Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
How many is too many?
Doug Whi2aker Confluence Research and Consul<ng
Se>ng capaci<es
and alloca<ng
mountain use
Middle Teton, Wyoming
Annapurna Sanctuary, Nepal
Similarities
McCloud River, CA
First ascents / descents
Grand Canyon of the Stikine
Skill, gear, and gumption…
Delta River, Alaska
Judgment
From…chris-‐nagel.blogspot.com
Hance Rapid
Sockdolager Rapid
Mineral Canyon
Hance Camp Papago Camp
Grapevine Camp
Routes
Wassons’s Hole, Grand Canyon of the Stikine
Risk at crux locations
Khumbu Ice Fall
Support
Kahiltna Glacier, Denali
Commercialization
Quality of experience
Mo<va<ons and psychological outcomes
Use is a variable
Tourism-recreation lifecycle
Discovery and exploration
Emergence
Consolidation (Commercial)
Choices: Saturation/decline Managed stability & rejuvenation
Adapted from Butler, 1980
Time
Num
ber o
f peo
ple
Lower Kern, California
What kind of place do you want this to be?
images.summitpost.org/original/320167.jpg
A brief tour of capacity concepts
Origins
Facility capacities
Zermatt tram 60 people
Middle Fork Lodge 24 rooms/cabins
Copperfield Campground 62 RV + 10 tent sites 2 vehicles per site 6 people per site
Old Faithful Inn dining room 260 people at one time
Magic Kingdom parking 25,000 vehicles 75,000 people
Ecological capacities
McNeil River, Alaska
Selway River, Idaho
Social capacities
• Determined through a process • Technical & evaluative information • Not a “magic number”
Developing capacities
Similarities > differences
Planning frameworks
Main Salmon River, Idaho
Principles
• Any use creates some impact • Impact not necessarily “damage” • Identify important conditions (indicators) • Evaluations (standards) define “unacceptable”
Capacities require value judgments
Middle Fork Salmon, Idaho
What do you need to know?
Use-condition relationships Acceptability of conditions
“Other” management actions
y = 0.471(x) -‐ 287 R² = 0.24
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Valley Inbound Vehicles
People on trail Vernal Falls
Preference
Acceptable
Mgmt. ac<on
Yosemite Valley use vs. Vernal Falls trail densities
Evaluating use
Acceptability of boat densities
3.31
2.15
-‐0.70
-‐2.28
-‐4
-‐3
-‐2
-‐1
0
1
2
3
4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Una
ccep
table
Number of boats in photos
Acceptab
le
Carry out human waste systems
“Other actions” Educate & regulate
Dishwater and hygiene
Stoves only; tarp under table
Change type or behavior of users, not amount of use
Fire pans
Stoneman Meadow, Yosemite Valley Fragmentation Index from 40% to 99%...
despite use increase over 50%
“Other actions” Harden/direct use to less sensitive areas
“Other actions” Infrastructure and facilities to handle sheer volume of use
Direct limits
Middle Fork Salmon River, Idaho
Campsite assignments
Launch limit
Kenai and Russian River Confluence, Alaska
Indirect management
Facilities to direct / constrain use
Registration à re-distribution
Deschutes River, Oregon
Public support for use limits Several Alaska rivers
10%
11%
20%
22%
34%
39%
39%
40%
52%
60%
90%
89%
81%
79%
66%
62%
61%
60%
48%
40%
Talachulitna floaters
Lake Creek floaters
Little Susitna floaters
Deshka floaters
Kenai users
Talkeetna floaters
Gulkana floaters
Little Susitna powerboaters
Deshka powerboaters
Gulkana powerboaters
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Never
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Maybe or yes
No Maybe Yes
How big is the pie? Who gets the pieces?
Capacity vs. allocation
Allocation approaches Split vs. common pool
Allocation techniques
Pricing Lotteries Reservations Onsite queuing
Elves Chasm, Grand Canyon
Complex policy choices • Bids vs. historical use • Monopolies and “selling” permits • Details matter – winners and losers
Lees Ferry, Grand Canyon
Use limits on U.S. rivers
• Full limits on 25 rivers • Partial limits on 90+ rivers (usually commercial only) • Higher use rivers: 300-1,000 people, 25+ groups, 300+ boats per day • Lower use rivers: 0.5 to 8 groups per day
Grand Canyon
images.summitpost.org/original/320167.jpg
A brief tour of mountain capaci<es
Mount Whitney
• ~250 per day total • 1,000 before limits • 60 overnight, 100 day, 100 other • Small separate commercial sector • February lo2ery • 24,000 people per year • Pioneer carry-‐out waste regs
Half Dome
300 per day; 75 overnight & 225 day As many as 1,200 per day before limits
Weekend/weekday experiment “Free flow” < 30 PAOT on cables
Social evalua<on study
Denali
1,500 people per year ~400 to 500 AOT
Distributed commercial use Higher fee controversy Clean Mountain Cans
mountrainiercondi<ons.blogspot.com
Camping zone permits 110 at Camp Muir (largest) 200+ summit on peak days
2,000à 10,000 per year (1970 to 2013) 57% private, 43% commercial
3 ouki2ers (one larger) 48 commercial clients per night
Single trip guide CUAs
Mount Rainier
Longs Peak
Camping limits (18 sites in 4 areas) Separate climbing bivy rules
No day use limits Unknown total use But some days 500+
No carry out waste – toilets Day use parking problems
h2p://www.summitpost.org/users/yem/39021
Mount Hood
Overnight permits No day use limits
9,000 per year 4x increase since 1990 25 to 50 SARs / year
Lower commercial use
Grand Teton
Camping zone limits No day limits
Group size limit (6) Limits on some routes Two guide companies
Carry-out waste
Mount Shasta
• No quotas • 200+ on peak days • 15,000 people per summer • $ 20 “Summit Pass” • Pack out waste
Ma2erhorn
Hut-‐based limits (170/night) “Circus of ar<ficial protec<on” Guides are managed…rela<vely clean safety record 500+ deaths by unguided
h>p://www.summitpost.org/ar-‐te-‐des-‐cosmiques/155970
Mont Blanc
• 3 big huts (72+120+120=312) • Smaller huts Italian side • 200+ per day in summer • 30,000 per year • Camping ban controversy
Aconcagua
No limits Fees: 300, 500, 700 by season
Extensive guide/support use Defined base camps
Numbered waste bags
Vinson Antarctica
Self-imposed commercial limits (200 / per year) Enormous logistics and costs Pack in, pack out at a fine level Complex national and treaty authorities
Kilamanjaro
Guides required – reserva<ons 40,000 to 60,000 people per year
6 routes, variable use levels Camp crowding: 300+ climbers and 900 staff
59 outhouses
190,000 per summer No fees in 2011 – officals backed down 16 huts up hihg Toilets and refreshments issue is ffees, not limits Before dawn, the summit is so crammed with
hikers waiNng for the fabled view of sunrise that if even one person in the crowd took a tumble, a large number of people might fall.
Mount Fuji
Jessica…Aug 2013 h2p://waysofwanderers.com/climbing-‐mount-‐fuji-‐story/
• 10,000 per day • 300,000 per year
• De facto hut capaci<es • Extensive facili<es and waste mgmt.
Mount Everest
• High fees • 600+ climbers AOT • Crowding at bo2lenecks • Narrow weather window • Skill level of commercial climbers • Protec<on and oxygen use • Media and public a2en<on
© 2012 Ralf Dujmovits
h2p://exploreofanaverage.blogspot.com/2012/11/trekking-‐to-‐poon-‐hill-‐volume-‐3.html
Ghorepani, Nepal Not just climbers
1,000+ trekkers sunrise trudge Bo2lenecks Human waste Ru2ed trails
images.summitpost.org/original/320167.jpg
Thoughts on mountain capaci<es
Relentless use increases? Changing propor<on of commercial use?
From Westhoff & Koepsell, 2012 based on Elizabeth Hawley’s Himalayan Database
Bibek Bhandari Bibekjournal.Wordpress.com/2010
Impacts aren’t going away… Some are related to use
Need a process
Earlier is be2er
First ascent of the Ma0erhorn by Gustave Doré
Denali – NPS Photo
Focus on important indicators
h2p://www.peakpromo<onnepal.com/wms/everest_expedi<on/images/Traffic-‐jam-‐at-‐Hillary-‐step.jpg
Limi<ng factors
Weather, risk, and “trips in trouble”
Climbing aids confound
Social impacts?
NPS Photo
Half Dome Study
David Weinstein Na<onal Geographic Adventure Blog 2014
Over-reliance on overnight capacities?
NPS Photo
Overreliance on educa<on?
Freedom vs. regula<on
Case by case
