backcountry areas for monitoring designated, developed campsites. Further, it was one of the first attempts to compare conditions in designated, developed campsites to newly developed campsites rather than an undisturbed control. This study considered the management footprint imposed in the construction of developed campsites and adjusted the indicators accordingly. Additionally, the social survey provided indicators of importance and standards were set that are applicable to developed campsites.
A.J. Smith Integration 332
Additional outcomes of this research are that it:
enhances the current understanding of recreation impacts, both social and
biophysical, in temperate eucalypt forests and improve procedures in impact
assessment. It is the first comprehensive Australian study on impacts in
eucalypt forests and provides a basis for monitoring.
provides a means to develop site-based key performance indicators that can be
transmitted into management.
provides a comprehensive integrated monitoring system for use by both the
public and private sectors.
establishes an international best practice for managing recreation and tourism
in forest ecosystems, and
provides best practice guidelines for use by both the public and private
sectors.
The outcomes discussed above will ensure that forested areas are managed in a sustainable manner to provide recreation and tourism opportunities for future generations.
A.J. Smith Integration 333
References
Abbott, I. and Loneragan, O. (1986). Ecology of Jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) in the Northern Jarrah Forest of Western Australia. Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Perth, WA, Australia.
Anderson, U.V. (1995). Resistance of Danish coastal vegetation types to human trampling. Biological Conservation 71, 223-230.
Ashor, J.L. (2000). Monitoring social indicators in the Bear Trap Canyon Wilderness 1988-1998. In: Cole, D. N., McCool, S. F., Freimund, W. A., Borrie, W. T. and O'Loughlin, J. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference. Missoula, MT. 23-27 May 1999, Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4, Vol. 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Atkins, K. (1998a). Threatened flora overview. In: Brown, A., Thomson-Dans, C. and Marchant, N., Western Australia's Threatened Flora. Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Como, WA, Australia.
Atkins, K. (1998b). Threatened flora legislation and listings. In: Brown, A., Thomson-Dans, C. and Marchant, N., Western Australia's Threatened Flora. Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Como, WA, Australia.
B.C. Forest Service (1995). The 1993 Northeastern British Columbia Recreation Survey. Ministry of B.C. Forests, Recreation Section, Range, Recreation and Forest Practices Branch, British Columbia, Canada.
Bates, G.M. (1995). Environmental Law in Australia. Butterworths, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Behan, J.R., Richards, M.T. and Lee, M.E. (2000). How do visitor density and anthropogenic change in frontcountry wilderness settings affect recreation benefits? In: Cole, D. N., McCool, S. F., Freimund, W. A., Borrie, W. T. and O'Loughlin, J. Wilderness science in a time of change conference. Missoula, MT. 23-27 May 1999, Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4, Vol. 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden UT, USA.
Belnap, J. (1998). Choosing indicators of natural resource condition: A case study in Arches National Park, Utah, USA. Environmental Management 22(4), 635- 642.
Bentrupperbaumer, J.M. and Reser, J.P. (2002). Measuring and Monitoring Impacts of Visitation and Use in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. Rainforest Cooperative Research Centre, Cairns, QLD, Australia.
Blakesley, J.A. and Reese, K.P. (1988). Avian use of campground and noncampground sites in riparian zones. Journal of Wildlife Management 52(3), 399-402. A.J. Smith References 334
Bohrnstedt, G.W. and Borgatta, E.F. (1981). Social Measurement: Current Issues. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, USA.
Bohrnstedt, G.W. and Knoke, D. (1988). Statistics for Social Data Analysis. F.E. Peacock Publishers Inc, Illinois, USA.
Bolland, M. (2003). Soils of the Swan Coastal Plain, Bulletin 4359. (Homepage of Dept of Agriculture, Western Australia) (Online). Available: http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/agency/pubns/bulletin/b4359/. (4th June 2003).
Borrie, W.T. and Birzell, R.M. (2001). Approaches to measuring quality of the wilderness experience. In: Freimund, W. A. and Cole, D. N. Visitor use density and wilderness experience. Missoula, MT. 1-3 June 2000. Proceedings RMRS-P-20. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Bostedt, G. and Mattsson, L. (1995). The value of forests for tourism in Sweden. Annals of Tourism Research 22(3), 671-680.
Bowker, J.M., Cordell, H.K. and Johnson, C.Y. (1999). User fees for recreation services on public lands: A national assessment. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 17(3), 1-14.
Bowman, J.C., Sleep, D., Forbes, G.J. and Edwards, M. (2000). The association of small mammals with coarse woody debris at log and stand scales. Forest Ecology and Management 129, 119-124.
Boyers, L., Fincher, M. and van Wagtendonk, J. (2000). Twenty-eight years of wilderness campsite monitoring in Yosemite National Park. In: Cole, D. N., McCool, S. F., Freimund, W. A., Borrie, W. T. and O'Loughlin, J. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference. Missoula, MT. 23-27 May 1999, Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5, Vol. 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats and management. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Bratton, S.P., Hickler, M.G. and Graves, J.H. (1978). Visitor impact on backcountry campsites in the Great Smoky Mountains. Environmental Management 2(5), 431-442.
Bratton, S.P., Hickler, M.G. and Graves, J.H. (1979). Trail erosion patterns in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Environmental Management 3(5), 431-445.
Bratton, S.P., Stromberg, L.L. and Harmon, M.E. (1982). Firewood-gathering impacts in backcountry campsites in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Environmental Management 6(1), 63-71.
Bretz Guby, N.A. and Dobbertin, M. (1996). Quantitative estimates of coarse woody debris and standing dead trees in selected Swiss forests. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 5, 327-341.
A.J. Smith References 335
Brown, A., Coates, D. and Hopper, S. (1998). Why are there so many threatened plants in WA? In: Brown, A., Thomson-Dans, C. and Marchant, N., Western Australia's Threatened Flora. Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Como, WA, Australia.
Brown, J.H., Kalisz, S.P. and Wright, W.R. (1977). Effects of recreational use on forested sites. Environmental Geology 1(5), 425-431.
Buckley, R. (1991). Perspectives in Environmental Management. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Buckley, R. (2000). Neat trends: Current issues in nature, eco- and adventure tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research 2, 437-444.
Buckley, R. and Pannell, J. (1990). Environmental impacts of tourism and recreation in national parks and conservation reserves. Journal of Tourism Studies 1(1), 24-32.
Burden, R.F. and Randerson, P.F. (1972). Quantitative studies of the effects of human trampling on vegetation as an aid to the management of semi-natural areas. Journal of Applied Ecology 9, 439-457.
Bureau of Meteorology (2002). Average Annual Minimum and Maximum Temperature. (Homepage of Bureau of Meteorology) (Online). Available: http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/cgi_bin_scripts/. (2002, 1 August).
CALM (1987a). Regional Management Plan 1987-1997: Southern Forest Region. Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Como, Western Australia.
CALM (1987b). Central Forest Region, Regional Management Plan 1987-1997. Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Como, WA, Australia.
CALM (1989). Leeuwin-Naturaliste National Park Management Plan 1989-1999. Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Como, WA, Australia.
CALM (1990). Lane Poole Reserve Management Plan 1990-2000. Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Como, WA, Australia.
CALM (1994). Forest Management Plan 1994-2003. Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Como, WA, Australia.
CALM (1998). Lane Poole Reserve: Draft Recreation Masterplan. Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Dwellingup District and Recreation Planning and Design Section, Dwellingup, WA, Australia.
CALM (1999). Wellington Forest: Draft Recreation and Tourism Masterplan. Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Mornington District and Recreation Planning and Design Section, Collie, WA, Australia.
A.J. Smith References 336
CALM (2000a). Pemberton RFA Project Draft Masterplan: A Plan for the Development and Management of a Tour of The Pemberton Forests. Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Como, Western Australia.
CALM (2000b). A Guide to Lane Poole Reserve Dwellingup. Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Dwellingup, WA, Australia.
CALM (2000c). VISTAT 2000: Guidelines for the Collection of Visitor Information Data on CALM-Managed Lands and Waters. Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Como, WA.
CALM (2000d). Sue's Bridge Visitor Feedback - Jan 2000. Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Como, WA.
CALM (2001a). Wellington National Park Visitor Survey Program - Feb to Apr 2001. Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Como, Western Australia.
CALM (2001b). Lane Poole Reserve Visitor Survey Program - Mar to Apr 2001. Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Como, WA, Australia.
CALM (2002). Lane Poole Reserve Visitor Survey Program - Mar to Apr & Sept to Oct 2002. Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Como, WA.
CALM (2003a). Policy Statement No. 18. Recreation, Tourism and Visitor Services, Draft Guidelines. Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Como, WA, Australia.
CALM (2003b). Nature Base: Wellington National Park Issues Paper. (Homepage of Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia) (Online). Available: http://www.calm.wa.gov.au/national_parks/management/man_have_your_say .html. (2/6/03).
CALM (2003c). Managing WA Forests. (Homepage of Dept of Conservation and Land Management) (Online). Available: http://www.calm.wa.gov.au/forest_facts/index.html. (28-07-2003).
CALM (unpub.). Pemberton National Parks Interim Management Guidelines, Draft. Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Pemberton District, Pemberton, WA, Australia.
Cessford, G.R. (2000a). Identifying research needs for improved management of social impacts in wilderness recreation. In: Cole, D. N., McCool, S. F., Freimund, W. A., Borrie, W. T. and O'Loughlin, J. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference. Missoula, MT. 23-27 May 1999, Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4, Vol. 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
A.J. Smith References 337
Cessford, G.R. (2000b). Noise Impact Issues on the Great Walks of New Zealand. In: Cole, D. N., McCool, S. F., Freimund, W. A., Borrie, W. T. and O’Loughlin, J. Wilderness science in a time of change conference. Missoula, MT. 23-27 May 1999, Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4, Vol. 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Chin, C.L.M., Moore, S.A., Wallington, T.J. and Dowling, R.K. (2000). Ecotourism in Bako National Park, Borneo: Visitors' perspectives on environmental impacts and their management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8(1), 20-35.
Christensen, P. (1992). The Karri Forest: Its conservation significance and management. Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Como, WA, Australia.
Christensen, P., Annels, A., Liddelow, G. and Skinner, P. (1985). Vertebrate fauna in the Southern Forests of Western Australia: A survey. Bulletin 94. Forest Department of WA, Perth, WA, Australia.
Cilimburg, A., Monz, C. and Kehoe, S. (2000). Wildland recreation and human waste: A review of problems, practices, and concerns. Environmental Management 25(6), 587-598.
Cole, D.N. (1982a). Wilderness campsite impacts: Effect of amount of use. Research Paper INT-284. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Missoula, MT, USA.
Cole, D.N. (1982b). Controlling the spread of campsites at popular wilderness destinations. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 37, 291-295.
Cole, D.N. (1983a). Monitoring the condition of wilderness campsites. Research Paper INT-302. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Cole, D.N. (1983b). Assessing and monitoring backcountry trail conditions. Research Paper INT-303. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Cole, D.N. (1986a). Recreational impacts on backcountry campsites in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, USA. Environmental Management 10(5), 651-659.
Cole, D.N. (1986b). Ecological changes on campsites in the Eagle Cap Wilderness, 1979 to 1984. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Cole, D.N. (1987). Effects of three seasons of experimental trampling on five Montane forest communities and a grassland in Western Montana, USA. Biological Conservation 40, 219-244.
A.J. Smith References 338
Cole, D.N. (1989a). Low-impact recreational practices for wilderness and backcountry. General Technical Report INT-259. USDA Forest Service, Ogden, UT, USA.
Cole, D.N. (1989b). Wilderness campsite monitoring methods: A sourcebook. General Technical Report INT-259. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Cole, D.N. (1990a). Ecological impacts of wilderness recreation and their management. In: Hendee, J. C., Stankey, G. H. and Lucas, R. C., Wilderness Management. North American Press, Colorado, USA, 424-466.
Cole, D.N. (1990b). Campsite management and monitoring in wilderness: Some principles to guide wilderness campsite management. In: Lime, D. W. Management America's enduring wilderness resource: Proceedings of the conference. Minneapolis, MN. USDA Forest Service, Ogden, UT, USA.
Cole, D.N. (1992). Modelling wilderness campsites: Factors that influence amount of impact. Environmental Management 16(2), 255-264.
Cole, D.N. (1993). Campsites in three western wildernesses: Proliferation and changes in condition over 12 to 16 years. Research Paper INT-463. USDA Forest Service, Ogden, UT, USA.
Cole, D.N. (1995a). Experimental trampling of vegetation I. Relationship between trampling intensity and vegetation response. Journal of Applied Ecology 32, 203-214.
Cole, D.N. (1995b). Disturbance of natural vegetation by camping: Experimental applications of low-level stress. Environmental Management 19(3), 405-416.
Cole, D.N. (1997). Visitors, conditions, and management options for high-use destination areas in wilderness. In: Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Research and Resource Management In Parks and on Public Lands, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 17-21 March 1997. The George Wright Society Biennial Conference, Alburquerque, NM, USA.
Cole, D.N. (2000). Managing campsite impacts on wild rivers: Are there lessons for wilderness manager? International Journal of Wilderness 6(3), 12-16.
Cole, D.N. (2001). Day Users in Wilderness: How Different Are They? Research Paper RMRS-RP-31. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Cole, D.N. and Dalle-Molle, D.N. (1982). Managing campfire impacts in the backcountry. General Technical Report INT-135. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Cole, D.N. and Fichtler, R.K. (1983). Campsite impact on three western wilderness areas. Environmental Management 7(3), 275-288.
A.J. Smith References 339
Cole, D.N. and Hall, T.E. (1992). Trends in campsite condition: Eagle Cap Wilderness (Oregon), Bob Marshall Wilderness (Montana), and Grand Canyon National Park (Arizona). General Technical Report INT-453. USDA Forest Service, Ogden, UT, USA.
Cole, D.N. and Landres, P.B. (1995). Indirect effects of recreation on wildlife. In: Knight, R. L. and Gutzwiller, K. J., Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, 183-202.
Cole, D.N. and Marion, J.L. (1988). Recreation impacts in some riparian forests of the Eastern United States. Environmental Management 12(1), 99-107.
Cole, D.N. and McCool, S.F. (2000). Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management. In: Cole, D. N., McCool, S. F., Freimund, W. A., Borrie, W. T. and O'Loughlin, J. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference. Missoula, MT. 23-27 May 1999, Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Vol. 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Cole, D.N., Petersen, M.E. and Lucas, R.C. (1987). Managing wilderness recreation use: Common problems and potential solutions. General Technical Report INT-230. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Cole, D.N. and Spildie, D.R. (1998). Hiker, horse and llama trampling effects on native vegetation in Montana, USA. Environmental Management 53, 61-71.
Cole, D.N. and Spildie, D.R. (2000). Soil amendments and planting techniques: Campsite restoration in the Eagle Cap Wilderness, Oregon. In: Cole, D. N., McCool, S. F., Freimund, W. A., Borrie, W. T. and O'Loughlin, J. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference. Missoula, MT. May 23-27, 1999, Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Vol. 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats and management. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden, UT, USA.
Cole, D.N. and Stewart, W.P. (2002). Variability of user-based evaluative standards for backcountry encounters. Leisure Sciences 24, 313-324.
Cole, D.N., Watson, A.E., Hall, T.E. and Spildie, D.R. (1997). High-Use Destinations in Wilderness: Social and Biophysical Impacts, Visitor Responses, and Management Options. Research Paper INT-RP-496. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Cole, D.N., Watson, A.E. and Roggenbuck, J.W. (1995). Trends in Wilderness Visitors and Visits: Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Shining Rock, and Desolation Wildernesses. Research Paper INT-RP-483. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
A.J. Smith References 340
Deluca, T.H., Patterson IV, W.A., Freimund, W.A. and Cole, D.N. (1998). Influence of llamas, horses, and hikers on soil erosion from established recreation trails in western Montana, USA. Environmental Management 22(2), 255-262.
Dept of Conservation and Environment (1981). The Darling System Western Australia: Proposals for Parks and Reserves. Report No. 8: The System 6 Study Report to the Environmental Protection Authority. Dept of Conservation and Environment, Perth, WA, Australia.
Dept of Fisheries (2003). Fishing for Marron. (Homepage of Dept of Fisheries, Western Australia) (Online). Available: http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/rec/broc/marron/index.html. (27/02/03).
Dept of Industry Tourism and Resources (1998). Tourism Facts No. 15. (Homepage of Department of Industry, Science and Tourism, Australia) (Online). Available: http://www.industry.gov.au. (29-07-02).
Dept of Industry Tourism and Resources (2001). Tourism Facts: Ecotourism. (Homepage of Department of Industry, Science and Tourism, Australia) (Online). Available: http://www.industry.gov.au. (4-08-03).
Dept of Industry Tourism and Resources (2002). 10-year Strategic Plan for Tourism. (Homepage of Department of Industry, Science and Tourism, Australia) (Online). Available: http://www.industry.gov.au. (27-07-02).
Doucette, J.E. and Cole, D.N. (1993). Wilderness Visitor Education: Information About Alternative Techniques. General Technical Report INT-295. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Dowling, R. (1995). The south west ecotourism strategy, Western Australia. In: Richins, H., Richardson, J. and Crabtree, A. Ecotourism and Nature-Based Tourism: Taking the Next Steps. Alice Springs, NT. Ecotourism Association of Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Farrell, T.A. and Marion, J.L. (2000). Camping impact management at Isle Royale National Park: An evaluation of visitor activity containment policies from the perspective of social conditions. In: Cole, D. N., McCool, S. F., Freimund, W. A., Borrie, W. T. and O'Loughlin, J. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference. Missoula, MT. 23-27 May 1999, Proceedings RMRS-P- 15-VOL-5. Vol. 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, and Management. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Farrell, T.A. and Marion, J.L. (2001). Identifying and assessing ecotourism visitor impacts at eight protected areas in Costa Rica and Belize. Environmental Conservation 28(3), 215-225.
Frankfort-Nachmias, C. and Nachmias, D. (1992). Research Methods in the Social Sciences. St Martins Press, New York, USA.
A.J. Smith References 341
Frissell, S.S. (1978). Judging recreation impacts on wilderness campsites. Journal of Forestry 76(8).
Garnett, S.T. and Crowley, G.M. (2000). The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2000. Environment Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Gomez-Limon, F.J. and de Lucio, J.V. (1994). Recreational use model in a wilderness area. Journal of Environmental Management 40(2), 161-171.
Government Gazette (2003a). Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice 2003. 11 April 2003, pp1158–1167. Government Gazette, Perth, WA, Australia.
Government Gazette (2003b). Wildlife Conservation (Rare Flora) Notice 2003. 11 April 2003, pp1153–1158. Government Gazette, Perth, WA, Australia.
Graefe, A.R., Kuss, F.R. and Vaske, J.J. (1990). Visitor Impact Management: The Planning Framework. Vol. 2. National Parks and Conservation Association, Washington, DC, USA.
Gunn, G. (2003). Landcare Field Guide: An Introduction to Land Degradation. (Homepage of Landcare Victoria, Dept of Natural Resources and Environment, Australia) (Online). Available: http://www.netc.net.au/enviro/fguide/. (26-02-03).
Hall, T.E. and Farrell, T.A. (2001). Fuelwood depletion at wilderness campsites: extent and potential ecological significance. Environmental Conservation 28(3), 241-247.
Hall, T.E. and Shelby, B. (1994). Eagle Cap Wilderness: Recreational Use and Impacts. Oregon State University, Oregon, USA.
Hall, T.E. and Shelby, B. (1998). Changes in use of three Oregon, USA, wildernesses. Environmental Management 22(1), 89-98.
Hammitt, W.E. and Cole, D.N. (1998). Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. 2. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, USA.
Harmon, M.E., Franklin, J.F., Swanson, F.J., Sollins, P., Gregory, S.V., Lattin, J.D., Anderson, N.H., Cline, S.P., Aumen, N.G., Sedell, J.R., Lienkaemper, G.W., Cromack, K. and Cummins, K.W. (1986). Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Advances in Ecological Research 15, 133-302.
Harmon, M.E., Hennessy, T. and Silsbee, D.G. (1980). Woody fuel dimensions within the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Res/Resour. Manage. Rep. No. 31. US Dept of the Interior, National Park Service, Southeast Region, USA.
A.J. Smith References 342
Haysmith, L. and Hunt, J.D. (1995). Nature tourism: Impacts and management. In: Knight, R. L. and Gutzwiller, K. J., Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, 203-219.
Hecnar, S.J. and M'Closkey, R.T. (1998). Effects of human disturbance on five-lined skink, Eumeces fasciatus, abundance and distribution. Biological Conservation 85, 213-222.
Hendee, J.C., Stankey, G.H. and Lucas, R.C. (1990). Wilderness Management. North American Press, Colorado, USA.
Hicks, B.B. and Brydges, T.G. (1994). A strategy for integrated monitoring. Environmental Management 18(1), 1-12.
Hockings, M., Stolton, S. and Dudley, N. (2000). Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing the Management of Protected Areas. IUCN/Cardiff University Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 6. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Horneman, L.N., Beeton, R.J.S. and Hockings, M. (2002). Monitoring Visitors to Natural Areas: A Manual with Standard Methodological Guidelines. A manual prepared for the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, New South Wales National Park and Wildlife Service, and Sport and Recreation Queensland, the University of Queensland, Gatton Campus, Australia.
Hoss, A.F. and Brunson, M.W. (2000). Meanings and implications of acceptability judgements for wilderness use impacts. In: Cole, D. N., McCool, S. F., Freimund, W. A., Borrie, W. T. and O'Loughlin, J. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference. Missoula, MT. 23-27 May 1999, Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Vol. 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Hunt, N. and Gilkes, B. (1992). Farm Monitoring Handbook: A practical down-to- earth manual for farmers and other land users. University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
Huxtable, D. (1987). The environmental impacts of firewood collection for campfires, and appropriate management strategies. South Australian College of Advanced Education, Salisbury, SA, Australia.
Huybers, T. and Bennett, J. (1997). The significance of the environment and its regulation to Australia's tourism industry. Australian Journal of Environmental Management 4, 40-55.
Industry Commission (1996). Tourism Accommodation and Training. 50. Australian Government Publishing Service, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
A.J. Smith References 343
Kearsley, G. and Coughlan, D. (1999). Coping with crowding: Tourist displacement in the New Zealand backcountry. Current Issues in Tourism 2(2&3), 197- 210.
Kim, S.O. and Shelby, B. (1998). Norms for behavior and conditions in two National Park campgrounds in Korea. Environmental Management 22(2), 277-285.
Kinnear, P.R. and Gray, C.D. (2000). SPSS for Windows Made Simple: Release 10. Psychology Press, Hove, UK.
Krumpe, E.E. (2000). The role of science in wilderness planning: A state-of- knowledge review. In: Cole, D. N., McCool, S. F., Freimund, W. A., Borrie, W. T. and O'Loughlin, J. Wilderness Science in a time of Change Conference. Missoula, MT. 23-27 May 1999, Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Vol. 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats and management. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Kuss, F.R., Graefe, A.R. and Vaske, J.J. (1990). Visitor Impact Management: A Review of Research. 1. National Parks and Conservation Association, Washington, DC, USA.
Lah, K.J. (2000). Developing social standards for wilderness encounters in Mount Rainier National Park: Manager-defined versus visitor-defined standards. In: Cole, D. N., McCool, S. F., Freimund, W. A., Borrie, W. T. and O'Loughlin, J. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference. Missoula, MT. 23-27 May 1999, Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Vol. 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Landres, P.B. (1995). The role of ecological monitoring in managing wilderness. TRENDS/Wilderness Research 32(1), 10-13.
Leung, Y.F. and Marion, J.L. (1998). Evaluating spatial qualities of visitor impacts on recreation resources: An index approach. Journal of Applied Recreation Research 23(4), 367-389.
Leung, Y.F. and Marion, J.L. (1999a). Characterizing backcountry camping impacts in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA. Journal of Environmental Management 57(3), 193-203.
Leung, Y.F. and Marion, J.L. (1999b). Assessing trail conditions in protected areas: Application of a problem assessment method in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA. Environmental Conservation 26(4), 270-9.
A.J. Smith References 344
Leung, Y.F. and Marion, J.L. (2000a). Recreation Impacts and Management in Wilderness: A state-of-knowledge review. In: Cole, D. N., McCool, S. F., Freimund, W. A., Borrie, W. T. and O'Loughlin, J. Wilderness science in a time of change conference. Missoula, MT. 23-27 May 1999, Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Vol. 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Leung, Y.F. and Marion, J.L. (2000b). Wilderness campsite conditions under an unregulated camping policy: An Eastern example. In: Cole, D. N., McCool, S. F., Freimund, W. A., Borrie, W. T. and O'Loughlin, J. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference. Missoula, MT. 23-27 May 1999, Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Vol. 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats and management. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Liddle, M. (1997). Recreation Ecology: The Ecological Impact of Outdoor Recreation and Ecotourism. 639. Chapman & Hall, London, UK.
Lindberg, K., McCool, S. and Stankey, G. (1997). Rethinking carrying capacity. Annals of Tourism Research 24(2), 461-465.
Lindenmayer, D.B., Claridge, A.W., Gilmore, A.M., Michael, D. and Lindenmayer, B.D. (2002). The ecological roles of logs in Australian forests and the potential impacts of harvesting intensification on log-using biota. Pacific Conservation Biology 8, 121-140.
Lucas, R.C. (1990a). Wilderness use and users: Trends and projections. In: Hendee, J. C., Stankey, G. H. and Lucas, R. C., Wilderness Management. North American Press, Colorado, 354-398.
Lucas, R.C. (1990b). Wilderness recreation management: A general overview. In: Hendee, J. C., Stankey, G. H. and Lucas, R. C., Wilderness Management. North American Press, Colorado, USA, 401-422.
Lucas, R.C. (1990c). The wilderness experience and managing the factors that influence it. In: Hendee, J. C., Stankey, G. H. and Lucas, R. C., Wilderness Management. North American Press, Colorado, 469-495.
Lucas, R.C. and Stankey, G.H. (1989). Shifting trends in wilderness recreational use. In: Watson, A. E. Outdoor Recreation Benchmark 1998, Proceedings of the National Outdoor Recreation Forum, 1998 13-14 January, Tampa, FL, General Technical Report SE-52. USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC, USA.
A.J. Smith References 345
Manning, R.E. and Lime, D.W. (2000). Defining and managing the quality of wilderness recreation experiences. In: Cole, D. N., McCool, S. F., Freimund, W. A., Borrie, W. T. and O'Loughlin, J. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference. Missoula, MT. 23-27 May 1999, Proceedings RMRS-P- 15-VOL-4. Vol. 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Manning, R.E., Valliere, W.A. and Wang , B. (1999). Crowding Norms: Alternative Measurement Approaches. Leisure Sciences 21(2), 97-115.
Margerum, R.D. (1999). Integrated environmental management: The foundations for successful practice. Environmental Management 24(2), 151-166.
Marion, J.L. (1991). Developing a natural resource inventory and monitoring program for visitor impacts on recreation sites: A procedural manual. Natural Resources Report NPS/NRVT/NRR-91/06. United States Department of Interior, National Park Service, Denver, CO, USA.
Marion, J.L. (1994). An assessment of trail conditions in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Final Research Report. US Department of Interior, National Park Service, Southeast Region, Gatlinburg, TN, USA.
Marion, J.L. (1995). Capabilities and management utility of recreation impact monitoring programs. Environmental Management 19(5), 763-771.
Marion, J.L. (1997). Recreation Site Monitoring Manual: Torres del Paine National Park, Chile. Virginia Tech, Department of Forestry, Virginia, USA.
Marion, J.L. (1998). Recreation ecology research findings: Implications for wilderness and park managers. In: Proceedings of the National Outdoor Ethics Conference, 18-21 April 1996. Izaak Walton League of America, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Marion, J.L. (1999). Campsite Monitoring Manual: Shenandoah National Park. Virginia Tech, Department of Forestry, Virginia, USA.
Marion, J.L. and Cole, D.N. (1996). Spatial and temporal variation in soil and vegetation impacts on campsites. Ecological Applications 6(2), 520-530.
Marion, J.L. and Farrell, T.A. (2002). Management practices that concentrate visitor activities: camping impact management at Isle Royale National Park, USA. Journal of Environmental Management 66(2), 201-212.
Marion, J.L. and Leung, Y.F. (1996). Managing designated campsites: Survey implications from Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Master Network (No. 13, Summer).
A.J. Smith References 346
Marion, J.L. and Leung, Y.F. (1997). An Assessment of Campsite Conditions in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Gatlinburg, TN, USA.
Marion, J.L. and Leung, Y.F. (2001). Trail resource impacts and an examination of alternative assessment techniques. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration (Special Issue on Parks and Greenways) 19.
Martin, S.R., McCool, S.F. and Lucas, R.C. (1989). Wilderness campsite impacts: Do managers and visitors see them the same. Environmental Management 13(5), 623-629.
McArthur, S. and Hall, M. (1996). Visitor research and monitoring. In: Hall, M. and McArthur, S., Heritage Management in Australia and New Zealand: The Human Dimension. Oxford University Press, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 52- 143.
McClaran, M.P. and Cole, D.N. (1993). Packstock in wilderness: Use, impacts, monitoring and management. General Technical Report INT-301. USDA Forest Service, Ogden, UT, USA.
McEwen, D., Cole, D.N. and Simon, M. (1996). Campsite impacts in four wildernesses in the south-central United States. Research Paper INT-RP-490. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
McKercher, B. (1996). Differences between tourism and recreation in parks. Annals of Tourism Research 23(3), 563-575.
McNeely, J.A. (1990). The future of national parks. Environment 32(1), 16-20.
MetroCount (2003). MetroCount Vehicle Classifier System. (Homepage of MetroCount) (Online). Available: www.metrocount.com. (23-08-03).
Moncrieff, D. (1998). Impact management of tourism and recreation at Dryandra Woodland. In: Proceedings of the Ecotourism Association of Australia 1998 National Conference. Developing Ecotourism into the Millennium, 29 October - 1 November 1998, Margaret River, Western Australia. Ecotourism Association of Australia, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Monz, C. (2000). Recreation resource assessment and monitoring techniques for mountain regions. In: Godde, P. M., Price, M. F. and Zimmermann, F. M., Tourism and Development in Mountain Regions. CABI Publishing, Oxford, UK, 47-68.
Moore, S.A., Smith, A.J. and Newsome, D.N. (2003). Environmental performance reporting for natural area tourism: Contributions by visitor impact management frameworks and their indicators. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 11(4), 348-375.
A.J. Smith References 347
Morin, S.L., Moore, S.A. and Schmidt, W. (1997). Defining indicators and standards for recreation impacts in Nuyts Wilderness, Walpole-Nornalup National Park, Western Australia. CALMScience 2(3), 247-266.
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B. and Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853- 858.
Newsome, D., Milewski, A., Philips, N. and Annear, R. (2002b). Effects of horse riding on national parks and other natural ecosystems in Australia: Implications for management. Journal of Ecotourism 1(1), 52-74.
Newsome, D., Moore, S. and Dowling, R. (2002a). Natural Area Tourism: Ecology, Impacts and Management. Channel View Publications, Clevedon, UK.
Nilsen, P. and Tayler, G. (1997). A comparative analysis of protected area planning and management frameworks. In: McCool, S. F. and Cole, D. N. Proceedings of a Workshop on Limits of Acceptable Change and Related Planning Processes: Progress and Future Directions, University of Montana's Lubrechnt Experimental Forest, Missoula, Montana, 20-22 May 1997. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden, UT, USA.
Noe, F.P., Hammitt, W.E. and Bixler, R.D. (1997). Park user perceptions of resource and use impacts under varied situations in three national parks. Journal of Environmental Management 49(3), 323-336.
Obua, J. (1997). The potential, development and ecological impact of ecotourism in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Journal of Environmental Management 50, 27-38.
Obua, J. and Harding, D.M. (1997). Environmental impact of ecotourism in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5(3), 213-223.
Parsons, D.J. and MacLeod, S.A. (1980). Measuring impacts of wilderness use. Parks 5(3), 8-13.
Pitts, D. and Smith, J. (1993). A visitor monitoring strategy for Kakadu National Park. In: Track to the Future: Managing Change in Parks and Recreation: National Conference of the Royal Australian Institute of Parks and Recreation. Cairns, QLD. September 1993. RAIPR. Dickson, ACT, Australia.
Polley, M. (2002). Visitor Perceptions and Preferences Regarding Cape Range National Park. Honours. Murdoch University, School of Environmental Science, Murdoch, WA, Australia.
Pouliquen-Young, O. (1997). Evolution of the system of protected areas in Western Australia. Environmental Conservation 24(2), 168-181.
A.J. Smith References 348
Preston, F., Whitehead, I. and Byrne, N. (1986). Impacts of camping use on snow plains in the Baw Baw National Park. Victoria Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Regan, G. (1996). Greens Pool Beach, Denmark, Western Australia - Towards a model methodology for assessing the environmental impact of ecotourism in Australia. APACE Green Skills, Perth, WA, Australia.
Regional Forest Agreement (1998a). Comprehensive regional assessment: A regional forest agreement for Western Australia, Vol. 1 & 2. Commonwealth and Western Australian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) Steering Committee, Bentley, Western Australia.
Regional Forest Agreement (1998b). Economic Profile of the Tourism and Recreation Industries in the Regional Forest Agreement Area. Vol. I & II. Commonwealth and Western Australian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) Steering Committee, Bentley, WA, Australia.
Richer, J.R. and Christensen, N.A. (1999). Appropriate fees for wilderness day use: Pricing decisions for recreation on public land. Journal of Leisure Research 31(3), 269-280.
Robertson, R.A. and Colletti, J.P. (1994). Off-site impacts of soil erosion on recreation: The case of Lake Reservoir in central Iowa. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 49(6), 576-584.
Roggenbuck, J.W. and Lucas, R.C. (1987). Wilderness use and user characteristics: A state-of-knowledge review. In: Lucas, R. C. Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State-of-Knowledge, Future Directions., General Technical Report INT-220. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Roggenbuck, J.W. and Watson, A.E. (1988). Wilderness recreation use: The current situation. In: Watson, A. E. Outdoor Recreation Benchmark 1988: Proceedings of the National Outdoor Recreation Forum, 1998, 13-14 January, Tampa, FL, General Technical Report SE-52. USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC, USA.
Roggenbuck, J.W., Williams, D.R. and Watson, A.E. (1993). Defining acceptable conditions in wilderness. Environmental Management 17(2), 187-197.
Rossi, P.H., Wright, J.D. and Anderson, A.B. (1983). Handbook of Survey Research. Academic Press Inc, Orlando, Florida, USA.
A.J. Smith References 349
Sacklin, J.A., Legg, K.L., Creachbaum, M.S., Hawkes, C.L. and Helfrich, G. (2000). Winter Visitor Use Planning in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. In: Cole, D. N., McCool, S. F., Freimund, W. A., Borrie, W. T. and O’Loughlin, J. Wilderness science in a time of change conference. Missoula, MT. 23-27 May 1999, Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Vol. 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Sharpe, E.K. and Ewert, A.W. (2000). Interferences in Place Attachment: Implications for Wilderness. In: Cole, D. N., McCool, S. F., Freimund, W. A., Borrie, W. T. and O’Loughlin, J. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference. Missoula, MT. 23-27 May 1999, Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL- 3, Vol. 3: Wilderness as a place for scientific inquiry. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Shelby, B. and Harris, R. (1985). Comparing methods for determining visitors evaluations of ecological impacts: Site visits, photographs, and written descriptions. Journal of Leisure Research 17(1), 57-67.
Shelby, B. and Harris, R. (1986). User standards for ecological impacts at wilderness campsites. In: Lucas, R. C. Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research. Fort Collins, CO, July 23-26, 1985. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Shindler, B. and Shelby, B. (1993). Regulating wilderness use: An investigation of user group support. Journal of Forestry 91(2), 41-44.
Sinha, C. and Blaydon, D. (2001). Monitoring impacts of visitor use on camping sites at the Greater Blue Mountain Area, New South Wales, Australia. In: 2001 CAUTHE National Research Conference, Canberra. Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Smith, A.J. (1998). Environmental Impacts of Recreation and Tourism in Warren National Park, Western Australia and Appropriate Management Planning. Honours. Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA, Australia.
Smith, A.J. and Newsome, D. (2002). An integrated approach to assessing, managing and monitoring campsite impacts in Warren National Park, Western Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10(4), 343-359.
Smith, R.H. and Neal, J.E. (1993). Wood Residues in Regenerated Karri Stands. CALM Internal Report August 1993, Science & Information Division, Manjimup, WA, Australia.
Spencer, D.M., Kim, D.-K., Nelson, C.M. and Holecek, D.F. (1999). Characteristics and behaviour of tourists who use trails. Current Issues in Tourism 2(2 & 3), 174-196.
A.J. Smith References 350
Stankey, G.H., Cole, D.N., Lucas, R.C., Petersen, M.E. and Frissell, S.S. (1985). The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning. General Technical Report INT-176. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Stankey, G.H., McCool, S.F. and Stokes, G.L. (1990). Managing for appropriate wilderness conditions: The carrying capacity issue. In: Hendee, J. C., Stankey, G. H. and Lucas, R. C., Wilderness Management. North American Press, Colorado, USA.
Stohlgren, T.J. and Parsons, D.J. (1992). Evaluating wilderness recreational opportunities: Application of an impact matrix. Environmental Management 16(3), 397-403.
Sun, D. and Liddle, M.J. (1993a). A survey of trampling effects on vegetation and soil in eight tropical and subtropical sites. Environmental Management 17(4), 497-510.
Sun, D. and Liddle, M.J. (1993b). Plant morphological characteristics and resistance to simulated trampling. Environmental Management 17(4), 511-521.
Sun, D. and Walsh, D. (1998). Review of studies on environmental impacts of recreation and tourism in Australia. Journal of Environmental Management 53(4), 323-338.
Sykes, J.B. Ed. (1982). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.
Tarrant, M.A., Smith, E. and Cordell, H.K. (1999). Recreation visitor preferences for and perceptions of outdoor recreation setting attributes. In: Cordell, H. K., Betz, C. and Bowker, J. M., Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends. Sagamore Publishing, Champaign, IL, USA, 412-431.
Taylor, J.Y. (1997). Leave only footprints? How backcountry campsite use affects forest structure. Yellowstone Science 5(1, winter), 14-17.
The International Ecotourism Society (2000). Ecotourism Statistical Fact Sheet. The International Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, VT, USA.
Tille, P. (1996). Wellington-Blackwood Land Resource Survey. Agriculture Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Trumball, V.L., Dubois, P.C., Brozka, R.J. and Guyette, R. (1994). Military camping impacts on vegetation and soils of the Ozark Plateau. Journal of Environmental Management 40, 329-339.
Underwood, R.J. (1972). Management Plan for Pemberton National Parks. Pemberton National Parks Board, Pemberton, WA, Australia.
A.J. Smith References 351
Van Wagner, C.E. (1968). The line intersect method in forest fuel sampling. Forest Science 14, 20-26.
Vorkinn, M. (1998). Visitor response to management regulations - a study among recreationists in southern Norway. Environmental Management 22(5), 737- 746.
Warzecha, C.A., Lime, D.W. and Thompson, J.L. (2000). Visitors’ Relationship to the Resource: Comparing Place Attachment in Wildland and Developed Settings. In: Cole, D. N., McCool, S. F., Freimund, W. A., Borrie, W. T. and O’Loughlin, J. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference. Missoula, MT. 23-27 May 1999, Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4, Vol. 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Washburne, R.F. and Cole, D.N. (1983). Problems and Practices in Wilderness Management: A Survey of Managers. Research Paper INT-304. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Water and Rivers Commission (2002a). Blackwood River Basin. (Homepage of Water and Rivers Commission, Western Australia) (Online). Available: http://www.wrc.wa.gov.au/under/statewqassess/Blackwood_home.htm. (14- 8-02).
Water and Rivers Commission (2002b). Collie River Basin. (Homepage of Water and Rivers Commission, Australia) (Online). Available: http://www.wrc.wa.gov.au/under/statewqassess/Collie_home.htm. (14-8-02).
Watson, A.E. and Cole, D.N. (1992). LAC indicators: An evaluation of progress and list of proposed indicators. In: Merigliano, L., Ideas for Limits of Acceptable Change Process. USDA Forest Service, Recreation, Cultural, Resources and Wilderness Management Staff, USA.
Watson, A.E., Cole, D.N., Turner, D.L. and Reynolds, P.S. (2000). Wilderness Recreation Use Estimation: A Handbook of Methods and Systems. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-56. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Watson, A.E. and Niccolucci, M.J. (1995). Conflicting goals of wilderness management: Natural conditions vs. natural experiences. In: Chavez, D. J. Proceedings of the second symposium on social aspects and recreation research, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-156. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA, USA.
Watson, A.E., Niccolucci, M.J. and Williams, D.R. (1993). Hikers and Recreational Stock Users: Predicting and Managing Recreation Conflicts in Three Wildernesses. Research Paper. USDA Forest Service, Ogden, UT, USA.
A.J. Smith References 352
Watson, A.E., Niccolucci, M.J. and Williams, D.R. (1994). The nature of conflict between hikers and recreational stock users in the John Muir Wilderness. Journal of Leisure Research 26(4), 372-385.
Watson, A.E., Williams, D.R., Roggenbuck, J.W. and Daigle, J.J. (1992). Visitor Characteristics and Preferences for Three National Forest Wildernesses in the South. Research Paper INT-455. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, USA.
Wearing, S. and Neil, J. (1999). Ecotourism: Impacts, Potentials and Possibilities. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.
Westcott, G. (1993). Loving our parks to death? A cautionary tale. Habitat Australia 21(1), 12-19.
Whinam, J., Cannell, E.J., Kirkpatrick, J.B. and Comfort, M. (1994). Studies on the potential impact of recreational horseriding on some alpine environments of the Central Plateau, Tasmania. Journal of Environmental Management 40, 103-117.
White, D.D., Hall, T.E. and Farrell, T.A. (2001). Influence of ecological impacts and other campsite characteristics on wilderness visitors' campsite choices. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 19(2), 83-97.
White, P.C.L. and Lovett, J.C. (1999). Public preferences and willingness-to-pay for nature conservation in the North York Moors National Park, UK. Journal of Environmental Management 55(1), 1-13.
Williams, D.R. (1998). Sense of place: An elusive concept that is finding a home in ecosystem management. Journal of Forestry 96, 18-23.
Williams, D.R., Roggenbuck, J.W., Patterson, M.E. and Watson, A.E. (1992). The variability of user-based social impact standards for wilderness management. Forest Science 38(4), 738-756.
Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources (2002). Wisconsin Voluntary, Site-level Forest Management Guidelines (FMG). (Homepage of Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources, USA) (Online). Available: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/forestry/Private/FMG/chapterscomments. htm. (11/03/03).
Woodley, S. (1993). Tourism and sustainable development in parks and protected areas. In: Nelson, J. G., Butler, R. and Wall, G., Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing. University of Waterloo, Canada.
Yorks, T.P., West, N.E., Mueller, R.J. and Warren, S.D. (1997). Toleration of traffic by vegetation: Life form conclusions and summary extracts from a comprehensive data base. Environmental Management 21(1), 121-131.
A.J. Smith References 353
Young, J.M., Williams, D.R. and Roggenbuck, J.W. (1991). The role of involvement in identifying users' preferences for social standards in the Cohutta Wilderness. In: Hope III, D. Proceedings of 1990 Southeastern Recreation Research Conference, Volume 12,. USDA, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC, USA.
Zabinski, C.A. and Gannon, J.E. (1997). Effects of recreational impacts on soil microbial communities. Environmental Management 21(2), 233-238.
Personal Communication
Annear, R. (1998). Ranger-in-Charge, Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Pemberton District, Western Australia. Personal communication, September 1998
Annear, R. (2003). Ranger-in-Charge, Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Pemberton District, Western Australia. Personal communication, March 2003
Bennetts, D. (2003). Planning Officer, Management Planning Unit, Parks and Visitor Services, Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia. Personal communication, April 2003
Cole, D.N. (2003). Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula MT, USA. Personal communication, 20/08/03
Driscoll, A. (2003). Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia. Personal communication, April 2003
Fordham Lamont, V. (2003). Technical Officer, Management Planning Unit, Parks & Visitor Services Division, Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia. Personal communication, June 2003
Forward, C. (2003). National Park Ranger, Margaret River Workcentre, Parks and Visitors Services Division, Blackwood District, Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia. Personal communication, April 2003
Goulding, P. (2003). Technical Officer (Cartographer), Natural Resources Assessment Group, Regional Operations, Dept of Agriculture WA, South Perth, Western Australia. Soil Profile Map provided for Warner Glen/Sues Bridge. Personal communication, April 2003
Hassall, K. (2003). Research & Information Management Unit, Parks & Visitor Services Division, Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Kensington, Western Australia. Personal communication, May 2003
Liddicoat, L. (2003). VISTAT Coordinator, Parks, Policy and Tourism Branch, Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Como, Western Australia. Personal communication, March 2003
A.J. Smith References 354
Miscamble, I. (2003). Forest Officer Parks & Visitor Services, and Forest Management Branch VISTAT data supplied. Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia. Personal communication, March 2003
Moore, M. (2003). Ranger-in-Charge, Lane Poole Reserve, Dept of Conservation and Land Management, Dwellingup, Western Australia. Personal communication, May 2003
Taplin, R. (2003). Senior Lecturer, Science and Engineering, Mathematics and Statistics, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia. Personal communication, May 2003
A.J. Smith References 355
APPENDIX 1
Campsite Data Form
A.J. Smith Appendix
APPENDIX 2
Campsite Area Maps
A.J. Smith Appendix
APPENDIX 3
Efficiency of Methods – Scatter Plots
A.J. Smith Appendix
APPENDIX 4
Recreation & Tourism Visitor Survey
A.J. Smith Appendix
APPENDIX 5
Recreation & Tourism Survey for Managers
A.J. Smith Appendix
APPENDIX 6
Respondents Reasons for Visiting a Particular Study
Park
A.J. Smith Appendix
Appendix 6 Respondents reasons for visiting a particular study park
Not important Minor importance Important Very important Extremely important
Item Percentage of respondents LP HP WG SB A LP HP WG SB A LP HP WG SB A LP HP WG SB A LP HP WG SB A To view the scenery 1 0 0 1 4 3 9 2 37 39 14 37 36 30 32 46 34 33 28 26 32 27 28 0 4
To get away from the city 2 0 3 3 2 2 0 3 2 17 10 27 19 16 30 16 14 32 25 34 67 59 39 46 5
For solitude 10 9 23 3 9 11 23 0 15 14 28 25 9 31 26 31 17 46 29 28 21 25 23 22 23
To be in & enjoy a natural 2 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 3 3 16 16 9 27 17 33 36 50 44 37 37 49 41 25 39 area
To learn about nature 15 14 18 4 13 37 35 32 31 35 37 30 27 39 35 9 3 14 14 8 3 15 9 10 8 (environmental education)
To observe wildlife 9 0 0 4 5 19 19 18 15 18 47 39 50 31 42 17 17 9 31 19 8 25 23 19 16
For physical 28 13 0 4 17 30 31 41 31 31 22 22 50 32 26 15 22 0 20 17 4 11 9 10 8 exercise/challenge To camp 4 1 0 0 2 4 0 5 0 2 6 7 18 9 7 25 26 9 30 27 61 66 68 49 61
To fish/marron 50 43 46 41 46 30 28 14 19 26 14 7 18 12 12 4 10 14 9 7 4 10 9 10 7
4 0 0 5 3 5 8 18 5 7 31 17 32 39 29 29 27 9 19 25 31 46 41 25 35 To enjoy outdoor activities
To spend time with my 4 0 0 2 2 1 3 0 2 2 7 15 14 12 11 34 24 32 31 30 61 57 46 51 57 companion(s) To enjoy an area free of 16 15 3 13 12 21 14 9 17 35 21 5 17 25 20 7 18 36 19 16 27 50 32 24 14 vehicles KEY: LP = Lane Poole; HP = Honeymoon Poole; WG = Warner Glen; SB = Sues Bridge; A = All study sites
APPENDIX 7
Factors or Conditions Influencing the Quality of the
Visitor Experience for Study Parks
A.J. Smith Appendix
Appendix 7: Factors or conditions influencing the quality of the visitor experience for study parks Very negative Negative influence No influence Positive influence Very positive influence influence Item Percentage of respondents LP HP WG SB A LP HP WG SB A LP HP WG SB A LP HP WG SB A LP HP WG SB A Trees damaged by people 49 33 58 58 49 30 32 32 32 17 10 5 5 12 4 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 around a camp/picnic site or along trails
Amount of vegetation loss and bare ground around a 41 31 37 37 39 33 45 39 39 38 17 19 14 14 16 8 1 5 5 5 1 1 0 0 1 campsite or picnic area exceeding what currently exists
Erosion of banks at access 37 17 46 46 32 41 53 36 36 45 18 24 5 5 16 1 0 7 7 2 3 1 0 0 2 points to water areas/features caused by human use 29 10 36 36 24 16 24 25 25 21 30 39 27 27 33 8 14 2 2 8 9 11 8 8 9 Presence of domestic pets
Evidence of four-wheel-drive 18 11 24 24 17 25 18 29 29 24 50 56 31 31 46 3 5 0 0 3 2 7 8 8 5 vehicles on tracks 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 3 0 2 2 2 20 14 10 10 16 73 84 83 83 78 Presence of wildlife 80 72 85 85 79 15 23 12 12 15 1 3 0 0 2 1 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 Presence of litter 0 1 0 0 0 4 2 2 2 3 13 11 14 14 13 56 57 54 54 56 26 23 22 22 24 Number of walk trails 0 1 2 2 2 8 2 5 5 5 54 65 37 37 55 31 28 36 36 29 7 3 12 12 6 Width of walk trail (size)
0 1 2 2 1 2 3 5 5 3 37 38 29 29 35 49 52 36 36 28 12 3 20 20 11 Condition/quality of walk trails
Inadequate disposal of human 72 69 76 76 73 12 15 2 2 10 13 9 7 7 11 3 5 7 7 4 7 0 0 0 3 waste (faecal) at campsites KEY: LP = Lane Poole; HP = Honeymoon Poole; WG = Warner Glen; SB = Sues Bridge; A = All study sites
APPENDIX 8
Respondents Attitudes Towards Potential
management for Particular Study Parks
A.J. Smith Appendix
Appendix 8: Respondents attitudes towards potential management actions for particular study parks
Strongly oppose Oppose Neither Support Strongly support
Item Percentage of respondents LP HP WG SB A LP HP WG SB A LP HP WG SB A LP HP WG SB A LP HP WG SB A Visits by Conservation & Land 2 1 0 3 2 2 2 27 0 4 12 7 0 5 8 51 48 23 68 51 30 35 36 22 31 Management Ranger
The presence of fire 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 9 0 2 11 6 9 0 8 39 46 32 53 33 44 40 41 47 43 rings/places
The provision of firewood 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 12 5 18 3 9 46 28 18 27 35 37 59 55 66 50
The presence of toilets 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 5 18 5 5 40 25 14 24 31 54 48 59 71 59
The presence of human made structures (such as benches & 0 0 9 0 1 1 2 9 7 3 14 11 18 7 12 58 42 18 46 48 24 36 36 41 32 fire surrounds) The charging of fees for entry 8 19 27 29 11 9 31 0 27 18 23 15 23 14 19 42 21 18 19 30 15 7 18 12 12 into the Park
The charging of fees for 5 1 18 5 5 5 2 9 10 5 20 17 23 14 18 45 41 23 47 43 23 27 18 24 24 camping in the Park Limit use (e.g. type of use, level/numbers of people 5 3 0 14 6 7 11 9 10 9 22 14 23 24 20 43 47 18 51 44 20 17 41 2 17 entering park) Discourage use of overused 2 2 0 3 2 4 13 0 5 6 20 16 9 22 18 42 44 32 47 43 30 17 50 22 26 areas & temporarily close areas
Provide minimal structures such as stairs and boarding to protect 0 3 0 2 1 6 5 0 3 2 11 9 18 8 10 44 40 32 53 43 38 36 41 32 37 fragile areas (e.g. river bank)
Improve walk trail condition 0 5 0 2 2 1 10 0 7 5 35 41 50 20 35 53 30 32 59 46 9 7 5 12 9
Reduce amount of vegetation removal and bare soil in 1 3 0 2 2 4 5 0 3 4 17 16 5 7 14 49 40 36 53 45 28 31 50 34 31 recreation areas
Appendix 8: Respondents attitudes towards potential management actions for particular study parks (cont….)
Strongly oppose Oppose Neither Support Strongly support
Item Percentage of respondents W W W W W LP HP SB A LP HP SB A LP HP SB A LP HP SB A LP HP SB A G G G G G
Provide signs for direction 0 0 0 0 0 4 9 0 0 4 14 15 36 20 17 49 44 32 58 48 32 25 23 22 27
Provide instructive maps of area 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 13 7 18 7 11 53 52 50 56 53 30 32 23 34 31 at main trackhead Provide interpretive displays describing natural attributes of 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 2 21 15 18 12 17 56 48 55 56 54 20 25 18 32 23 area Educate users more about minimal impact use & camping 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 12 17 9 10 13 55 38 32 44 46 30 38 50 42 36 techniques
Refusal of entry to visitors who display inappropriate behaviour such as abusive, offensive 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 11 7 9 7 9 20 13 14 27 19 64 72 68 68 67 language, threatening behaviour.
Inspect vehicles & containers for excessive quantities of alcohol/liquor and refusal of 9 17 9 5 10 8 11 9 17 11 18 23 23 20 20 24 17 14 36 23 41 25 36 22 32 entry to visitors who are intoxicated.
Fines imposed for failure to 4 6 9 3 5 3 1 0 3 2 13 15 18 24 16 29 36 27 42 33 48 34 32 27 39 comply to CALM regulations KEY: LP = Lane Poole; HP = Honeymoon Poole; WG = Warner Glen; SB = Sues Bridge; A = All study sites
A.J. Smith References