Assessing visitor impacts on backcountry trails in parks:

Comparing techniques applied in two World Heritage sites

Sanjay K. Nepal

Associate Professor

Dept. of Geography & Environmental Management

University of Waterloo

Email: snepal@uwaterloo.ca

Impact Assessment Techniques

Descriptive Surveys

Estimates or measurements taken

on recreation sites to assess

current resource conditions

Comparison of Disturbed

and Undisturbed sites

Measurements taken on disturbed

sites and nearby undisturbed sites,

and compared to infer amount of

impact

Mt. Everest National Park

Mt. Robson Provincial Park

Trail assessment in

Mt. Everest National Park

12 indicators

Continuous survey

Assessment of problem

areas (condition class)

Remote sensing, GPS

and GIS application

Advanced statistical

tests

1. Continuous survey

Cross section view

2. Permanent sample plots

Planar view

Vegetation

450m

interval

3. Comparisons with past photographs

Trail assessment in Mt. Robson

Provincial Park

Indicators

Impact indicators

Maximum incision, width,

cross section, soil

penetration resistance

Vegetation cover and

species (exotics)

Problem areas (continuous

survey) wet/muddy,

unofficial trails

Management features

(continuous survey),

culverts ditching etc.

Ecological / Locational

Variables

Topography – landscape

slope, trail grade, alignment

Vegetation type/ cover

Soil texture and moisture

Nepal in South

Asia

Mt. Everest National Park

Mt. Everest National Park

Trail erosion – examples from Everest

Condition Class

Class I

Class II

Class III

Class IV

Damage Category

Slightly damaged

Moderately damaged

Highly damaged

Severely damaged

No. of Segments

69

58

16

65

Total (miles)

6.8

6.5

2.5

6.1

Condition Class system

Results – Mt. Everest National Park

Mapping trail degradation in Mt. Everest Park

Factors influencing trail conditions – Mt. Everest

More frequent occurrences of degradation on higher

altitudes, on steeper slopes, in open grasslands, in areas

where natural hazard potential exists

Level of degradation high in high traffic areas, and in

areas with high concentration of tourist lodges

Source: BC Parks, 2001

Two Backcountry Trails:

23 km Berg Lake Trail

(High-use destination)

More than 4000 visitor

nights/year

14 km Mt Fitzwilliam Trail

(Low-use destination)

Less than 500 visitor nights/yr

Berg Lake

Mt. Fitzwilliam

Mt. Robson Provincial Park

Mt. Robson Park – Resource Impact Indicators

Berg Lake Mt. Fitzwilliam

TS Ctrl TS CTRL

Species Richness 6.1 ±4.4 3.2 ±1.1 8.9 ±3.7 8.3 ±3.4

Vegetation Cover 391 551 832 872

Exposed Soil 141* 21 * 61 * 0.51 *

Exposed Rock 4 1 39 30

Coarse woody

debris

0.8 2 0.4 1

Floristic

Dissimilarity

54 ± 30 52 ± 25

1 differences @ 0.95 confidence interval using a one-way ANOVA and

Bonferoni post-hoc analysis.

* differences @ 0.95 confidence interval.

Factors influencing trail degradation – Mt. Robson

•Soil compaction values, tread width, and frequency of

exposed rocks and roots increased with increase in use

level

•Floristic dissimilarity index, amount of vegetation

cover, difference in species richness did not correlate

with use

Some conclusions

Mt. Everest National Park

Condition class assessment useful where park management and does not have the resource and manpower to conduct a more detailed assessment

Useful if the park management’s objective is to have a general idea of resource conditions

Trail impact studies are less prioritized due to other pressing environmental problems

Problem separating visitor use from other local use – this will continue to be a problem in parks with human settlements in it.

Some conclusions

Mt. Robson Provincial Park

Detailed onsite and off-site comparison is useful from a

research point of view; however, the level of detail is not

appreciated by park managers, specially given the current

budget cuts and limited hiring of maintenance staff

Continuity of research is a problem

Need to increase research capacity of individual parks

Some conclusions

Both parks

Growing interest in recreation resource impacts

Individual park units appreciate the value of research on

trail impacts, but at a higher level backcountry impacts

research gets low priority

Research capacity of park management is an important

consideration in selecting the techniques

Taking recreation ecology research to the next level

(comparing actual vs. perceptual impacts)

•Nepal, S. K. and Way, P. 2007. Characterizing and comparing backcountry trail

conditions in Mt. Robson Provincial Park. Ambio 36 (5): 394-400.

•Nepal, S.K. and Way, P. 2007. Comparison of vegetation conditions along two

backcountry trails in Mount Robson Provincial Park (Canada). J. of Environmental

Management, 82 (2): 240-49.

•Marion, J.L., Leung, Y.F and Nepal, S.K. 2006. Monitoring trail conditions: New

methodological considerations. The George Wright Forum 23: 36-49.

•Arocena, J., Nepal, S.K., and Rutherford, M. 2006. Visitor-induced changes in the

chemical composition of soils in backcountry areas of Mt. Robson Provincial Park,

British Columbia, Canada. J. of Environmental Management 79 (1): 10-19.

Nepal, S.K. and Nepal, S.A. 2004. Visitor impacts on trails in the Sagarmatha (Mt.

Everest) National Park, Nepal. Ambio 33 (6): 334-40.

Nepal, S.K. 2003. Trail impacts in the Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park,

Nepal: A logistic regression analysis. Environmental Management 32 (3) 312-21.

Relevant Papers snepal@uwaterloo.ca