Overnight Backcountry Visitors at Grand Canyon National Park
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Overnight Backcountry Visitors at Grand Canyon National Park Erik A. Backlund, William Stewart, Zvi Schwartz July 2008 Overnight Backcountry Visitors at Grand Canyon National Park Park Planning and Policy Lab University of Illinois Champaign, IL 61821 www.parklab.uiuc.edu Erik Backlund, William Stewart, and Zvi Schwartz OVERNIGHT BACKCOUNTRY VISITORS AT GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study provides a comprehensive examination of overnight backcountry visitors to address current issues related to backcountry management, and builds on previous research. The research objectives are: 1. To identify and characterize the overnight hikers of the park’s backcountry, including socio-demographic characteristics, past backcountry experiences, and group characteristics, 2. To determine hikers’ motivations and experiences, behavior, and preferences, 3. To measure hikers level of satisfaction with their Grand Canyon experiences, 4. To evaluate hikers’ reaction to present and potential policies, including the reservation and permit system, and pre-trip information, 5. To suggest management actions that best meet social needs of overnight backcountry users. There were 2,034 trip leaders who obtained a backcountry permit and who were sampled between March 1, 2004 to February 28, 2005. A 76% response rate was received to a 17-page questionnaire. The analyses provide detailed accounts generalizable to the park’s overnight backcountry users. Evidence indicates that visitors to the backcountry at Grand Canyon were satisfied with most aspects of their overnight trip. The following recommendations are made to further enhance their experiences, and to consider management operations and policies that will insure future visitors continue to enjoy high quality experiences. Recommendations are to: Enhance the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) planning framework The primary visitor-based indicators of the 1988 LAC planning framework are the number of daytime contacts with other people, and the number of groups camped within sight or sound. In general, visitor-based conditions of the backcountry are well-within the standards set for both of these indicators across the four use zones. Barring any ecological resource issues, results suggest that the standards could either become more restrictive or the number of permits allocated for these zones could increase. Reduce the potential for conflict The extent of conflict between user groups is primarily influenced by the quality of the encounter and the interaction that takes place during the encounter – no matter how brief the exchange. The extent to which backcountry encounter etiquette is known throughout all user types of the backcountry could be built into the LAC framework. Encounter etiquette is not well-known or at least is highly variable across visitors and user types. Also, visitors may have distinct reactions to a user type different than themselves. The extent of encounters between different user ii OVERNIGHT BACKCOUNTRY VISITORS AT GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK types could be considered as an indicator of the quality of encounter and indicate the degree of recreational conflict. Commit to monitoring The LAC framework and basis in monitoring backcountry conditions requires institutional commitment to support research, train staff, and invest in workshops and education across all personnel connected with the backcountry. Backcountry planning and operations has a comparatively smooth history of working with stakeholders, building trust, and implementing plans that adhere to the various missions of Grand Canyon National Park. Its changing population of users implies an evolving political context for backcountry planning. It is within the park’s best interest to track the changing user-base, their preferences, and their perceptions of backcountry conditions. An institutional commitment of time, resources, and staff needs to be stated and developed in the backcountry plan. Improve minimum impact behavior Over the past 20 years, knowledge of minimum impact behavior generally has increased among overnight backcountry hikers. Awareness of proper food scrap disposal is lowest with Primitive and Wild zone users and results suggest that one quarter may be discarding food scraps and meal leftovers around their campsite and eating areas. In addition, 32% of visitors were not aware of proper handling of archaeological resources, with the lowest proportions being in the Corridor and Threshold Zones. Although most visitors felt respect or a sense of sacredness when visiting such sites, there were still 2% who were tempted to take home an artifact and make it a souvenir of their trip. Conclusion By most measures, overnight backcountry visitors at Grand Canyon were supportive of park management. There are a few issues that could be considered to improve visitor management in the backcountry, and these have been put forward in the spirit of improving on a system that already works well. iii OVERNIGHT BACKCOUNTRY VISITORS AT GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research project could not have been completed without the assistance, thought, and effort of many people. In particular, the following people made significant contributions of time and effort: Jan Balsam, Grand Canyon National Park James Barkley, University of Illinois Mathieu Brown, Grand Canyon National Park Yong Soon Chang, University of Illinois Lori Crystal, Grand Canyon National Park Brian Forist, NPS Washington Office Jim Gramman, NPS Washington Office Kirstin Heins, Grand Canyon National Park Linda Jalbert, Grand Canyon National Park Rachel Stanton, Grand Canyon National Park Steve Sullivan, Grand Canyon National Park Bil Vandergraf, Grand Canyon National Park Ken Weber, Grand Canyon National Park iv OVERNIGHT BACKCOUNTRY VISITORS AT GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK OVERNIGHT BACKCOUNTRY VISITOR STUDY: QUICK FACTS % under the age of 23 in 1985: 15 % under the age of 23 in 2005: 2 % hiking solo in 1985: 10 % hiking solo in 2005: 2 % hiking with family in 1985: 24 % hiking with family in 2005: 43 % on their first Grand Canyon overnight hike in 1985: 54 % on their first Grand Canyon overnight hike in 2005: 51 % who agreeing the backcountry is used by too many people in 1985: 15 % who agreeing the backcountry is used by too many people in 2005: 10 % agreeing that too many aircraft fly over the backcountry in 1985: 43 % agreeing that too many aircraft fly over the backcountry in 2005: 32 % agreeing that commercially guided hikes should be allowed in 1985: 14 % agreeing that commercially guided hikes should be allowed in 2005: 23 % reporting that the trip allowed by their permit was not what they wanted: 3 % reporting they did not stay on their itinerary: 17 % satisfied with the number of groups camped within sight or sound: 72 % who visited a backcountry archaeological site: 35 % who know proper techniques for food scrap disposal in the backcountry: 86 % agreeing that backcountry users should carry out their fecal wastes: 14 % who viewed the hiking preparation DVD after receiving it: 84 % preferring a “real time” web-based permit system: 81 Number of backcountry visitors who responded to the study’s questionnaire: 1,918 Number of pages in the study’s questionnaire: 17 v OVERNIGHT BACKCOUNTRY VISITORS AT GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................... iv QUICK FACTS......................................................................................... v TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................ vi LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................. viii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................... x I: Introduction........................................................................................... 1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 Recent Management Issues Related to Visitation................................................... 2 Conflicts between user types ....................................................................................... 2 Appropriateness of commercial use............................................................................ 2 Protection of cultural resources ................................................................................... 3 Quality of visitor experiences ....................................................................................... 3 Review of 1988 LAC planning framework ........................................................................ 3 Research Objectives ....................................................................................................... 4 II: Methods ................................................................................................ 5 Population and Sample Selection ............................................................................... 5 Questionnaire.................................................................................................................... 5 Survey Administration Procedures............................................................................. 6 Response rate ...............................................................................................................