The Third International Conference onMonitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in

Recreational and Protected Areas

Proceedings

Rapperswil, Switzerland 13 - 17 September 2006

Exploring the Nature of Management

Exploring the Nature of Management

Proceedings of the Third International Conference onMonitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in

Recreational and Protected Areas

Rapperswil, Switzerland 13-17 September 2006

Edited by:

Dominik Siegrist, Christophe Clivaz, Marcel Hunziker & Sophia Iten

Editors Dominik Siegrist, University of Applied Sciences Rapperswil (Chair)Christophe Clivaz, University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland (Co-Chair)Marcel Hunziker, Swiss Institute of Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (Co-Chair)Sophia Iten, University of Applied Sciences Rapperswil (Coordinator)

CitationSiegrist, D., Clivaz, C., Hunziker, M. & Iten, S. (eds.) (2006). Exploring the Nature of Management. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas. University of Applied Sciences Rapperswil, Switzerland, 13-17 September 2006. Rapperswil.

CopyeditingOliver DeCaro, Sophia Iten, Dominik Siegrist

LayoutSonja Gerdes

Cover picturesUniversity of Applied Sciences Wädenswil

Published byResearch Centre for Leisure, Tourism and Landscape,Institute for Landscape and Open Space, University of Applied Sciences Rapperswil, www.ftl.hsr.ch

To order a copyFTL-HSR, P.O. Box, CH-8640 Rapperswil,Phone: +41 (0)55 222 47 97, Email: ftl@hsr.ch

Printed byMails & More®, A-Baumgarten

ISBN 3-033-00935-2

3

Contents

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................13

Keynote Addresses ...................................................................................................................................15

North American Idols: Personal Observations on Visitor Management Frameworks and Recreation ResearchWolfgang Haider....................................................................................................................................................................16

Trends in Alpine Tourism: The Mountaineers’ Perspective and Consequences for Tourism StrategiesAndreas Muhar, Thomas Schauppenlehner & Christiane Brandenburg ...............................................................................23

People, Pixels and Parks: Forest Conservation in the TropicsHarini Nagendra ...................................................................................................................................................................28

The New Paradigm for Protected Areas: Implications for Managing Visitors in Protected AreasDavid Sheppard .....................................................................................................................................................................33

New Parks of National Importance in SwitzerlandBruno Stephan Walder ...........................................................................................................................................................46

The Significance of Visitor Monitoring Data for Management, Planning and PolicyArne Arnberger, Joel Erkkonnen, Tuija Sievänen& Odd Inge Vistad ................................................49

Monitoring Public Reactions to the U.S. Forest Service Recreation Fee ProgramJames D. Absher, Alan R. Graefe & Robert C. Burns ............................................................................................................50

Outdoor Recreationists in Oregon and Washington: A Comparison of Recreationists’ Perceptions of Experience Satisfaction across Two US Pacific Northwest StatesRobert C. Burns & Alan R. Graefe ........................................................................................................................................52

Monitoring the Value of Visitors to Protected Areas: The Australian ApproachJack Carlsen & David Wood .................................................................................................................................................54

Monitoring Sustainable Nature Tourism in Practice – Experiences From Pyhä-Luosto National Park, FinlandJoel Erkkonen & Pertti J. Itkonen .........................................................................................................................................56

Using Visitor Monitoring to Reduce Ecological Impacts Due to Picnicking and Grilling in Urban Forests in the Vicinity of Basle, SwitzerlandTessa K. Hegetschweiler, Hans-Peter Rusterholz & Bruno Baur ...........................................................................................58

The Influence of Motorized Access on Hiker’s Route Selection at Mt. TsukubaTaiichi Ito & Mariko Ryugo ...................................................................................................................................................60

Visitor and Environmental Impact Monitoring as Basis for Sustainable Nature Tourism in Estonian Recreational AreasMarge Rammo, Kaidi Maran, Anu Almik & Kalle Karoles ....................................................................................................62

Visitor Satisfaction Surveys and the Development of Access Standards for National Nature Reserves in EnglandSimon J. Melville ...................................................................................................................................................................64

Visitor Counting with Acoustic Slab Sensors in the Swiss National ParkReto Rupf-Haller, Michael Wernli & Flurin Filli ...................................................................................................................72

National Park Characteristics, Regional Setting and Visitor FlowsJenni Puustinen, Eija Pouta, Marjo Neuvonen & Tuija Sievänen..........................................................................................78

Visitor Monitoring in Norwegian National Parks? If so: How Will it Find a Position in the Present Situation with Low Funding, Biological Hegemony, Expanding User Interests and Indistinct Management Priorities?Odd Inge Vistad .....................................................................................................................................................................80

Recreation Ecology and Visitor Impact Research: Past, Present and FutureYu-Fai Leung (Chair) ..............................................................................................................................83

Recent Recreation Ecology Research in AustraliaRalf Buckley, Catherine Pickering, Guy Castley & Andrew Growcock .................................................................................84

4

Recreation Ecology: Learning from the PastDavid N. Cole ........................................................................................................................................................................89

Recreation Ecology in East Asia: Redefining Impacts?Yu-Fai Leung ........................................................................................................................................................................91

Recreation Ecology Research in the AmericasJeffrey L. Marion ...................................................................................................................................................................93

Recreation Ecology and Visitor Impact Research: Past, Present and FutureChristopher Monz ..................................................................................................................................................................98

Recreational Impacts on Park EcosystemsDavid Co.le (Chair) ...............................................................................................................................101

Visitors to the Highlands of Itatiaia National Park, Brazil, and their Perceptions of Visitor ImpactsMaria Isabel A. Barros & Teresa C. Magro .........................................................................................................................102

Trampling after Landscape Level Disturbance: Impacts on Subalpine Vegetation and Soils in the Australian AlpsAndrew J. Growcock, Catherine M. Pickering & Stuart W. Johnston ..................................................................................107

A Prediction of a Human Action on Seashell-Digging at a Seaside Park Based on a Multi-Agent Simulation ModelMotohiko Murai, Takashi Hirobayashi, Ryoichi Yamanaka & Yoshiyuki Inoue ...................................................................109

Environmental Impacts of Recreational Horse Riding in Protected AreasPirkko Siikamäki, Anne Törn & Anne Tolvanen ...................................................................................................................112

Genesis of Trails in Nature: Monitoring of Visitors’ Effect on NatureHans Skov-Petersen .............................................................................................................................................................115

Trampling Impacts on Coastal Sand Dune Vegetation in Southeastern BrazilDaniela C. Talora, Teresa C. Magro & Ana C. Schilling .....................................................................................................117

Protected Areas and New Paradigms of Regional DevelopmentIngo Mose (Chair) ..................................................................................................................................123

Integrated Conservation Processes – A Tool for Reducing Conflicts in Area Conservation ProcessesIngrid Bay-Larsen, Ronald Bjøru, Svein Morten Eilertsen & Gunn Elin Fedreheim ...........................................................124

Visitor Management and Destination Management as Tools for Sustainable Regional DevelopmentNiek M.A. Beunders ............................................................................................................................................................129

Socio-Cultural Benefits of Pan Parks: Case Study at Bieszscady National Park, PolandStuart P. Cottrell & Jana Raadik .........................................................................................................................................135

Fostering Sustainable Regional Development with Indicator Based Certification ProceduresVicente Carabias-Hütter, David Kümin & Dominik Siegrist ................................................................................................137

Large Scale Protected Areas + Tourism = Regional Development?Hubert Job, Daniel Metzler & Manuel Woltering ................................................................................................................140

Key Success Factors for Nature-Based Tourism in Protected Areas of the AlpsFlorian Lintzmeyer, Dominik Siegrist & Stefanie Hass .......................................................................................................145

Walking towards Concerted Management of Hiking-Path Networks: A Well Engaged but Tricky Challenge for French Alpine Protected AreasAlexandre Mignotte .............................................................................................................................................................147

Protected Areas as a Tool for Regional Development?Ingo Mose & Norbert Weixlbaumer .....................................................................................................................................149

Overcoming National Park Conflicts by Regional Development: Experiences from the Doñana Area in Southern SpainAndreas Voth ........................................................................................................................................................................155

5

Relevance and a Sense of Connection in Canada’s National ParksSteve Whittingham (Chair) ...................................................................................................................162

Parks Canada’s Framework for Recreational ActivitiesFrances Gertsch & Ed Jager ..............................................................................................................................................163

Healthy Parks for PeopleDavid Lipton ........................................................................................................................................................................165

Memorable Visitor Experiences Lead to Relevance and SustainibilityCarol Sheedy .......................................................................................................................................................................167

Integration – Resource Protection and Memorable Visitor Experiences in the Lake Louise Community of Banff National ParkSteve Whittingham ..............................................................................................................................................................170

Sustainability and Carrying Capacity Studies in Recreational SettingsRobert Manning (Chair) .......................................................................................................................172

Sustainable Trail Management, Definitions and a Management ModelSinead H. O’Connor Gotra & Ken E. Boyle ........................................................................................................................173

The Adoption of Social Carrying Capacity for the Management of Theme Park SettingsHsin-You Chuo .....................................................................................................................................................................179

Recreation Carrying Capacity Analysis at Khao Leam Ya – Mu Ko Samed National Park, ThailandDachanee Emphandhu, Thamasak Yemin, Sura Pattanakiat, Chatchai Tantasirin, Ranuka Ruschano,Surachet Chettamart & Mayuree Nasa ................................................................................................................................183

Beyond Carrying Capacity in Recreation Management: In Search of AlternativesYves Hausser, Tony Travis & Andrea Finger-Stich ..............................................................................................................191

Level of Sustainable Activity: Moving Visitor Simulation from Description to ManagementRobert M. Itami ...................................................................................................................................................................193

A Study on Procedures to Establish Standards Concerning Trail Management in Sub-Alpine Zones of Protected AreasAkihiro Kobayashi, Tetsuya Aikoh & Kazushige Yamaki .....................................................................................................196

Understanding and Managing Soundscapes in National Parks:Part 1- Indicators of QualityPeter Newman, Robert E. Manning, Ericka Pilcher, Karen Trevino & Michael Savidge .....................................................198

Understanding and Managing Soundscapes in National Parks: Part 2 - Standards of QualityRobert E. Manning, Peter Newman, Ericka Pilcher, Jeffrey Hallo, William Valliere, Michael Savidge & Daniel Dugan ...201

Understanding and Managing Soundscapes in National Parks: Part 3 – Computer SimulationSteven R. Lawson & Kenneth Plotkin ..................................................................................................................................203

Managing Sustainable Eco-Tourism in Van Vihar National ParkRavi Shanker Kanoje ..........................................................................................................................................................205

Recreational Carrying Capacity Assessment in a Turkish National ParkSelçuk Sayan & Veli Ortaçe me ...........................................................................................................................................211

Nature Tourism: Concepts and Experiencesin Recreational and Protected AreasYves Hausser & Dominik Siegrist (Chairs) ..........................................................................................218

Comparison of Forest Recreation and Nature Tourism in Hungary, Italy and Slovakia Based on the First Outputs of the COST E33 ActionDóra Drexler, Mária Bihu ová & Barbara Mariotti ...........................................................................................................219

Birdwatching and Protected Areas of GeorgiaRamaz Gokhelashvili & Lela Azniashvili .............................................................................................................................223

6

Nature-Based Activities on Urban – Green Requirements of Nature-Based Activities in an Urban EnvironmentHolger Kretschmer ..............................................................................................................................................................226

The Pan Parks Sustainable Tourism Strategy as a Tool for Nature-Based Tourism Development in and around Protected AreasZoltán Kun & Mylène van der Donk ....................................................................................................................................228

Management of Ecotourism in National Chambal Sanctuary, IndiaR.J. Rao ...............................................................................................................................................................................230

Analysis of Nature-Based Tourism in the Sumava National Park, Czech Republic: 1997-2004Viktor Trebicky & Martin Cihar ..........................................................................................................................................233

Requirements for Recreation and their Integration into Landscape PlanningMatthias Buchecker (Chair) .................................................................................................................238

Local Residents’ Relationship towards their Nearby Outdoor Recreation AreasMatthias Buchecker & Jacqueline Frick .............................................................................................................................239

Landscape Planning for Nearby Outdoor Recreation – Implications from an Exploratory Interview StudyBarbara Degenhardt & Matthias Buchecker .......................................................................................................................241

Development of a Zoning Instrument for Visitor Management in Protected AreasRené J.H.G. Henkens, Rene Jochem, Rogier Pouwels & Peter A.M. Visschedijk ................................................................243

Cederberg Environs Spatial Planning in the Western Cape, South AfricaUlrike Mast-Attlmayr ...........................................................................................................................................................246

Local Recreational Areas: Accounting for Peoples’ Needs in the Development and Selection of Planning InstrumentsHarry Spiess, Margit Mönnecke, Karin Wasem & David Kümin .........................................................................................253

Participation Processes in Recreational and Protected AreasUlrike Pröbstl (Chair) ...........................................................................................................................260

Participatory Processes and Participatory Research – A Tool for Conflict Identification and Development of Management DecisionsWolfgang Lexer, Christiane Brandenburg, Felix Heckl, Andreas Muhar, Friedrich Reimoser & Richard Zink ...................261

Tourism Development and Local Actors’ Engagement for Sustaining Alpine ForestsAndrea S. Finger-Stich & Alicia C. Tanner .........................................................................................................................264

Recreation Interests and Participation in River Restoration ProjectsBerit Junker & Matthias Buchecker ....................................................................................................................................266

How Social ‘Demand’ Overlaps in Forest Management – A Sociological Analysis of the Relation between Forest and Society in France (1960-2005)Nathalie Lewis .....................................................................................................................................................................269

Local Participation in the Development of Tourist Centres in the Peripheral Regions of Finnish LaplandSeija Tuulentie & Ilona Mettiäinen ......................................................................................................................................271

The Tourists’ View on Protected AreasVeronika Wirth, Petra Sterl & Ulrike Pröbstl ......................................................................................................................273

Landscape and its ImagesMarcel Hunziker (Chair) ......................................................................................................................276

What Does Sustainable Development Look Like? Visions of Two Swiss Unesco RegionsNorman Backhaus & Urs Müller .........................................................................................................................................277

Experiencing Nature – The Recognition of the Symbolic Landscape within Research and Management of Visitor FlowsRamona van Marwijk & Jaap Lengkeek ..............................................................................................................................280

7

Historic Landscapes in Urban Regions: Recreation and Use Conflicts in Mikhalkovo, MoscowElena Petrova ......................................................................................................................................................................282

Mapping the Attractiveness of the Dutch Landscape: A GIS-Based Landscape Appreciation Model (Glam-2)Sjerp de Vries, Janneke Roos-Klein Lankhorst & Arjen E. Buijs .........................................................................................284

The Landscape Method of Analysis and Assessment of Ecotourism Destinations in the Republic of KazakhstanDilya B. Woodward & Galina V. Geldyeva ..........................................................................................................................286

Good Solutions between Sports, Nature and LandscapeMargit Mönnecke (Chair) .....................................................................................................................292

Snowshoeing in Protected Areas: Bridging the Gap between Attitude and BehaviourBenjamin Freuler, Marcel Hunziker & Heinz Gutscher .......................................................................................................293

Outdoor Leisure Activities: Motivation, Attitudes and Strategies Promoting Responsible Behaviour towards Natureand LandscapeMarcel Hunziker & Christina Zeidenitz ...............................................................................................................................295

An Improved Methodological Approach to Recreation Conflict Analysis in the Black ForestCarsten Mann & James D. Absher ......................................................................................................................................298

Outdoor Activities in Nature and Landscape – Practice-Oriented SolutionsKarin Wasem & Margit Mönnecke.......................................................................................................................................300

Simulating Recreational Behaviour – on Agents and EnvironmentAndreas Muhar, Hans Skov-Petersen & Randy Gimblett (Chairs) ...................................................304

Applying an Agent-Based Modelling Approach to Simulating Spring Black Bear Hunting Activities in Prince William Sound, AlaskaRandy H. Gimblett, Aaron Poe & Spencer G. Lace .............................................................................................................305

Developing Agent-Based Models of Recreational Behaviours at a Landscape Scale: The Case of Recreational Fishing in Northern OntarioLen M. Hunt, Rob Kushneriuk & Nigel Lester .....................................................................................................................307

Using Computer Simulation Modeling to Monitor the Multiple Dimensions of Wilderness Solitude in Great Smoky Mountains National ParkBrett C. Kiser, Steven R. Lawson & Robert M. Itami ...........................................................................................................309

Evaluating Spatiotemporal Interactions between Winter Recreation and Wildlife Using Agent-Based Simulation Modelingon the Kenai Peninsula, AlaskaAaron Poe, Randy H. Gimblett, Michael I. Goldstein & Phil Guertin .................................................................................311

Exploring Spatial Behaviour of Individual Visitors as Background for Agent-Based SimulationKarolina Taczanowska, Andreas Muhar & Arne Arnberger ................................................................................................313

Visitor Monitoring Methods, Modeling and Data ManagementAndreas Bernasconi & Michael J. Campbell (Chairs) ........................................................................316

Monitoring Trail Use with Digital Still Cameras: Strengths, Limitations and Proposed ResolutionsMichael J. Campbell ............................................................................................................................................................317

Going Ahead: From Visitor Monitoring to Recreational Use Monitoring – The Example of the EU Regional Recreation Area Berchtesgaden National Park / Salzburger KalkhochalpenSabine Hennig .....................................................................................................................................................................322

Application of a Remote Controlled Ultralight Air Vehicle (UAV) for Park Management and Visitor MonitoringAlexander Krämer & Hans-Peter Thamm ...........................................................................................................................329

Segmentation of Visitors’ Cross-Cultural Values in Forest RecreationChieh-Lu Li, Harry C. Zinn, Garry E. Chick, James D. Absher& Alan R. Graefe...............................................................331

8

Estimating Visitor Use with a Photoelectric Counting System:A Calibration StudyChi-Chuan Lue ....................................................................................................................................................................336

The Road to a Strategic Typology of Visit ItinerariesDavid J. McVetty ..................................................................................................................................................................338

Assessing Trail Use Conditions Using Still Renderings and 3D Computer AnimationThomas Reichhart, Arne Arnberger & Andreas Muhar .......................................................................................................340

Exploring Recreation Diversity in Thailand: A Nation-Wide Study of Nature-Based Recreation Resources and BehaviorNoppawan Tanakanjana ......................................................................................................................................................342

MASOOR: The Power to Know – A Story About the Development of an Intelligent and Flexible Monitoring InstrumentRene Jochem, Rogier Pouwels & Peter A.M. Visschedijk ....................................................................................................347

Monitoring Commercial Operators’ Movements in Terrestrial and Marine Protected Areas in Australia: A Review of Challenges for Emerging TechnologiesJan Warnken ........................................................................................................................................................................351

Spatio-Temporal Variations of Visitors of Recreational Shellfish-Gathering at an Artificial Beach in Tokyo BayRyoichi Yamanaka, Motohiko Murai, Yoshiyuki Inoue & Susumu Fujiwara ........................................................................356

Visitor / User Conflicts and other Behavior StudiesNorman Backhaus (Chair) ....................................................................................................................360

Assessing User Conflicts in an Urban Forest by Long-Term Video MonitoringArne Arnberger & Renate Eder ...........................................................................................................................................361

Sequence Effect on Satisfaction Regarding Perceived Crowding: Whitewater Rafters in TaiwanChih-Peng Fang & Yi-Chung Hsu .......................................................................................................................................363

Encounter and Behavioral Norms of Hikers: A Study of the Taroko Gorge National Park, TaiwanYi-Chung Hsu & Chih-Peng Fang .......................................................................................................................................365

Monitoring of Mountain Bikers in a Sensitive Bird Area around the Tanzboden, SwitzerlandSophia Iten & Dominik Siegrist ...........................................................................................................................................367

Perceived Crowding and Satisfaction among Overnight and Day Visitors on Hallig Hooge – A Visitor Survey in the Wadden Sea National Park, Schleswig-Holstein, GermanyDennis Kalisch & Axel Klaphake ........................................................................................................................................370

Measuring Public Interest and the New Environmental Paradigm in the Transformation of a Public Park into a Protected Area “Los Colomos” Forest, Guadalajara, MexicoAna-I. Ramírez-Quintana-Carr & Hermila Brito-Palacios .................................................................................................372

Shaping Culture in Nature: Human Use Management in Canada’s Mountain National ParksKathy Rettie .........................................................................................................................................................................374

Coping With Recreation Conflict: How User Group and Value Conflicts Predict Recreation Coping and SatisfactionSue Schroeder & David Fulton ............................................................................................................................................376

Crowding in Danish Forests – a Nonexistent Problem?Frank S. Jensen ...................................................................................................................................................................378

Economic and Social Effects of Recreation and Nature TourismChristophe Clivaz & Andréa Finger-Stich (Chairs) ............................................................................380

Sample Selection Bias in Visitor Surveys: Comparative Results of an On-Site and an Off-Site Survey Assessing Recreational Benefits of ForestsKatrin Bernath & Anna Roschewitz .....................................................................................................................................381

Economic and Social Effects of the Development of Recreation and Environmentally Sound Tourism through the Example of a Hungarian National ParkRéka Bodnár ........................................................................................................................................................................383

9

The Pfyn-Finges Park (Valais/Switzerland): What Repercussions on the Regional Economy?Christophe Clivaz ................................................................................................................................................................385

Economic Analysis of Recreation by Tourists on Protected Coastal Zones: A French CaseJeoffrey Dehez & Mbolatiana Rambonilaza ........................................................................................................................387

Estimating Recreation Market Share for National ForestsDonald B.K. English, Susan M. Kocis, H. Ken Cordell & Gary Green ...............................................................................389

Modelling Visitor Expenditures at Fulufjället National Park, SwedenPeter Fredman .....................................................................................................................................................................391

Assessment of Local Economic Impacts of Recreation: The Case of Pallas-Ounastunturi National ParkMaija T. Huhtala .................................................................................................................................................................393

Are Admission Fees for Large Urban Historic Parks Feasible and Fair? Empirical Results from a Survey in the Prussian Palace Gardens in Berlin and PotsdamAxel Klaphake......................................................................................................................................................................395

How Involvement and Economical Benefits can Change Local Residents’ Attitudes of Nature Conservation and Tourism:Karula National Park, EstoniaMart Reimann & Mari-Liis Lamp ........................................................................................................................................397

Winter Sport Tourism – Victim under Conditions of Climate Change?!?Wiebke Unbehaun, Ulrike Pröbstl & Wolfgang Haider .......................................................................................................399

Exploring the Foundation of Human-Wildlife Conflict in Parks and Protected AreasFrank Jensen Sondergaard & Jerry Vaske (Chairs) ...........................................................................402

Conflict Strategies as a Task for the Management of Protected Areas – Shown at the National Park Donau-AuenChristiane Brandenburg & Karen Ziener ............................................................................................................................403

Reported Conflict between Pastoralists and Wildlife around the Ruaha National Park, Tanzania

Amy J. Dickman ..................................................................................................................................................................405

Images of Nature as Sources of ConflictMaarten H. Jacobs ..............................................................................................................................................................407

Visitor and Resident Acceptability Norms towards Wolf Management Actions

Jerry J. Vaske & Jonathan G. Taylor ...................................................................................................................................409

Human Responses to Wildlife: Stakeholder Acceptance Capacity and Human LearningHarry C. Zinn & Sharon X. Shen .........................................................................................................................................411

Bridging the Ecological and Social Science Divide in Visitor Impact Monitoring and ManagementWolfgang Haider ....................................................................................................................................414

The Ecological and Human Benefits of the Nature-Based Recreational AreaChun-Yen Chang ..................................................................................................................................................................415

Developing Spatially-Balanced Sampling Protocols for Visitor Impact Monitoring in Protected AreasDavid Pettebone, Peter Newman, David Theobald & Yu-Fai Leung ...................................................................................417

Managing Visitor Impacts along Australia’s Remote Kimberley Coast – The Forgotten Dimension of Balancing CountryPascal Scherrer, Amanda J. Smith & Ross K. Dowling .......................................................................................................419

Visitor Information and Visitor ManagementReto Rupf (Chair) ..................................................................................................................................422

Visitor Conflicts and their Resolution for Forest and Park Management in Jozankei National Forest, JapanMasayoshi Takahashi & Kazushige Yamaki .........................................................................................................................423

10

MASOOR in the Alpine Areas: Agent-Based Modelling as a Tool for the Management Planning in Natura 2000 SitesPeter Visschedijk, Ulrike Pröbstl & René Henkens .............................................................................................................425

Comparison of the Use of Communication Channels between Amateur and Serious Hikers in Fulfilling Information NeedsYu-Lan Yuan & Chi-Chuan Lue ...........................................................................................................................................427

Poster Session .........................................................................................................................................434

Monitoring Trampling Impacts in the Disposal of Human Waste at Campsites and Visitors’ Attitudes to a Carry-out SystemTetsuya Aikoh .......................................................................................................................................................................435

Tourism in Biosphere Reserves: Genesis of a Territorial Issue – Case of Ida-ou-tanane, in the High Atlas Mountain (South-West of Morocco)Lahoucine Amzil & Mohamed Berriane ..............................................................................................................................437

Recreational Impacts on Nature-Based Recreational AreasChun-Yen Chang & Hsing-Fen Tang ...................................................................................................................................439

Alternative Index of Carrying Capacity in Nature Tourism: The Relationships between Stakeholders’ Emotional Labor and Carrying Capacity of Community-Based Nature Tourism in Atayal Smangus Tribe, TaiwanChih-Liang Chao, Hsin-Hang Wang ....................................................................................................................................441

“La Semaine du Goût”, The Beginning for a Sustainable Tourism?Laetitia Estève, Christophe Le Nédic & Catherine Strehler Perrin ....................................................................................443

Participatory Planning of Recreational Areas – Landscape Development Concepts in Switzerland Corina Höppner ..................................................................................................................................................................445

Researches on the Visitor’s Activities and the Barrier Status around Kairakuen ParkTeppei Ishiuchi, Takekazu Koyanagi & Yuji Kuwahara .......................................................................................................447

Visitor Monitoring of Eight Recreational and Protected AreasTomm Jensen .......................................................................................................................................................................455

Are There Too Many Visitors in National Parks? A Campsite Analysis in Two Finnish National ParksKatja Kangas, Pirkko Siikamäki, Pilvi Koivuniemi, Pekka Sulkava, Anne Tolvanen & Yrjö Norokorpi ..............................457

Linking Forestry and People in an Urban Landscape, a Participatory Approach - Case Studies from West LondonRekha Kharel-Sharma .........................................................................................................................................................459

Visitor Management in a Floodplain Area near ZurichTobias J. Liechti, Thomas R. Burger & Stefan A. Zantop ....................................................................................................460

Prognosis on the Expected Landscape Changes in Mueritz National Park (Germany) and Landscape Perception of both Residents and TouristsGerd Lupp ............................................................................................................................................................................462

Does Survey Mode Affect Study Results? A Comparison of Internet-Based and Onsite Surveys of Visitors to Prince William Forest Park, USAAurora Moldovanyi, Brett C. Kiser & Steven R. Lawson .....................................................................................................464

3D Computer Visualizations to Incorporate Recreational Use and Values into Forest Management Planning for Ontario Crown LandsJeff Moore, Norm McIntyre, Mark Robson, R. Harvey Lemelin & Len M. Hunt..................................................................466

Biathalon Centre and Larchwood in Lenz, Graubünden, SwitzerlandFelix Naef ............................................................................................................................................................................468

Visitor Use and Impact Monitoring: An Adaptive Design ModelJessica A. Robinson & Yu-Fai Leung ...................................................................................................................................471

How to Achieve Nature Protection Involving Local PeopleEngelbert Ruoss & Catherine Strehler Perrin .....................................................................................................................473

11

Conflict between Local Villagers and Elephants (Elephas maximus) at Kuiburi National Park, ThailandSaowanee Saranet & Noppawan Tanakanjana ....................................................................................................................475

The Current Problems with the Historical Existence of Chalets in the Core Zone of the Krkonose Mts. National Park, Czech RepublicPetra Stastna .......................................................................................................................................................................477

“Naturschutzdienst BL”: Experiences from a New Project in the Canton of Basel-Landschaft, SwitzerlandYvonne Steiner Ly & Matthias Plattner ...............................................................................................................................480

Quantitative and Qualitative Monitoring of Public Attendance in Natural Preserves on the Southern Shore of Lake Neuchâtel (CH): A Necessary Tool to Manage Public Information and Prevent InfractionsCatherine Strehler Perrin, Philippe Gmür, Marius Achermann & Pierre Alfter .................................................................482

Visitor Monitoring in Tatra National ParkJuraj Svajda.........................................................................................................................................................................484

Decision Support System for Sustainable Management Planning of Nature-Based Recreation Areas in ThailandNoppawan Tanakanjana, Wanchai Arunpraparut, Nantachai Pongpattananurak, Ratikorn Nuampukdee & Theerapong Chumsangsri ........................................................................................................................................................................486

Is Maritime Antarctic Ready for the Impacts of Commercial Tourism?Pablo Tejedo & Javier Benayas ...........................................................................................................................................491

Types of Typologies - From Recreationists & Tourists to Artificial AgentsRamona van Marwijk1 & Karolina Taczanowska ................................................................................................................498

Estimating Anchor Site Usage and Potential Pollution Loads for Recreational Vessels in Moreton Bay Marine Park Using Aerial SurveysJan Warnken & Matthew Leon ............................................................................................................................................501

Nature Park Project “Toggenburg-Werdenberg” in Eastern Switzerland – Common Chance for a Regional Sustainable DevelopmentUlf Zimmermann ..................................................................................................................................................................503

12

13

Introduction

Dominik Siegrist, Christophe Clivaz, Marcel Hunziker & Sophia Iten

Management and monitoring of visitor flows in recreational and protected areas are topics of growing importance worldwide. Today more than 100,000 protected areas exist globally, and the trend shows that their number is increasing, as the IUCN statistics demonstrate. To these, we must add numerous smaller areas that also have special natural or cultural heritage values, but do not have a special protected status. Many of these areas do not only serve the protection of natural and cultural values or biodiversity, they are also important points of attraction for tourism and recreation. These areas must be professionally maintained and managed if they are to conserve their natural and landscape values in the future.

After Vienna, Austria (2002) and Rovaniemi, Finland (2004), the third international conference “Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas” (2006) takes place in Rapperswil, Switzerland. Both of the previous host countries have pursued large scale park management strategies and established numerous new protected areas. Accompanying this, research is evolving, in which visitor flow management is finding an increasingly important place. Switzerland also has a long standing tradition in research on protected areas, although it has until now mainly concentrated on the only large protected area, the Swiss National Park in Engadin.

The creation of new parks in Switzerland has met opposition for a long time. Only lately two large protected areas have been established: the UNESCO Biosphere reserve Entlebuch and the UNESCO World Heritage site Jungfrau-Aletsch-Bietschhorn. At the moment, a modification of the Swiss federal environmental legal framework is in progress in the Swiss parliament, which should facilitate park creation in the near future. Three categories of protected areas are planned: “National Park”, “Nature Experience Park” and “Regional Nature Park”. In the coming years at least one new National Park is to be established.

With the ongoing legal revision, the debate about the protection of nature and landscapes as well as the issue of the future of remote regions enjoy new dynamics. As a result, current strategies promote the defusing of the classical antagonism between “conservation” and “development” through new synergies between protection of nature and tourism. Remote regions will benefit from a new economic functionality due to the creation of protected areas, and it should be expected that natural and cultural heritage will be professionally managed. Since human use is a central issue of the newly created parks, funded monitoring and expert visitor flow management will gain increasing significance.

From this background, these proceedings contain contributions pertaining to four central questions:

1. Which impacts do tourist use and recreational activities have on recreational and protected areas and how can these be presented?

This question addresses the advancement of research in visitor monitoring methods, visitor modelling and data management. What new results have been found in recreation ecology and visitor impact research? What are the latest developments in the study of visitor/user conflicts, behaviour studies, sustainability and carrying capacity studies? How are new methods for simulating recreational behaviour through agents progressing? How can we bridge the ecological and social science divide in visitor impact monitoring and management?

2. Which images of landscape, nature and wildlife are the basis for the use and management of recreational and protected areas?

14

This question aims to investigate society’s perception of landscape as well as the implications for visitor management. How do landscapes act as push and pull factors of leisure motivation? Which images of the landscape are tied to the concept of sustainable development? What is the state of research in exploring the foundations of human-wildlife conflicts in parks and protected areas?

3. What requirements must be met for regional development and nature based tourism to take place in relation to recreational and protected areas?

This question addresses new paradigms of regional development in the context of large protected areas. Which concepts and experiences arise in the domains of nature recreation and nature tourism and what economic and social effects are to be expected? How can one increase the value added of a protected area without diminishing the quality of the landscape and biodiversity?

4. How relevant is research for actual practice and how are research results integrated into planning and management?

This question examines the significance of visitor monitoring data for management, planning and policy and for visitor information. Which requirements exist for recreation and how can they be integrated into landscape planning? What value can be given to participation processes? What do good solutions between sports, nature and landscape look like?

These questions are discussed by scientists and managers from almost 30 countries and we are pleased to welcome so many to this MMV3 conference. This active participation is a positive sign for the network of experts that has developed to such prosperity in few years. The following proceedings contain the contributions which were accepted for presentation at the MMV3 conference. The choice was offered to the contributors to submit a short abstract or a longer extended one. The sessions are listed here in the order they are given at the conference. Within the different sessions, the presentations are sorted alphabetically by the first author’s name. The full speeches made by the invited keynote speakers are also included. An index of authors at the end of the volume will make finding a contribution easier.

To guarantee scientific quality, each submitted presentation was given a blind reviewing by two international experts who read the contributions critically and commented them anonymously. Many were accepted, others were returned for a minor or major revision. As linguistic quality was not a criterion for acceptance, the contributions were edited in the compilation of the proceedings. We would like to give sincere thanks to all the reviewers for their support.

At this point we would like to recognize all those who contributed to the success of the MMV3 conference. Special thanks go to the partner institutions and the members of the National Organizing Committee for their active assistance in making this conference possible. We thank the members of the International Steering Committee for their valuable guidance and suggestions. In particular we thank the University of Applied Sciences Rapperswil, the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, the University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland, the University of Applied Sciences Wädenswil, the SANU – Training for Sustainable Development, the Swiss National Fund and the Swiss Academy of Sciences for their financial and material support. Last but not least we would like to thank the session and workshop chairs as well as all the contributors, upon whose work the scientific quality of the MMV3 conference depends.

15

Keynote Addresses

Siegrist, D., Clivaz, C., Hunziker, M. & Iten, S. (eds.) (2006). Exploring the Nature of Management. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas.

University of Applied Sciences Rapperswil, Switzerland, 13-17 September 2006. Rapperswil.

16

North American Idols: Personal Observations on Visitor Management Frameworks and Recreation Research

Wolfgang Haider

Simon Fraser University, Canada

whaider@sfu.ca

North American visitor management frame-works and the closely associated outdoor recre-ation research paradigm are frequently the envy of recreation researchers and managers in Eu-rope and around the world. In many countries, initiatives have been started to explore the ap-plicability of these frameworks, and an ever in-creasing number of recreation studies follow the theories, concepts and methods originally devel-oped in North America. In Europe their popular-ity spread first to Great Britain and Scandinavia, but lately, other European countries also follow that trend. Inevitably questions arise about the applicability and suitability of these methods in many European settings, where the smaller scale of administrative units, national boundar-ies, and cultural as well as natural landscapes constitute management challenges to the un-conditional roll-out of these frameworks. I will reflect on the relationship between the frame-works and recreation research, attempt to iden-tify future trends, and comment on the Europe-an situation.

Visitor Management Frameworks“Visitor management frameworks provide a sys-tematic process so that managers (or decision pro-cesses) are fully aware of (1) the desired future they wish to attain, (2) the alternative routes to the future, and (3) consequences of those alternatives.” In addition, these frameworks provide the explic-itness and feedback needed in a time of change, complexity and uncertainty (McCool 2005, p4). They provide land managers and agencies with pragmatic guidance, a standardized approach to management, simplified bureaucratic procedures, and guidance for research and monitoring. They also emphasize the need for public participation,

and the dissemination and presentation of future scenarios and research results to decision mak-ers, stakeholders and the public.

In North America the need to manage recre-ation activities on public lands emerged during the 1960s and 1970s when increasing affluence and mobility of the emerging post-industrial so-ciety created more demand for these kinds of land uses. In response, the public land manage-ment objectives changed from sustained yield (with the primary goal to maximize extractive forest uses) to multiple use objectives. At the same time environmental concerns also lead to widespread concerns about the traditional for-est management practices, while concerns over conservation lead to the establishment of pro-tected areas (National Parks, Wilderness areas, etc.). These latter places required visitor man-agement in their own right. In North America the focus of these recreation activities and their management is on huge tracts of public land, administered by large land management agen-cies who are in need of homogenous manage-ment approaches.

Early challenges of recreation management were driven by simply questions of carrying capacity: “How much recreation use can be accommodat-ed without threatening the preservation and con-servation concerns of parks and protected area” (Manning 2004), or other commercial uses on public land? It became apparent quickly, that a simple supply side management approach was insufficient, because carrying capacity is a func-tion of management actions, and in the case of human activity is influenced by the desired ex-periences. This recognition gave rise to the no-tion of a spectrum of recreation opportunities,

Keynote Addresses

17

and lead to more complete frameworks following a rational planning philosophy. At the core of most frameworks are the following stages:

1. Formulation of management objectives that are expressed by quantitative indicators and standards of quality.

2. Monitoring of indicator variables to determine their condition relative to standards of quality.

3. Application of management actions to ensure that standards of quality are maintained.

4. Most frameworks suggest that public participa-tion guides the entire implementation.

Indicators are measures of resource or social con-ditions, which should be measured cost-effectively and accurately; should reflect some relationship to the amount or type of use occurring; social indica-tors should be related to user concerns; and must be responsive to management control. Typical exam-ples of widely used indicators are water quality, soil compaction, or number of encounters.

Standards express the level of the indicator beyond which change is unacceptable. Standards may re-flect existing conditions or future targets. Regard-ing encounters with other users, one may desire to manage a trail for no more than x encounters with other hikers per day. Standards may be homoge-nous throughout one management area, or may dif-fer between zones. Standards are the crucial con-cept for the operationalization of a framework, and in many situations a standard is formulated around the concept of ‘acceptability’.

Finally, monitoring determines when and where management action is needed in order to maintain standards of quality, and also provides means for revision and improvement of standards. The appli-cation of a framework is not an end in itself but an iterative process fitting the spirit of adaptive man-agement (Walters 1986).

These frameworks differ by their specific purposes and/or agency needs, and are strongly influenced by the ability of managers to share power with stake-holders, or vice versa the desire of stakeholders to do so (Newsome et al. 2003). The Limits of Ac-ceptable Change (LAC) framework (Stankey et al. 1985) has been proposed as the fundamental visitor management framework for wilderness areas, and

also includes an ROS component (Clark & Stan-key 1979) for larger scale zoning. It also served as a blueprint for the later frameworks. The Visitor Impact Management (VIM) framework (Graefe et al. 1990), developed for the US Park Service has a stronger emphasis on impacts and a more top-down agency driven management approach. The Visi-tor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) framework (Manning 2001, US Dept. of the Inte-rior 1997) suggests a focus on parks purpose and management objectives, and advocates a strong public participation strategy. Parks Canada exper-imented with a more activity focused framework, the Visitor Activity Management Process (VAMP) (Nilsen & Tayler 1997), and is currently develop-ing an experience based framework. The only ma-jor adaptation of a visitor management framework outside of North America produced the Tourism Optimization Management Model (TOMM) (New-some et al. 2003) in Australia, which is focused on the complexities of a tourism destination, including private entrepreneurship. No detailed description of the various frameworks will be provided here, as they are readily available in published texts (e.g. Newsome et al. 2003).

Below I will explore the relationship between these frameworks and research. Modern manage-ment principles such as ecosystem management (Grumbine 1994) and adaptive management (Wal-ters 1986) emphasize the importance of research in resource management in general, and visitor man-agement frameworks should function in a similar manner. Many links between these visitor manage-ment frameworks and recreation research are fair-ly obvious, but explicit comments about them are rather scarce.

Recreation Research

Usually outdoor recreation research is associated with a fairly distinct research tradition and body of literature, which has its root in North Ameri-ca and is heavily influenced by social psycholog-ical theory, concepts and methods. During the be-ginnings of recreation research in the 1960’s it became apparent very quickly that a focus on the management of supply (i.e. opportunities) was in-sufficient. Instead, the notion of a triad between

Keynote Addresses

18

opportunities, activities and experiences was con-ceived, which is crucial to the first visitor manage-ment framework, the ROS. Thus, the importance of social sciences was apparent to managers and academics alike, and lead to the pivotal position of social psychology as the arguably most influential discipline of early outdoor recreation research (e.g. Driver 1976). This way of thinking directed ear-ly recreation research to specific recreation relat-ed topics and theories such as research on crowd-ing, recreation conflict, displacement and product shift, recreation specialization, and the application and adaptation of more general social and or psy-chological concepts such as satisfaction, motiva-tion, and norms and standard research. By the time the visitor management frameworks were concep-tualized, a paradigm of outdoor recreation research was well established (see below) and obviously the same group of researchers was highly influential in the development of these frameworks.

In short, within 15 years, a strong recreation re-search ‘paradigm’ had established itself with a sound theoretical base, an important set of ap-plied research questions, continued agency need and support for research, academic based train-ing of students who would grow into these agen-cy jobs, and a peer reviewed literature lead by such journals as Journal of Leisure Research and Lei-sure Sciences. Even though these journals carried surprisingly few publications about frameworks, the recreation research ‘paradigm’ propagated by these journals continuously influenced decisions of framework guided management processes (e.g. norms research on crowding). Before moving into a discussion of outdoor recreation research para-digm and the recent trends and future options, I would like to present Kuhn’s concept of the scien-tific paradigm an its evolutionary processes, and then discuss outdoor recreation research within Kuhn’s framework.

Recreation Research as a Scientific Paradigm

The notion of a research paradigm has been intro-duced by Kuhn in 1970, and he observed four stag-es in the progression of science:

1) Normal science is conducted over a long peri-od of time by a group of scientists forming a dis-tinctive discipline, working within a paradigm, and accepting a self-imposed framework of theo-ry, objectives, and techniques. This acceptance is what Kuhn means by tradition-bound. Scientists are suing theory, not challenging it.

2) Appearance of discrepancies within the para-digm. These are observations of experimental re-sults at odds with the propounded theory rather than expanding or amplifying it. There may be no immediate attempt to change the theory in order to accommodate these discrepancies.

3) A revolutionary period, short compared to the period of normal science, during which discrepan-cies are resolved in a new theory. The new theory is generated from outside the established practi-tioners of the normal science rather than logically developed from within the group.

4) Solidification of the new theory into a new paradigm, which gathers new adherents. The new group of scientists then proceeds to conduct an-other period of normal science. Research under the old paradigm may continue – but at a reduced level of activity – and it eventually ceases. (Kuhn as quoted in Ford 2000, 312)

According to Kuhn’s observations, by the late 70s / early 80s recreation research carries most of the traits of a mature paradigm in a place where none existed 15 years earlier. It represents a clearly de-fined applied academic discipline, offers well es-tablished academic programs, relevant journals, and pursues a wide range of applied research questions that follow the paradigm.

Now, 25 years later the question may be asked if the paradigm is still intact as it was originally, if it has changed gradually, or if indications towards a serious and radical paradigm shift can be ob-served. First, there are definitely a number of in-dications of a healthy paradigm of ‘normal sci-ence’, as described by Kuhn’s Stage 1.

The theoretical basis of outdoor recreation re-search which draws heavily from social psy-chology and some related disciplines has, and still is, making important contributions. The

Keynote Addresses

19

theories which are, in Kuhnian terms, slowly advancing and are repeatedly applied and test-ed, are as relevant today as they were initially.

The fact that the field came together so quick-ly and withstood the test of time reflects a need for this research. The paradigm now represents a fairly standardized field of inquiry, which pro-vides important continuity for agencies as the main users of this applied research.

Certain areas of outdoor recreation research have seriously influenced the design and implementa-tion of visitor management frameworks; for ex-ample the entire area of norms based research, especially in the area of perceived crowding.

The two major journals of outdoor recreation re-search, Leisure Sciences and the Journal of Lei-sure Research have become the main outlets of the academic work, and continue to thrive. They have shown a certain capacity of adaptation by expanding the scope of theoretical cover-age, most notable into the qualitative and post-modern research ‘revolution’ of the 1980s and 1990s.

However, one can also observe a number of dis-crepancies (Stage 2), to say the least. Arguably, these discrepancies do not affect the theory or the-ories per se, but are predominantly methodologi-cal, and also pertain to other aspects of the modus operandi of recreation research.

One main discrepancy appears with the research methods applied. Even today, the majority of research in outdoor recreation relies on meth-ods developed during the 1970s in conjunction with the theoretical aspects of the paradigm, and ignores recent methodological advances. For example, the classical research on attitudes, val-ues and preferences, using single item scaling, is still widely used today. It is fundamental to the academic process of testing and re-testing of many of the theories, and provides great insights into various behavioral antecedents. However, when it comes to predicting human behavior, as is the explicit goal of the theory of reasoned ac-tion (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980), the link from attitudes to intended behavior an actual behav-ior is rather tenuous. Significant methodologi-cal progress with various multivariate methods

(i.e. revealed and stated preference/choice mod-eling) finds its way into the core recreation lit-erature surprisingly slowly.

The main recreation journals appear to scruti-nize submissions predominantly for their theo-retical contribution, or at least for a sound the-oretical basis of the applied research presented. Inevitably, such a screening mechanism pre-cludes top level peer reviewed debate on impor-tant management questions, on the application of frameworks, and other legitimate issues asso-ciated with applied research.

The heavy emphasis on theory testing within a case study context makes a conceptual debate challenging, because contributions without an empirical component have a much lower chance of acceptance.

The focus on theory also precludes serious methodological debate, especially about emerg-ing methods, as well as their rapid dissemina-tion. This barrier affects methods pertaining to research on theories, and even more so meth-ods and concepts which might be important for practitioners or in the implementation of man-agement frameworks (i.e. monitoring). For ex-ample, Manning (2004) points out that “there is little guidance to be found in the professional and scientific literature on cost-efficient and ef-fective monitoring approaches and techniques.”

The main journals remain largely closed to an expanded set of research questions, approach-es and solutions, which frequently appear in the management context. Besides monitoring and enumeration issues, the ‘classical’ literature rarely covers articles containing GIS or GPS ap-plications, or any state-of-the-art more sophisti-cated modeling approaches. The last few issues of the major journals might indicate the overdue departure from this point of critique, as sever-al papers contain state-of-the-art methods, albeit mostly embedded in traditional theory.

Consequently, it comes of little surprise that many important papers on recreation are pub-lished outside the traditional domain of recre-ation research. For example, a large number of papers on recreational fishing by leading re-source economists can be found in the resource

Keynote Addresses

20

economics literature. Unfortunately, these pa-pers are written for the purpose of developing economic theory and/or modeling, and cater to a very different audience, going largely unnoticed by recreation managers, and even by many of the recreation researchers (for a summary see Hunt 2005).

If one evaluates the visitor management frame-works through a similar lens, a somewhat different picture emerges. Many applications of these frame-works by many jurisdictions across North America as well as occasional applications elsewhere have taken full advantage of state-of-the-art methods and techniques. Public participation processes and information dissemination are further enhanced with web-based technology, GIS based maps sum-marize information, and visualizations of possible future scenarios further debate (see the LAC sites for the Daniel Boone National Forest for an exam-ple (http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/boone/lac/). Occasion-al negative examples of framework applications also exist, in which an agency uses the framework merely as a prescriptive management or inventory-ing tool (e.g. the ROS in British Columbia).

This observation of a dynamic and innovative en-vironment around the visitor management frame-works, contrasts with the rather conservative mode of conduct of ‘normal science’ within classical rec-reation research. Maybe this discrepancy in itself indicates a paradigm shift, and the answer will de-pend on a precise definition of the term paradigm. In my opinion, these observations signal a signif-icant expansion of recreation research, towards much more interdisciplinarity. This shift seems to be driven more by the practitioners than by the es-tablished researchers. In all likelihood, academ-ics will remain in respective niches, but managers ought to embrace these new opportunities and be-come much more interdisciplinary in their outlook. Apparently outdoor recreation research is morph-ing into a much larger endeavor than the classical lens alone would suggest.

Future Research Directions

Manning (2004) lauds the frameworks “for mak-ing the trade-offs inherent to the management is-sues transparent on a conceptual basis.” McCool

(2005) observes “a growing need for frameworks and concepts that assist decision makers in assem-bling a set of informed alternatives and evaluat-ing them.”

To this I would add that conceptual transparency of trade-offs is certainly an important trait of pub-lic processes, but by now social science methods exist which can contribute to this need more ex-plicitly. And McCool’s jargon actually reflects the language of decision analysis, without making any further use of it. Taking advantage of these tech-niques should represent the next logical step in the development of these frameworks. It would bring the social science contributions to the decision making processes on par with the natural science information, and decision makers and stakeholders alike will work with values and trade-off positions of the various interest groups explicitly, instead of relying on anecdotal evidence of round tables.

Decisions support tools can be based on revealed and/or stated choice models which document the trade-off positions of user and stakeholder groups. A more formal framing of a decision problem along a decision analysis concept would provide a tight framework for monitoring, data collection, analy-sis, and a formal track record of decision making. Yet hardly any applications of decision analysis in recreation management in general or visitor man-agement specifically exist (for a first attempt see Rudolphi & Haider 2003).

Closely related is a move towards integrated mod-eling, in which ecological, managerial and recre-ational information are organized in a related man-ner, and subcomponents of the respective models influence each other. It is conceivable that social science information on values and trade-offs be collected in such a manner that it can be applied in spatially explicit GIS models.

Are these North American Visitor Management Frameworks Applicable in Europe?

As I have claimed in the beginning, in Europe these types of frameworks are – with some ex-ceptions- absent. With the exception of some at-tempts in Scandinavia, no visitor management frameworks have been applied in Europe to this day. The most obvious explanation might be that they simply were not known due to language bar-

Keynote Addresses

21

riers, which prevented many practitioners, and to a lesser extent academics, to delve into the relevant North American literature. However, that would be too simplistic. Instead the main causes seem to be of a legal and structural nature, as well as a very different research environment.

The different land ownership structure seems to be crucial. While North America contains huge amounts of public lands, only some regions in Eu-rope, most notably in Scandinavia have a similar dominance of public land ownership. In the re-mainder of Europe land ownership is a much more complex patchwork of private and several layers of public owners, leading to a much more diverse management structure which is much less con-ducive to rolling out generic management frame-works. Instead, one finds a diverse set of locally adapted, and sometimes unique, planning appli-cations. Access to recreation opportunities should also be considered, which seems to be more read-ily available in most European nations compared to North America. In Scandinavia, the ‘everyman’s right’ provides ubiquitous recreation access on all land. And in most continental European coun-tries, various blends of legislation and local cus-toms provide wide recreation access. In tourist ar-eas, such as the Alps, the importance of recreation and scenic services over forestry have long been decided in favor of recreation. The combination of already established broad public recreation access and many private landowners is not very condu-cive to recreation management frameworks.

At the same time, Europe has developed very dif-ferent types and notions of protected areas, which lead to different planning approaches. In North America, significant portions of land (up to 10-12% in many jurisdictions) are protected from most commercial uses in parks. Consequently, they designed their own recreation management ap-proaches. In Europe, on the other hand, strict pro-tected areas are few, while nature parks, landscape protection areas, and Natura 2000 allow many oth-er land uses. Furthermore, throughout Europe, re-gional identity is of utmost importance, especial-ly in the more peripheral areas which serve as the prime recreational and tourism areas. This region-alization requires more specific local planning and management solutions. Many European planning

processes have applied some of the quintessen-tial components of the visitor management frame-works already - sometimes deliberately, sometimes coincidentally, as they simply followed a common sense approach. Many of these applications have grown organically out of the respective process-es, and throughout Europe, public participation and the use of standards have become widespread planning and management tools with or without an explicit framework. For example, the EU-directive governing Natura 2000 areas mandates public par-ticipation for the management planning process. Its implementation varies enormously between various jurisdictions.

The restructuring of academic institutions through-out Europe has introduced a much more competi-tive environment, in which researchers must com-pete internationally for grants and for publications in the peer reviewed literature. Many of these re-searchers, and their students who eventually end up as managers, did not get trained in the classi-cal recreation research paradigm, and might there-fore be much more open to innovation and to state-of-the-art research approaches with focus on the research goals. Hence European research has an opportunity to establish itself on par with North American research.

In summary, given these discrepancies between European and North American approaches to and traditions in recreation management and research, further exchange of ideas between these positions will be beneficial to both parties.

References

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs.

Clark, R.N. & Stankey, G.H. (1979). The Recreation Op-portunity Spectrum: A Framework for Planning, Man-agement and Research. Gen. Tech. Report PNW-98. Portland.

Driver, B.L. (1976). Towards a Better Understanding of the Social Benefits of Outdoor Recreation Participation. Ashville.

Ford, D.E. (2000). Scientific Method for Ecological Re-search. Cambridge.

Grumbine, R.E. (1994). What is ecosystem management? In: Conservation Biology (8/1), p 27-38.

Keynote Addresses

22

Hunt, L. M. (2005). Recreational fishing site choice mod-els: Insights and future opportunities. In: Human Di-mensions of Wildlife (10), p 153-172.

Manning, R. (2001). “Visitor experience and resource pro-tection: A framework for managing the carrying ca-pacity of national parks.” In: Journal of Park and Rec-reation Administration (19), p 93-108.

Manning, R. (2004). Recreation Planning Frameworks. In: M. J. Manfredo, J.J. Vaske, B.L. Bruyere, D.R. Field, P.J. Brown (eds.). Society and Natural Resources – A Summary of Knowledge. Prepared for the 10th Intl. Symposium on Society and Resource Management. Jefferson.

McCool, S. (2005). Outdoor recreation in the new century: frameworks for working through the challenges. Pre-sentation at the 2005 Society of American Foresters National Convention, October 19-23, Ft. Worth, TX.

Newsome, D., Moore, S.A. & Dowling, R.K. (2002). Nat-ural Area Tourism – Ecology, Impacts and Manage-ment. Clevedon.

Nilsen, P., & Tayler, G. (1997). A comparative analysis of protected area planning and management frameworks. In S.F. McCool and D.N. Cole (eds.) Proceedings of a Workshop on Limits of Acceptable Change and Re-lated Planning Processes: Progress and Future Direc-tions, University of Montana’s Lubrecht Experimen-tal Forest, Missoula, MT, May 20-22, 1997, p 49-57. Odgen.

Rudolphi, W. & Haider, W. (2003). Visitor management and ecological integrity: one example of an integrat-ed management approach using decision analysis. In: Journal for Nature Conservation (11), p 346-354.

Stankey, G.H., Cole, D.N., Luca, R.C., Petersen, M.E., Frissell, S. (1985). The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning (Gen. Tech. Report, INT-176. Odgen.

US Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service (1997). VERP – Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) Framework – A Handbook for Planners and Managers. Denver.

Walters, C. (1986). Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. New York.

Siegrist, D., Clivaz, C., Hunziker, M. & Iten, S. (eds.) (2006). Exploring the Nature of Management. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas.

University of Applied Sciences Rapperswil, Switzerland, 13-17 September 2006. Rapperswil.

23

Trends in Alpine Tourism: The Mountaineers’ Perspective and Consequences for Tourism Strategies

Andreas Muhar, Thomas Schauppenlehner & Christiane Brandenburg

University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Austria

andreas.muhar@boku.ac.atthomas.schauppenlehner@boku.ac.atchristiane.brandenburg@boku.ac.at

Keywords: Alpinism, summer tourism, mountaineering, hiking, climbing, user survey, use trends, demands.

Summary: Mountaineers are a core group in Alpine tourism, their demands and expectations are an es-sential founda-tion for every tourism development strategy. This paper is based the authors’ surveys and other studies from the Alpine region. The image of mountain sports in the media (extreme climbing, paragliding, canyoning etc.) does not reflect the actual use patterns, as hiking is still by far the most important activity. Mountaineers are a very conservative group, usually well educated and of higher income. They perform this activity frequently and are generally satisfied with the current situation, thus sceptical towards any changes and man-agement measures. Mountaineers accept lower comfort levels, e.g. in huts, as compared to their everyday life as part of a back-to-the-roots experience. If tourism development strategies want to attract new user groups, they need to comply with the demands of this core group.

Introduction

The mountain ranges of the Alps offer a wide vari-ety of opportunities for landscape based recreation and tourism. Traditional alpinist activities are hik-ing and climbing in summer and downhill as well as cross-country skiing in winter. These long estab-lished mainstream sports have been complement-ed in the past decades by numerous other activities such as mountain biking, canyoning, paragliding, snowshoeing, waterfall climbing, often referred to as ‘trend sports’. There is extensive media cover-age of these trend sports, thus also shaping the pub-lic image of alpine sports as a whole: for lifestyle and leisure magazines it is much more attrac-tive to report on extreme sports rather than on ‘old-fash-ioned’ activities such as hiking. As most of the trend sports are highly commercialised, the media cover-age is also often financed by tour operators or out-fitters as part of their marketing campaigns. How-ever, is this image consistent with reality? Doesn’t the majority of mountain tourists still perform the traditional activities hiking, climbing and skiing? How do they themselves perceive trends and de-mands for action in mountain tourism?

This article specifically addresses issues of moun-tain tourism in the summer season. Since the mid 1980s there has been a significant change in many Alpine regions regarding to the seasonal distribu-tion of tourism, with winter tourism still boom-ing and summer tourism stagnating or in decline (see also Lüthi & Siegrist 1996). Tourism boards in various regions are concerned about the further development, as a two-seasonal utilisation of the touristic infrastructure (hotels, restaurants etc.) is essential for the economic sustainability of regions depending on tourism income.

Project context

The project “Trends and Needs of Action in Sum-mer Mountain Tourism” was commissioned by the Tourism Section of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Economy and Labour within the framework of the “Plattform Sanfter Bergtourismus” (Platform Soft Mountain Tourism), a cooperation of major players of the Austrian tourism industry. The study was conducted by the Institute of Landscape De-velopment, Recreation and Conservation Planning at BOKU University of Natural Resource and Ap-

Keynote Addresses

24

plied Life Sciences Vienna in the year 2005. The main goal was to identify the current activities and behaviour patterns of the core group of mountain tourists, which is characterised by the activities of hiking and climbing, further to detect significant trends and to provide base information for the for-mulation of touristic strategies.

Target groupThe target group of the study was the current pop-ulation of mountaineers and mountain hikers in the Austrian Alps. They can be seen as the core group of mountain tourism, and any touristic strategy has to consider the needs and expectations of this group. Many different terms are used to describe activities in this context, such as “hill walking”, “mountain hiking”, “mountaineering” and “moun-tain climbing”. There are no universally valid def-initions for these terms, nor is it possible to sepa-rate them from each other without overlaps. In the context of our study we use the term “mountain hiking” (in German: “Bergwandern”) for walk-ing in mountainous terrain on tracks or off track, usually without the need of using the hands or any specific equipment. Opposed to that, “mountain-eering” (German: “Bergsteigen”) often involves the use of the hands to proceed, as well as techni-cal equipment such as ropes, ice axes or crampons (see Munter 1988, Lorch 1995, Brämer 2001). Therefore, mountaineering requires more specific knowledge, skills and training than mountain hik-ing. Both activities have in common a high depen-dency from the environment and actual conditions such as weather and natural hazards.

Study designThe study was conducted via on-site interviews using a structured questionnaire. In order to sepa-rate the target group from other mountain visitors, e.g. tourists accessing summits by cable cars, inter-views were conducted in mountain huts, access to which involves at least two hours of walking from the closest starting point such as roads or lift sta-tions. In total, 1189 interviews were achieved on 44 huts in different ranges of the Austrian Alps, cov-ering both the more easily accessible lower moun-tain ranges of Eastern Austria and the higher and in parts also heavily glaciated ranges of Western Austria, which are usually visited by more ex-peri-

enced and well equipped mountaineers. The inter-views were conducted in afternoons, which is the time when mountaineers return from the tours to the huts and when they are usually open to discus-sions. The rejection rate was relatively low, less than 20% for overnight visitors and less than 30% for day visitors, who needed to descend down to the valleys on the same day and therefore had less time for an interview.

Reference dataThe