Johnson    

1  

Keith Johnson Professor Rebekka Goodman TDM 593 Applied Project 8 August 2014

Making Recreation more Sustainable

This applied project is going to explore the issues surrounding sustainability with regards to

outdoor recreation. The goal of this paper is for the reader to better understand what can be done

to make recreation plans as well as individual outdoor recreation choices more sustainable so that

future populations will also be able to enjoy them. It is essential that today’s recreation plan look

long-term so that they are not bogged down and constantly changing each time there is a change

in leadership at the top. The short-term goals of each plan must run parallel to the long-term

goals in order for sustainability to be met. It is also of the utmost importance that indicators are

set so that it can be better be understood how successful each plan is in reaching both short-term

and long-term goals.

This paper analyzes the master recreation plan from the Boulder Parks and Recreation

Department. The plan is concerned with providing a roadmap to a more successful use of

recreation resources in the future for all of the locals and visitors who use the cities parks. It is

the intention of this paper to analyze the plan and determine what ideas follow the guidelines of

sustainability and help promote its teachings. The ideas surrounding sustainability are ever

evolving and the primary goal of this paper is to create a more updated understanding of what

concepts should be included in master recreation plans so that they can be as sustainable as

possible keeping in mind the traditional constraints that these agencies feel.

A secondary goal of this paper will be to look at some of the popular recreation choices that

are available and discuss how they can also be more sustainable. This paper will analyze the

negative consequences that these recreation choices can bring to an area and better understand

possible sustainable choices that will mitigate these consequences.

This paper will be an action research project that clearly outlines current recreation practices

that are not as sustainable as they need to be as well as acknowledging ways to make them more

    Johnson    

2  

sustainable. Readers will be better qualified to take the ideas contained within and create a

recreation plan of their own that avoids common pitfalls and uses up to date information. They

will also be more informed of the sustainability challenges that a plethora of recreational sports

offer and how to make their own forms of recreation more sustainable. Many of the techniques

needed to make recreation more sustainable can be applied to one another in an effort to enhance

the positive attributes and mitigate the negative ones.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Sustainable Recreation is becoming more prevalent in the Master Plans for recreation areas.

This is of great importance as our constantly growing world is facing a myriad of sustainability

challenges and the sustainability of recreation will be one way to insure future generations are

able to enjoy the same outdoor fun that we do today. The reader will be better informed and

have more tools at their disposal to be able to create a sustainable recreation plan for areas of any

size. This paper will answer the question of how to make recreation as sustainable as possible

from a general standpoint as well as an individual one for a variety of activities while also

analyzing a case study for a recreation master plan to get a better understanding of the

sustainability measures they have put into place for their recreation.

Sustainability in Todays National Parks. Sustainability has recently become a central focus for

National Parks as well as local community parks. They have seen how the recreation they offer

is intertwined with the concept of sustainability. The Forest Service has recently outlined their

own framework for sustainable recreation and they are trying to cascade the ideas to all of the

parks within their system (Thorpe et al. 1). These ideas will be reviewed in the paper as well.

    Johnson    

3  

Management by Objectives. The first thing that needs to be decided when creating a successful

sustainable recreation master plan is the approach you will take to gather information, measure

results, monitor the issues, and manage the ideas. Manning et al. (24) say that a management-by-

objectives framework is very common in the modern day of managing areas for the sustainability

of outdoor recreation. This includes developing indicators and standards, monitoring the

indicators, and making sure standards are adhered to through good management. This method

has come about by studying all of the environmental and sustainability literature that is

considered true in today’s world such as carrying capacity, common property resources,

management of the ecosystem, environmental justice, and adaptive management. This form of

management is adaptive and with long term monitoring can be used for future generations to

reevaluate their own management objectives, indicators, and standards when necessary

depending on the environmental and social conditions at the time. Engagement of the public in

this form of management is important as it helps to build trust, ownership, and the kind of social

capital that will insure public support.

Different Frameworks that show Promise for Recreation Sustainability. McCool et al. (43) talk

about three recreation-planning tools that can be used to make recreation more sustainable in

their book An assessment of frameworks useful for public land recreation planning. These tools

include:

1. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) (McCool et al. 43). This is when an area uses a

variety of settings to create different recreation experiences. These different settings range from

developed to undeveloped. This allows the recreation user the ability to cater the experience to

    Johnson    

4  

what they are most interested in. This in turn makes the recreation more sustainable as there is

less chance that the recreation visitor is overusing the resources in a particular area.

2. Level of Acceptable Change (LAC) (McCool et al. 66). LAC was created to answer the calls

by many as a way of making a recreational carrying capacity for wilderness areas. LAC is the

amount of human-caused change to an area that is acceptable and trying to manage it. It tries to

determine how much change is acceptable and how it can be managed. Low amounts of

recreational use lead to a disproportionately high level of destruction and the key is trying to

manage the destruction without thinking you can eliminate it completely.

3. Benefits Based Management (BBM) (McCool et al. 100). BBM is based on the idea that you

should understand and manage for particular outcomes that derive from the recreation instead of

the settings that are used. Recreation managers can understand and evaluate alternative ideas if

they focus on what kinds of benefits each form of recreation will have for the population.

Two additional recreation-planning tools have been developed and show great promise in the

field of sustainable recreation. They include:

1. Recreation Carrying Capacity (RCC) was developed by Nilsen and Taylor (49). This is a way

to manage the social and physical effects of recreation by figuring out how many or what kinds

of recreation users can go into an area before it is adversely affected. RCC defines the recreation

alternatives in an area and establishes indicators and standards that must be upheld. The

indicators must be monitored to insure success. In order to figure out the carrying capacity,

managers need to collect data from the visitors who use the area.

2. Place Based Planning (PBP) was established by Kruger and Williams (83). PBP is a little bit

different than many of the other types of planning. This concept tries to better understand the

symbolic and emotional feelings and attachments people have to places.

    Johnson    

5  

Importance of Community Involvement. Arni and Khairil (57) examine the importance of

sustainability in regards to outdoor recreation so that they can figure out if future generations can

also enjoy its attributes. Planning needs to be centered on talks and social learning between

management and the resident community. They need to use a collaborative effort and have

general consensus of the important matters. The authors say that there has been a lot of research

on recreation management and that the conclusions have shown a need for usage of carrying

capacity, keeping an eye on visitor management, and a systematic upgrading of sites to insure the

sustainability of an area. They further state that the traditional planning model that was used in

the past where technical experts tell the client what to do with little input from the public is no

longer viable. Global changes have made it necessary for the public to participate in

management plans if they are to have any chance of success in the future. The case study of a

Malaysian park and recreation plan was analyzed. They used a top-down approach with

administrators, planners, politicians and developers making the decisions as to what was done.

The local residents had very little input. The authors describe that this form of plan often leads

to unwanted ethical challenges as the residents are kept out of the planning process. They state

that a transactive planning process shows better long-term results where there is a good dialogue

between concerned groups, technical information and government policy direction.

The Recreation Master Plan. The Boulder Parks and Recreation Department (BPRD) Master

Plan was designed to use short-term strategies that build success over the long term (BPRD 16).

Their planning process used background research and community engagement, benchmark

comparisons to cities that are similar, a needs assessment to figure out the parks strong and weak

    Johnson    

6  

points, as well as an examination of the local and national trends. This plan deems the

community engagement process to be ongoing and crucial to its success. The BPRD uses an

evenly balanced, open, and participatory engagement process so that they can earn the

communities trust with regards to the plan and the process. They used stakeholder interviews,

public open houses, public surveys, online engagement, targeted outreach, ‘Pathfinders’

Workshops, technical advisory groups, Parks and Recreation advisory board, and the city council

in an effort to create a totally inclusive planning process (BPRD 16).

The BPRD wants their community to have a vision of turning into one of the most sustainable

and enjoyable areas in the entire world. They hope to do this by having a community that is safe,

healthy and socially thriving, livable, easily accessible and completely connected,

environmentally sustainable, economically healthy, and well managed (BPRD 20).

How to make a Particular Type of Recreation more Sustainable. Individual recreation

opportunities also have the ability to be more sustainable. One of the recreational sports that will

be analyzed is All Terrain Vehicles (ATV). Snyder et al. (249) examine how best to make ATVs

more sustainable. They describe how ATVs can have negative consequences to the landscape

including soil compaction, increased water run-off and erosion, and the disappearance of flora.

This is often caused by ATV use that deviates from current trails. There is also unwanted noise

that can scare off wildlife as well as safety concerns, especially when motorized and non-

motorized users are in the same area.

Case studies have shown that ATV users are more apt to stay on trails if they are designed in

a way that gives them a high level of interest, challenge, fun experiences, and safety (Snyder et

al. 257). This means that trails should be constructed in ways that peak the interest of ATV users

    Johnson    

7  

in areas that mitigate negative consequences in an effort to become more sustainable. This case

study showed users interested in a myriad of scenery, maps located at each trailhead, signs

showing what types of users are in the area, routes that link up with other trails, and signage that

give distances to various areas. It also described what type of environment should be created to

reduce the negative consequences that ATVs bring. The trails should be constructed in areas

with well-drained and fine textured loam or clay loam, or with rocky soil as they are less apt to

lead to erosion and are considered safer to fall onto. Slopes should be between 5-15%. Stream

and wet area crossings should be mitigated so they do not lead to a destruction of riparian zones.

ATV trails should be kept 15-30 meters from any body of water. These trails should not cross

public roads or any non-motorized trails in order to keep all groups of users safe. It is also a

good idea to create trails that do not cross into privately owned in-holdings as this can lead to

future challenges (Snyder et al. 249).

Literature Review Conclusion. This paper will answer the question of how to make recreation as

sustainable as possible from a general standpoint as well as an individual one for a variety of

activities while also pointing out how sustainable recreation is being achieved at the BPRD.

Describing what kinds of current practices are being implemented in an effort to maximize

sustainability for recreation will do this. The vast amount of knowledge that has been written by

scholars and recreation experts can be used to insure a more sustainable form of recreation is

understood and implemented within areas of all sizes. This will insure that future generations are

able to enjoy the same recreation opportunities that todays population does.

    Johnson    

8  

DEFINITION OF SUSTAINABLE RECREATION

Before discussing ideas on how to make recreation more sustainable, it is important to give

sustainable recreation a definition. This paper will use the United States Forest Service

definition of sustainable recreation which states, “The set of recreation settings and opportunities

on the National Forest System that is ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable for

present and future generations” (USDA Forest Service 23.22b). For the purpose of this paper,

the recreation settings and opportunities can be found anywhere and do not need to be in the

National Forest System.

RECREATION SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLES FROM THE USDA

The United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Mission is “To sustain the health,

diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and

future generations” (Thorpe et al. 3). They have several guiding principles that they use in order

to accomplish their mission. Some of them are as follows (Thorpe et al. 3):

1. Connecting people with their natural and cultural heritage – Recreation can be used as a means

for people to better understand and care for their natural surroundings. It starts out as fun but can

lead to a better awareness of sustainability situations and possible get people to become citizen

stewards who want to give back.

2. Recreational activity in the outdoors helps people become healthier – The physical, mental,

and spiritual health that users feel allows them to get away from illnesses and towards wellness.

3. Sustainability is the root of all recreation program decisions – The sustainability of recreation

benefits for present and future generations means that economic, social, and environmental

conditions must also be sustainable.

    Johnson    

9  

4. Community engagement is a priority – Planners, facilitators, and collaborators need to tap into

the energy and creativity of the people in the surrounding communities. This is essential if

sustainable recreation is to be achieved.

Sustainable Areas of Focus. The USDA Forest Service has also stated that they want to focus on

the three pillars of sustainability, which are environmental, social, and financial (Thorpe et al. 4).

They have also highlighted several areas of focus that they hope will allow them to achieve a

more sustainable form of recreation. Some of these are (Thorpe et al. 5):

1. Restore Recreation Settings – Using research and planning to allow recreation areas to

modernize so they reflect the diversity of cultures, families, and popular recreation that is present

in today’s world.

2. Enhance communities – Use different planning models to insure that collaborative processes

are possible with the local communities. They will also share infrastructure, and recreational

opportunities that bind the communities and their urban areas to scenic attractions and historic

locations.

3. Forge Strategic Partnerships – Supporting coalitions of recreation interest groups who can help

provide a more sustainable form of recreation and education to youth and adults. Streamline the

partnership process to strengthen the ability of engaging people and enhancing the long-term

sustainability and relevance to our society of natural and cultural regions.

4. Promote Citizen Stewardship – Grow the enthusiasm, energy, and skills of locals and

volunteers to give everyone a better connection to the natural environment.

5. Develop a Sustainable Financial Source – The only way to deliver sustainable recreation is by

developing a sustainable financial establishment.

    Johnson    

10  

The areas of focus and guiding principles that the USDA Forest Service has come up with

sheds a positive light on what todays recreation planners can do in order to make recreation more

sustainable. The modern approach they highlight is forward thinking and they give a myriad of

examples on how today’s planners can also be effective.

CREATING THE SUSTAINABLE RECREATION FRAMEWORK

The first step towards creating sustainable recreation is one of planning. There are a variety of

frameworks in existence that can be used by the sustainable recreation planner in order to set the

groundwork that is needed. Some of these frameworks are more successful than others. The

decision as to which frameworks to use in each particular situation depends on the details of the

particular form of recreation. Management by objectives frameworks have become more

common in Modern Park and outdoor recreation management systems in an effort to define,

measure, monitor and manage the sustainability of outdoor recreation within the parks (Manning

et al. 24). This is done by putting together indicators and standards, monitoring the indicators,

and managing to ensure standards are met.

The four steps of this process are as follows: (Manning et al. 28)

Step 1. Take an inventory of the park conditions, which include the resource, social, and

managerial environment. This includes getting information on things such as the natural and

cultural resources, needs of current and potential visitors, and a look at managerial issues.

Step 2. Create the management objectives. Looking at the information from Step 1 often does

this. The direction may come from financial constraints, legislative policies, or the cultural and

natural resources under consideration. Often budget restraints will limit what can be done. In

other cases, it may be the legislative policies that dictate the kinds of recreation that can be

    Johnson    

11  

provided. Another possibility is that the areas fragile resources determine that the location needs

to have low levels of use.

Often, there are a few management concepts that can be used in an area. It is important to

choose the most realistic and sensible idea to show to the public. This will allow for an efficient

process as the public votes on the notion they feel is the most advantageous according to their

perspective. Things that the public should consider while voting would be the contribution to the

overall recreation diversity of an area, how will it effect visitor usage, the resource and social

values that are enhanced or reduced by each idea, how feasible is the concept from a

management viewpoint, and are the costs and benefits spread out evenly (Manning et al. 29)?

The chosen management theory should keep several factors in mind so that the day-to-day

recreation operations can be evaluated and managed in a sustainable way (Manning et al. 29).

The management concept should describe which forms of recreation should be emphasized and

describe the conditions under which this exists. Often, research can show which of the

recreation factors should be the priority of the management objectives. Research can also

recognize possible indicators and standards. Outdoor recreation literature is another source of

potential indicators and standards. The management objectives should highlight all kinds of

conditions for the factors that are important to visitors. The management objectives as well as

their indicators and standards should be solidified at this point.

Step 3. This is the time to decide on the type and level of management that is needed to get

from the current to the desired situation. These different recreation-planning frameworks will be

described in more detail below. They include Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), Limits

of Acceptable Change (LAC), Benefits Based Management (BBM), Recreation Carrying

Capacity (RCC), and Place-based Planning (PBP). Indirect management concepts (the ones that

    Johnson    

12  

are not limiting a visitors freedom of choice) should be emphasized over the direct concepts if

they can be proven to be effective (Manning et al. 30).

Step 4. The step that is most often skipped is the monitoring and evaluation of the

management concept. This is very important, as it is the only way to confirm if sustainability is

being met. This means that the indicators must be monitored to insure the preset standards are

being reached. These indicators should be monitored on a frequency that can vary. They may

need to be monitored more often if particular conditions exist such as:(Manning et al. 30)

1. Indicator variables is close to the preset standards

2. Rates of environmental, social, or managerial change are high.

3. Initial inventory for the location is incomplete or questionable.

4. Potential effectiveness of management actions is not predictable.

5. When there are a lot of changes to the areas such as usage or new access.

This is when a decision would be made as to whether changes in management is needed based

on whether the conditions are meeting the preset standards. ‘Superior Outdoor Recreation’ is

best defined as the degree to which it provides the experiences that it was created and managed

for (Manning et al. 30).

DIFFERENT RECREATION PLANNING FRAMEWORKS

ROS planning framework is a popular tool that recreation manager’s use (McCool et al. 43). The

underlying idea of ROS is that quality recreational experiences can best be achieved by putting

together a myriad of opportunities and letting visitors choose which setting they are most

interested in. ROS bridges the visitor experience with environmental, physical, and managerial

    Johnson    

13  

attributes of a particular setting. ROS can create a map of six opportunity zones that range from

developed to undeveloped. These opportunity zones are essentially different settings.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. The ROS uses three different attributes that have a full

spectrum of possibilities (McCool et al. 46). One attribute is biophysical and is represented by

the change to the environment that humans bring. These may vary from no change to an

environment that is highly developed. A second attribute is social and includes the area, kind of

recreation, and amount of contact that people have with one another. This can range from no

contact with people in a remote location to many encounters in a more heavily traveled area.

The third attribute is managerial and includes the rules, regulations, and amount of staff that are

present. There may be many rules that are posted for visitors to adhere to with a lot of staff

around or no staff with zero regulations in a more wilderness setting. All of these attributes

within the ROS can give recreation a perceived value to the visitor and can be very helpful in

creating a more sustainable product as the visitors are more likely to look for locations that fit

their actual needs. This will limit the overuse or possible abuse of the recreation in areas that are

not created by management for that purpose.

Limits of Acceptable Change. The LAC is another planning framework that can be used in an

effort to create a more sustainable form of recreation (McCool et al. 66). LAC was created to

answer the calls by many as a way of making a recreational carrying capacity for wilderness

areas. LAC is the amount of human-caused change to an area that is considered acceptable and

then trying to manage it. It tries to determine how much change is acceptable and how it can be

    Johnson    

14  

managed. Low amounts of recreational use lead to a disproportionately high level of destruction

and the key is trying to manage the destruction without thinking you can eliminate it completely.

The LAC planning framework also uses standards of acceptable change, which are also

applied to indicators. The standard is the limit of change that is acceptable and is the most

effective when quantifiable to the least acceptable condition. The indicators and their standards

are used to insure the LAC is within pre-determined guidelines. For example, a campsite may be

developed with the standard of a 50% chance of hearing or seeing less than four other groups

while camping (McCool et al. 82). Once again, monitoring of the indicators is of great

importance and must be adhered to if the location is to use LAC positively.

LAC is often used when there are two competing objectives such as having a pristine

environment and access to recreation opportunities (Cole and Stankey 5). LAC insures that the

objective that is compromised has a set of standards attached to it. This can guarantee that the

compromised objective has limits that will only go so far. This allows tradeoffs to take place in

between competing objectives, but only to a certain point. Cole and Stankey (6) put it best when

they stated, “In the recreation application, when the maximum acceptable limit of resource

degradation is reached, no more degradation is allowed, and recreation use is restricted as much

as necessary.”

Benefits Based Management. BBM is another recreation planning framework that has been

developed more recently (McCool et al. 100). It is based on the idea that you should understand

and manage for particular outcomes that derive from the recreation instead of the settings where

they are used. Recreation managers can understand and evaluate alternative ideas if they focus

on what kinds of benefits each form of recreation will have for the population. For example, a

    Johnson    

15  

particular type of recreation may create better cardiovascular fitness, community stability, or a

sense of cultural pride for those who use it. It may also reduce crime or the feelings of solitude

an individual may feel. This form of recreation planning can be used in order to protect a

community from specific social problems or to get certain benefits. For example, a community

can be deemed as having a population that is generally overweight and a variety of physical

fitness themed recreation opportunities are introduced. The fact that this type of planning

framework can be geared towards bettering a population’s physical and mental health only

furthers the sustainability of the recreation that it produces. After all, it takes a happy and

healthy population to create and protect a healthy environment.

Recreation Carrying Capacity. RCC is a way to manage the social and physical effects of

recreation by figuring out how many or what kinds of recreation users can go into an area before

it is negatively affected (Nilsen and Taylor 49). RCC defines the recreation alternatives in an

area and establishes indicators and standards that must be upheld. The indicators must be

monitored to insure success. In order to figure out the carrying capacity, managers need to

collect data from the visitors who use that space. For example, a survey can be given to the

visitors that grade their perceptions of the crowding in an area. This allows managers to run the

recreation for a location in a more sustainable manner depending on how the visitors feel about

the amount of people they encounter.

Placed Based Planning. PBP is a little bit different than many of the other types of planning.

This concept tries to better understand the symbolic and emotional feelings and attachments

people have to places (Kruger and Williams 83). These bonds can be spiritual, psychological,

cultural, or connected by a history with the users. Tapping into these kinds of feelings from

    Johnson    

16  

recreation users is certain to get them on board with using a location’s recreation in a sustainable

manner. So often, sustainability depends on getting the local community to believe in the long-

term positivity of a particular action.

These are five planning frameworks that can be used by recreation managers to address the

multitude of scenarios they face. The frameworks can be used in a manner that insures the

recreation they use is highly sustainable for the communities and the environment they touch.

IMPORTANCE OF COLLABORATION WITH COMMUNITIES

According to Arni and Khairil (57), researchers are now agreeing that recreational planning is

crucial and that dialogue between the public and the recreational management entity during this

process is a must. This was not always the manner in which things were done. Todays smart

planners know that the only way you are going to have sustainable recreation is through a

collaborative process that builds consensus with the general public from an early stage.

The traditional planning concept for recreation was bringing in experts who told the client

what would work best for an area (McAvoy et al. 42). They often gave the public the

opportunity to give input in public hearings, but this input was rarely used. This was due to the

fact that recreation planning takes place in an uncertain arena where there are competing interests

for the development and protection of scarce resources (McCool and Patterson 111). Politics and

global changes also influence the planning. This is why the planning process needs to be based

on discussions and social learning’s where the general public is involved and that the planning

must prioritize learning, collaborative action, and compromise (McCool and Patterson 112).

This planning is important to create a sustainable form of recreation because ecological

disruption, overpopulation, and disagreement between users have become more commonplace

    Johnson    

17  

due to the worlds ever growing populations (Arni and Khairil 59). The only way to sustain

today’s recreation for present and future generations is by creating a balance of environmental,

social, and economic conditions. This growing population means that we need new ways to

think about the goals of sustainable recreation.

The recreation planning needs to include private, government, and non-governmental

organizations. Recreation managers need to be effective with their programming to ensure

sustainable use of their assets. Without this, degraded recreation areas, destroyed heritage sites,

negative resource impact, and continued conflict between different user groups will ensue

(Thorpe et al. 3). This can be avoided by having strong partnerships and participation by all of

the stakeholders, including the general public, during the planning process. This is essential if

there is any hope of realizing sustainable recreation goals. The transactive planning model can

be used to accomplish this. It allows stakeholders the opportunity to understand each others

interests, share problem definitions, decide on the ownership within the plan, build trust, and

share an agreement on the kinds and use of knowledge used in the planning process (Stankey et

al. 441).

EXAMINATION OF THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE BPRD PLAN

The BPRD plan seems to be very comprehensive in nature. The plan understands the importance

of community engagement and how it can lead to a more sustainable form of recreation within

the parks. The BPRD plan states, “A balanced, open, and collaborative engagement process

builds community-wide trust in the plan and the process” (BPRD 16). Everyone involved

properly plans the engagement so that there is a good deal of support for and approval of the

master plan. This is essential if the recreation programs are to be sustainable in the present and

    Johnson    

18  

the future. The process uses stakeholder interviews, public open houses, public surveys, online

engagement, target outreach, Pathfinders workshops, technical advisory groups, parks and

recreation advisory board, and the city council to insure everyone is involved (BPRD 17).

Among these groups, the targeted outreach is used to talk with under participating groups such as

youth, minorities, and other special populations. The stakeholder interviews are also very

important as the stakeholders often form the core of sustainable recreation programs that are

becoming more important for financial and social reasons. The advisory board, advisory group,

and Pathfinders workshops are also crucial as they provide the expertise that help guide many of

the public discussions on the pros and cons of different forms of sustainable recreation.

Sustainability Framework. One of the sections contained within the BPRD plan refers to its

‘Sustainability Framework’ (BPRD 20). This framework is used as a tool to make sure that each

of the cities departments are aligned with the ultimate goal of advancing the cities sustainability

principles. There are seven areas that the BPRD plan must comply with to ensure this happens.

This allows the recreation department to put together a strategy and initiatives that fall into line

with the cities overall sustainability goals that are current and futuristic. These seven areas are

(BPRD 21):

1. Safe Community. The recreation brings people together from within the community and it

creates a stronger and more cohesive group. This also has the effect of dissuading possible

criminals who see the community’s togetherness as something that would hinder their efforts.

Providing a safe community will go a long ways towards the sustainability of recreation, as it is a

safe area where healthy ideas can flourish and build upon themselves.

    Johnson    

19  

2. A healthy and socially thriving community. The recreation department wants to encourage a

healthy community and mitigate social and cultural inequalities. They know that environmental,

social, and financial sustainability can only come from complete neighborhood involvement.

Once again, this is done through having the entire population engaging in various activities that

fortify the mind, spirit, and body.

3. Livable community. The city itself has a very connected form of parks throughout. The

parkland, plazas, greenways, public malls, and civic spaces act as a sort of glue that keeps all of

the areas thriving with life. This in turn adds to the real estate value, public event usage, and feel

of the town’s culture. The recreation value within this city strengthens its environmental health,

social equity, and financial success. This results in a more sustainable city.

4. Environmentally Sustainable Community. The city uses what it calls green infrastructure.

This is a series of green spaces that help make the ecosystem more sustainable and lead to

cleaner air and water. The urban parks clean and cool the airflow, improve the wind movement,

and help to regulate the rain patterns. The recreation centers set a sustainable standard that

trickles down to all of the citizens who use and see the technology. They use high-efficiency

lighting as well as heating & cooling systems in order to reduce the overall carbon footprint and

help out with the sustainability of the environment and the financial bottom line.

5. Accessible Community. The recreation is linked to all types of travel. The linking of

recreation areas to different types of travel creates benefits for the citizens, wildlife, and the

economy. It connects the different neighborhoods while giving the people a plethora of

opportunities for exercise, which is so important in today’s world. Obesity and diabetes are a

negative trend in today’s society that can be countered with better exercise. These areas also

help to increase the emotional well being of its citizens by having nature at a close distance.

    Johnson    

20  

6. Economically vital community. The financial sustainability that the recreation brings is

substantial. It increases property values, municipal revenues, attracts homebuyers, workers, and

people who want to retire. Recreation is often the source that brings in visitors and drives the

tourism economy. It creates the access to an areas distinctive features and experiences. The

festivals and events that Boulder puts into place further enhance the financial stability. It also

uses sports tournaments and events to become a leading provider of sustainable recreation within

the surrounding state.

7. Good Governance. The Boulder recreation department uses updated and current research to

insure its community has the best information to meet all of its sustainability goals. They use a

lifecycle management approach for their sustainable recreation where they plan, implement, and

evaluate all programs on a consistent basis. This is due to the fact that they understand it is

necessary with such a diverse and changing community. They do this by putting into place the

best management practices and using new technology mediums to effectively manage.

Unfortunately, the plan does not discuss what kinds of management practices they actually

use. I feel the plan should have briefly discussed what kinds of management practices they were

implementing and why. This would have given the general public a better understanding of why

they chose to use various management techniques.

What has community research shown? The Boulder recreation plan used much of their research

to determine the level of service (LOS) adjustments they wanted to make while keeping the

recreation sustainable. The most popular programs for the near future are estimated to be fitness,

yoga, swimming, weight lifting, and nature programming (BPRD 44). One of the decisions that

need to be made is in determining how much benefit the community receives from each form of

    Johnson    

21  

recreation. For example, the community decided by voting that people with disabilities and low

income families should pay the least for recreation which may lead to a financial loss by the

recreation department (BPRD 44). It was also decided that advanced youth and adult programs

like sporting competitions should cost the most. These revenues would be used to offset the

formers losses. This would be one way for the recreation of a diverse community to be

sustainable for the current and foreseeable future.

Another modern technique being employed by the recreation department is by leveraging

partnerships to plan, design, implement, monitor, and dismiss programs. Many programs are

becoming partnerships with outside companies and the recreation department knows that it is

critical to continue these relationships if the recreation hopes to be sustainable (BPRD 45).

Sustainable Areas for Improvement. The BPRD plan identifies two areas that are essential if they

hope to make the recreation more sustainable (BPRD 48). They need to make sure that the

available funding is used for operations and maintenance of current parks and facilities. This

means that new parks should not be built unless a full assessment has been completed and it is

determined that new services are imperative. This will ensure that current facilities and services

are maintained and kept sustainable for future generations to use. It is deemed to be a wiser use

of public funds.

Another shift in practices would be giving the public high quality programs that are the result

of an alliance with community partners when possible and making sure these programs are

synchronized with the communities values (BPRD 51). This will result in a more maintainable

use of funds and ensure responsible stewardship of the programs that are implemented.

    Johnson    

22  

MAKING POPULAR RECREATION MORE SUSTAINABLE

Sustainability Education. O’Connell et al. (81) bring up the extremely significant idea that

sustainability education should be used within post-secondary outdoor recreation programs. The

underlying concept is that this is the perfect scenario in which to get people thinking about

sustainability. These are the people who feel the most passionate about nature and they would be

strong stewards of our environment.

Recreation professionals are in a distinctive position to encourage their students to develop

and practice sustainable recreation. There are a number of reasons this has not been overly

successful to date but this paper will concentrate on what can be done to make it more popular.

Sustainable outdoor education teachers can use a set of criteria developed by Lefebvre (84)

where it is stated that educators should focus on four things:

1. Show the interconnections between the three tiers of sustainability (environmental, social, and

financial).

2. Highlight nature and how everyone can interact with it.

3. Use teaching strategies to enhance skills, values, and attitudes that enable students to reflect,

use critical thinking, and collaborate.

4. Apply materials that support community involvement and participation so the education

learned is appropriate for that location and is culturally sensitive and inclusive.

Outdoor recreation programs are in a rare position to change existing curricula and maximize

the understanding of how sustainability works and why it is so important. Using Lefebvre’s (85)

four criteria with current programs will enable the outdoor recreation programmers the ability to

better equip today’s students so that they can do the same when they become teachers.

    Johnson    

23  

The following are examples of types of recreation that people enjoy. These forms of

recreation can be made more sustainable by doing various things. They are examples of how

precautions can be taken when setting up recreation in an effort to make it more viable. Often, it

just means that the planner needs to be proactive when creating different types of recreation for

the general public to enjoy. Many of the challenges with regards to sustainability for the

different forms of recreation are similar. This means that the smart planner who is aware of the

challenges and solutions for one activity can apply them to another activity.

ATV’s. Snyder et al. (248) describe how ATVs can have negative consequences to the landscape

including soil compaction, increased water run-off and erosion, and the disappearance of flora.

This is often caused by ATV use that deviates from current trails. The biggest reason for ATVs

to drive off of designed trails comes when the driver feels the trails do not meet their

expectations and needs. This is why designing trails that incorporate a cornucopia of attributes

that the ATV rider enjoys is of the utmost significance. There is also unwanted noise that can

scare off wildlife as well as safety concerns, especially when motorized and non-motorized users

are in the same area.

Case studies have shown that ATV users are more apt to stay on trails if they are designed in

a way that gives them a high level of interest, challenge, fun experiences, and safety (Snyder et

al. 257). This means that trails should be constructed in ways that peak the interest of ATV users

in zones that mitigate negative consequences so that they are sustainable. This case study

showed users are interested in a myriad of scenery, maps located at each trailhead, signs showing

what types of users are in the area, routes that link up with other trails, and signage that give

distances to various areas. It also described what type of environment should be created to

    Johnson    

24  

reduce the negative consequences that ATVs bring. The trails should be constructed in areas

with well-drained and fine textured loam or clay loam, or with rocky soil as they are less apt to

lead to erosion and are considered safer to fall onto. Slopes should have an inclination of

between 5-15%. Stream and wet area crossings should be mitigated so they do not lead to a

destruction of riparian zones. ATV trails should be kept 15-30 meters from any body of water.

These trails should not cross public roads or any non-motorized trails in order to keep all groups

of users safe. It is also a good idea to create trails that do not cross into privately owned in-

holdings as this can lead to future challenges (Snyder et al. 249).

Snyder et al. (251) research the idea of using geographic information systems (GIS) to

determine the best places for putting in the ATV trails. This is done by using the above criteria

as a best-case scenario and developing a Least-Cost Path algorithm. This algorithm uses the

known information and identifies a path that is the most appealing to ATV users while also

requiring the least amount of change to the natural environment. The combination of technology

and known research seems to be one of the best options we currently have when trying to make

our recreation more sustainable.

Mountain Biking. Managing an area for mountain biking recreation can require a different set of

priorities in order to assure its sustainability (Symmonds et al. 549). Symmonds et al. (551) ran a

study that was meant to determine the trail and management preferences of mountain bikers.

The trail design and management as well as the soil erosion that comes from the additional use of

mountain bikes often influence the trail environment conditions. A mail survey was used to

gauge the responses from people who had been determined to be mountain bikers as they were

    Johnson    

25  

found on mountain biking Internet chat sites. These mountain bikers ranged from novice to

expert and comprised all ages.

The results of the case study by Symmonds et al. (552) revealed several ideas. Mountain

bikers of all levels enjoy challenges on the trail such as jumping over things, bumps, gullies,

roots, rocks, and water. These items are the result of erosion but are enjoyed by the bikers. This

means that a manager needs to find a happy medium between erosion blocking methods and

allowing it to take place. A more useful solution to this quandary is locating the bike trails that

are in areas that are resistant to erosion but still have the attributes the bikers are looking for. An

area that has a sandy groundcover or a shallow soil type is more ideal. It reduces erosion and

pollution to the environment due to the durability of the groundcover or the reduction in soil loss.

Rocks can be present in these types of topsoil that offer the biker additional challenges.

Another way that mountain biking can be made more sustainable is through the use of

preferred trail management techniques (Symmonds et al. 561). Mountain bikers stated that they

enjoy wooden steps, rock steps, plastic water strips, and gravel during their rides. This means

that they should be used whenever cost and time allow in an effort to control erosion while

enhancing the experience.

It is also vital that the recreation management team understand who the user is. There are sub

groups within mountain biking based on age and skill. These different groups have different trail

preferences. For example a teen aged or more skilled mountain biker prefers trails that offer

more bumps and jumps, gullies, and obstacles (Symmonds et al. 562). A better understanding of

the user leads to a better experience for them.

    Johnson    

26  

As you can see, the recreation planner has several tools available to them when deciding how

to create a new mountain biking trail system. Ensuring these ideas are taken into consideration

will help make the mountain biking trails more sustainable.

Water-Based Recreation. Needham and Szuster (732) investigate Hawaiian coastal recreation

opportunities and how they can be made more sustainable as 80% of Hawaii’s seven million

annual visitors play in the water at some point. The continued growth of water based recreation

means that measures need to be taken in order to keep the areas pristine so that present and future

generations can enjoy them. This investigation concluded that there are two approaches to

ensuring this (Needham and Szuster 733). The first approach is through direct management

strategies that act directly on user behavior and do not give any freedom of choice. For example,

direct management that is geared towards reducing litter on a beach would include a regulation

that makes this illegal and then enforcing the regulation with a fine. The second approach is

through indirect strategies and these are more voluntary in basis where they try to influence how

the user acts. An example of this would be educating the users of why they should not litter and

the negative ramifications it has. This can be done in formal classes, visitor centers, or signage

around the recreation area.

Needham and Szuster (737) found out in their study that the indirect strategies were the most

commonly accepted forms of management and the direct management strategies where

recreational use was limited or eliminated were the most controversial. The limiting or

eliminating of recreational usage was only acceptable when it could be supported by evidence of

damage to the area due to high use levels. This type of management should be used only as a

last resort. An alternative to limiting or eliminating recreational usage can be using special and

    Johnson    

27  

temporal zoning, user fees, site renovation, and marketing other similar or underused sites

(Manning, 738).

Scuba Diving. Diving is another popular recreational activity that can be made more sustainable.

Pepe (3) discusses ways that this is possible. Scuba divers can damage marine creatures because

they often use their hands and equipment to touch them. The damage seems minute to them but

the cumulative effects from everyone leads to problems in the long run (Rouphael and Inglis,

329). Most of the scuba diving takes place in tropical locations and the divers come into contact

with coral reefs. The top three scuba certification schools do not go into much detail on how to

interact with the reefs in order to assure its sustainability (Pepe, 3). The reason for this is often

due to limited time but it does not change the fact that so many users get certified and do not

understand how to interact with marine life. Creating awareness of environmental issues is

certainly worth the time and energy invested. The following ideas can be taught to scuba divers

interested in its sustainability. If they understand that their enjoyment of diving can be affected

by its ability to be sustainable, then they are more apt to pay attention and promote the ideas

(Pepe, 39).

1. Ensure dive sites do not become overcrowded and exceed the carrying capacity.

2. Know your diving environment and the fragility of the bottom composition.

3. Mitigate damage to sites by limiting diving at sites, requiring special certification for

endangered sites, creating artificial reefs to spread diver numbers out, charge fees for accessing

protected dive sites.

4. Never touch coral.

5. Never touch underwater life.

    Johnson    

28  

6. Only hunt aquatic life that is allowed by law and is to be used for reasonable personal

consumption.

7. Be aware of invasive species like zebra mussels and follow appropriate guidelines for

sanitizing gear and boats to prevent unwanted transmission.

8. Do not salvage artifacts off of shipwrecks.

9. Practice skills so that good buoyancy can reduce the chances of causing damage by mistake.

There are also a lot of things that can be done to market a sustainable form of scuba diving.

These include the following: (Pepe, 45)

1. Promoting public service announcements that advertise the benefits of sustainable scuba

diving on web sites and in appropriate magazines.

2. Creating informational signage that is used in marinas, boat showrooms, scuba shops, and at

popular dive locations.

3. Distribution of marketing materials such as stickers, postcards, magnets, and collectible

posters that teach the benefits of sustainable scuba diving. This could keep people thinking

about its importance.

An effective marketing campaign can certainly cause people to think about their actions and

adjust their behaviors. The “Smokey the Bear” public service announcement was highly

successful at getting Americans to change how they interact with nature and reduce wildfires.

They used memorable slogans, eye-catching posters, and heart tugging commercials to get

people to think about their actions and prevent forest fires.

These examples of how to make scuba diving more sustainable show how education and

marketing can be used effectively to change the behavior of the recreational users. A proactive

stance on making the scuba diving industry more sustainable is possible and exemplifies the

    Johnson    

29  

importance of making changes to the process before the damage becomes irreparable. This is

true for scuba diving and all forms of recreation.

CONCLUSIONS

As you can see, there are a lot of ways to make todays recreation more sustainable. This can be

done for individual types of recreation as well as incorporated into Recreation Plans for various

cities that are interested in its sustainability. The most important thing is to follow a

predetermined plan. This means you need to have a management by objectives method, choose

what types of recreation frameworks fit your situation best, involve community stakeholders in

all of your research and decision making processes, and look for answers that are already in

existence with regards to current recreation trends and the challenges they may bring. It is also

critical that all plans include short-term goals as well as long-term goals. Indicators must be

created, standards must be set, and a consistent form of monitoring is essential to insure the

sustainability of the recreation that is chosen. It is the well-researched and planned recreation

provider who is best able to provide a sustainable form of recreation for present and future

recreation users.

    Johnson    

30  

Works Cited

Arni A.G., Khairil W.A. “Promoting Collaboration Between Local Community and Park

Management Towards Sustainable Outdoor Recreation.” Procedia- Social and

Behavioral Sciences 91 (2013): 57-65. Print.

Boulder Parks and Recreation Department 2014 Master Plan. Web. 5 April 2014.

<https://bouldercolorado.gov/parks-rec/parks-recreation-master-plan>

Cole, D.N., Stankey, G.H. “Historical development of limits of acceptable change: conceptual

clarifications and possible extensions.” In: McCool, S.F.; Cole, D.N., comps.

Proceedings-limits of acceptable change and related planning processes: Progress and

future directions. General Technical Report INT-GTR-371. Ogden, Utah: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: (1997): 5-

9. Print.

Kruger L.E., Williams D.R. “Place and place-based planning.” National workshop on recreation

research and management. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-698, Portland, Oregon: (2007): 83-88. Print.

Lefebvre, D. “Sustainability education evaluation tool.” In Jarnet, A., Jickling, B., Sauve, L.,

Wals, A. and Clarkin, P. (eds), A Colloquium on the Future of Environmental Education

in a Postmodern World, Yukon College, Whitehorse. (2000). Print.

Manning, R. “Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for satisfaction.” Corvallis,

Oregon: Oregon State University Press. (1999). Print.

Manning, R. “Studies in outdoor recreation (3rd ed.).” Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.

(2011). Print.

    Johnson    

31  

Manning, R., Valliere W., Anderson L., Stanfield-McCown R., Pettengill, P., Reigner, N.,

Lawson, S., Newman, P., Budruk, M., Laven, D., Hallo, J., Park, L., Bacon, J., Abbe, D.,

Van Riper, C., Goonan, K. “Defining, Measuring, Monitoring, and Managing the

Sustainability of Parks for Outdoor Recreation.” Journal of Park and Recreation

Administration 29 (3) (2011): 24-37. Print.

McAvoy, L.H., Schatz, C., Lime, D.W. “Cooperation in Resource Management: A Model

Planning Process for Promoting Partnerships between Resource Managers and Private

Service Providers.” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 9(4) (1991): 42-58.

Print.

McCool S., Clark R., Stankey, G. “An assessment of frameworks useful for public land

recreation planning.” General Tech Report PNW-GTR-705. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. (2007).

Print.

McCool, S.F., Patterson, M. “Trends in recreation, tourism and protected area planning.” In

W.R. Gartner and D.W.Lime (eds), Outdoor Recreation Trends: 111-19. Wallingford,

UK: Cabi Publishing. (2000). Print.

Needham, M.D. and Szuster, B.W. “Situational influences on normative evaluations of coastal

tourism and recreation management strategies in Hawai’i.” Tourism Management 32

(2011): 732-40. Print.

Nilson P., Tayler G. “A comparative analysis of protected area planning and management frame

works.” In: McCool S.F., Cole D.N. Proceedings-limits of acceptable change and related

planning processes: progress and future directions. USDA Forest Service, Rocky

    Johnson    

32  

Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-GTR-371, Ogden, Utah

(1997): 49-57. Print.

O’Connell, T.S., Potter, T.G., Curthoys, L.P., Dyment, J.E., Cuthbertson, B. “A call for

sustainability education in post-secondary outdoor recreation programs.” International

Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 6 (1) (2005): 81-94. Print.

O’Mahoney, C., Gault J., Cummins, V., Kopke K., O’Suilleabhain D. “Assessment of recreation

activity and its application to integrated management and spatial planning for Cork

Harbour, Ireland.” Marine Policy 33 (2009): 930-37. Print.

Pepe, S.L. “Caution Diver Below! A Case for enhanced environmental education and policies to

raise awareness of sustainable scuba diving.” A position paper by Susan L. Pepe. Empire

State College State University of New York. (2010). Print.

Rouphael, A.B., Ingles G.J. “Increased spatial and temporal variability in coral damage caused

by recreational SCUBA diving.” Ecological Applications 12 (2002): 427-40. Print.

Stankey, G.H., McCool, S.F., Clark, R.N., Brown, P.J. “Institutional and organizational

challenges to managing natural resources for recreation: a social learning model.” In T.

Burton & E. Jackson (eds) Leisure Studies at the Millennium (1999): 435-50. State

College, Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing. Print.

Snyder, S., Whitmore J., Schneider I., Becker, D. “Ecological criteria, participant preferences

and location models: A GIS approach toward ATV trail planning.” Applied Geography

28 (2008): 248-58. Print.

Symmonds, M.C., Hammit W.E., Quisenberry, V.L. “Managing Recreational Trail

Environments for Mountain Bike User Preferences.” Environmental Management 25 (5)

(2000): 549-64. Print.

    Johnson    

33  

Thorpe, L., Franchina, R., Burns, R. “Connecting People with America’s Great Outdoors: A

framework for sustainable recreation.” USDA Forest Service: Framework for

Sustainable Recreation. 25 June (2010). Print.

USDA Forest Service. “Forest Service Handbook (FSH 1909.12)”. 2013. Print.

    Johnson    

34