Selected Issues Facing BC Parks: Report to the BC Protected Areas ...

Selected Issues Facing BC Parks: Report to the BC Protected Areas

Research Forum

A report by students in the

ORTM 305: Parks Planning and Management class

Edited by Dr. John Shultis

Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Management Program

University of Northern British Columbia

December 1, 2006

ORTM 305 Report to the BCPARF

i

Table of Contents Preface ii

Chapter 1

Appropriate and Ethical Ecological Restoration in BC Parks …………………………… 1 VANESSA REEVES Chapter 2

The Power of Interpretation …………………………………………………………........ 17 REBECCA BAINES Chapter 3

Shifting Tides: The Marine Protected Areas System in British Columbia ……..………... 29 ADAM LEAVITT

Chapter 4

Managing Mountain Pine Beetle in BC Parks …………………………………………… 43 SARA SUNDIN Chapter 5

Sustainable Tourism and BC Parks ………………………………………………………. 53 SHANNON DAVIES Chapter 6

Recreation Conflict Management in Parks and Protected Areas …………………………. 66 RHONA DULAY Chapter 7

Mechanized Use in BC’s Protected Areas ………………………………………………… 79 JAMES KOTAI


ii

Preface

There are no shortages of serious issues facing protected areas around the globe. Some of

these issues are based on local and regional issues and characteristics, but many of the problems facing global protected area systems seem to arise out of national and international issues and trends. While protected areas enjoy a high level of support in Western nations, obtaining adequate funding and political support seems to be a ubiquitous issue. On one hand, most park systems are struggling to properly manage the land and water base due to the lack of funding and associated problems such a slack of scientific capacity and backlogs of maintenance. On the other hand, many parks and park systems are also being forced to deal with issues related to visitor use: crowding, carrying capacity issues, recreation conflicts and displacement are some of the most important issues facing park managers related to visitor management. Managers are also struggling with an inadequate understanding of the ecological and social characteristics of these areas, and attempting to deal with unpredictable external threats (e.g., climate change, beetle infestations).

One approach to dealing with this combination of inadequate funding and capacity and ecological and social impacts has been for parks to look outside their agencies for assistance in dealing with these issues. In British Columbia, the first BC Protected Areas Research Forum, held in December 2006, is the first province-wide attempt to create better and stronger partnerships between park administrators, managers, advocates, academics and other interested stakeholders.

Given this forum, and the increased need for partnerships, it seemed worthwhile for students in the ORTM 305 (Parks Planning and Management) course in the Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Management Program at the University of Northern British Columbia to provide their perspectives on the research needed in BC’s protected areas. These students were not asked to identify the most significant issue facing BC Parks, but rather – given the sheer number of important issues that need to be addressed - to identify the issue that interested them the most, and review the literature and situation in BC of that issue. Vanessa Reeves chose to review the ethical and practical issues in ecological restoration in BC Parks. Rebecca Baines addressed the lack of interpretation in BC Parks, and calls for the re-establishment of interpretation to address the many management issues faced by BC Parks. Adam Leavitt notes the lack of progress made by BC and Canada in creating marine parks, and calls for an increased effort towards marine parks within BC Parks. Sara Sundin, an exchange student from Sweden, addresses the thorny issue of the beetle infestation, and how BC Parks should address this issue. Shannon Davies examines the role of so-called ‘sustainable tourism’ in BC Parks: is it a saviour or a threat? Rhona Dulay examined the issue of recreation conflict, recommending that BC Parks take a more participatory approach to deal with this issue. Finally, James Kotai examined the impacts of mechanized use within protected areas, and also suggests a more participatory, pro-active approach to this issue.

Students had a very short timeline with which to provide feedback on these selected issue, and had to juggle completing these reports with other numerous other course assignments. In editing these chapters, I used a ‘light hand’ in order to ensure that the students’ voices remained in the forefront of the text. All errors and omission are the editors.

On behalf of the students in the ORTM 305: Parks Planning and Management class at UNBC, I would like to dedicate this collection of essays to the precious settings and experiences one can only find in protected areas.


1

Chapter 1

Appropriate and Ethical Ecological Restoration in BC Parks

Vanessa Reeves

Executive Summary

We are continuously looking for some sort of solution to the problem of environmental

degradation. In recent times restoration has been hailed by environmentalists, governments, and

resource managers as an important potential solution. A hands-off management style is the

preferred approach in parks; however, there is increased recognition that pressures on parks are

debilitating natural processes. There is mention in the literature that the values of preservation

and restoration may be different. As restoration activities are starting to occur in protected areas,

it is important to determine what types of activities are appropriate and ethical.

Ecological terminology is discussed as it is now generally accepted that terms like

‘nature’, ‘ecological health’, and ‘ecological integrity’ are cultural constructs. Problems are

created when these terms are used as scientific terms to describe goals of, or to justify

conducting restoration projects.

An overview of the debate on the ethics of ecological restoration is provided. Although

most researchers offer support for restoration, many admit that there are reasons to be concerned

about it. Many advocate for public and stakeholder involvement in decisions on restoration due

to the subjective nature of these decisions. Brunson (2000) offers a way of using the Limits of

Acceptable Change (LAC) model to aid restoration decisions. Also, the importance of

considering spatial, temporal, and organizational scale in restoration strategies is discussed.

In conclusion, restoration guidelines exist for British Columbia but do not offer

suggestions for parks specifically. However, the guidelines do provide a comprehensive

restoration framework and it is recommended that B.C. Parks follow them while amending who

the key stakeholders are for parks. It is also recommended that B.C. Parks develop a general

policy on restoration and review section 22 of the Park Act to determine if this type of

restoration is ethical. B.C. Parks should develop a code of ethics for restoration activities in


2

provincial parks, and restoration projects should use adaptive management techniques. It is also

mended that ecosystem management plans that describe restoration activities be developed for

individual zones in parks. Also, volunteer participation should be included in projects where it is

deemed appropriate.

1.0 Overview

Increasingly it seems that natural areas are confronted by pressures of overpopulation,

human technology, etc. We are continuously looking for some sort of solution to the problem of

environmental degradation. Although ecological restoration is not a new practice, in recent times

it has been hailed by environmentalists, governments, and resource managers as an important

potential solution. With the increase in restoration activities on the landscape in general,

concerns have grown over what is to be restored, who should be making decisions, and when and

how activities should be carried out.

A review of the discussion on the ethics of restoration is important to parks. In the

literature, there are suggestions that the values of restoration and preservation are different

(Light, 2000). The arguments against restoration show support for preserving areas in their

natural state because of the irreplaceable value that ‘true’ nature holds. In the past, parks and

protected area management has complemented this view. Parks adopted a laissez-faire

management style with the belief that natural processes should occur with little or no

management. Although this is still the preferred approach, there is increased recognition that

both internal and external pressures on parks, in the past and present, are debilitating natural

processes. There is greater acceptance that human intervention may sometimes be necessary to

preserve ecological integrity. Restoration projects have been and continue to be conducted in

many parks in B.C.

1.1 Ecological Restoration

Ecological Restoration is its own sub-field now with a Society for Ecological Restoration

(SER) (founded 18 years ago) and journals dedicated to the topic such as Ecological Restoration

and Restoration Ecology (Davis and Slobodkin, 2004). A great deal of the literature is concerned

with specific applications to determine what does and doesn’t work in certain ecosystems or with

specific species. There is also an extensive amount of literature on the philosophy and ethics of

the subject. This is largely the focus of this paper.


3

The SER (2004, p. 3) primer states that “[e]cological restoration is the process of

assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed”. “An

ecosystem has recovered - and is restored – when it contains sufficient biotic and abiotic

resources to continue its development without further assistance or subsidy” (SER, 2004, p. 3). It

also states that the ecosystem is self-sustaining and resilient to normal ranges of stress and

disturbance.

Dizard (2003) notes that restoration was historically small-scale projects, such as patches

of land. Now that we have realized the importance of ecosystem functions, restoration is

increasingly occurring at large, landscape levels.

1.2 Terminology

Hull and Robertson (2000) point out that environmental decision makers rely on the

terminology to be “precise and valid…[and] powerful and fair” (p.97). They state that

terminology is used by policy analysts to set goals, by scientists to describe nature that did, does,

or could exist, and by the public to imagine possible and acceptable conditions of environmental

quality (Hull and Robertson, 2000). The meaning of “nature” is often discussed in the literature

(Gunn, 1995; Katz, 2000; Helford, 2000; Light, 2002). Hull and Robertson (2000) also discuss

the issues around using the terms “naturalness”, “ecological integrity”, and “ecological health”.

These terms are often used to describe ecological goals of, or to justify conducting restoration

projects (Hull and Robertson, 2000). This is a problem as many researchers agree that the

meanings of these terms are cultural constructs and predominantly value judgments (Hull and

Robertson, 2000; Light, 2002; Helford, 2000).

1.3 Arguments against Restoration

The main arguments against restoration have come from Katz and Elliott. A large part of

Katz’s (2000) argument is based on the value of nature that cannot be replicated by humans. He

calls restored areas “artifacts” that should not be confused with true nature. He suggests that it’s

important to distinguish between artificial and true nature since we tend to evaluate different

kinds of entities differently (Katz, 2000). He uses the analogy of a ballet choreographer to

demonstrate his point. He states that a ballet by the original choreographer is viewed differently

than when it’s done by another ballet choreographer; even greater differences are noted if the

ballet is choreographed by a rock-show choreographer (Katz, 2000). He says this is due to the

presence of human intentionality: “Living natural entities and systems of entities evolve to fill


4

ecological niches in the biosphere; they are not designed to meet human needs or interests” (p.

175). Katz disputes Krieger’s opinion that artificial nature is acceptable. Technology creates an

“artifactual reality that is removed from the ‘wildness’ of nature” (p. 172). Technology “cannot

supply, replace, or restore the ‘wild’”. He suggests that restoration is a further domination of

nature as the natural entities are not permitted to follow their own course of action due to human

interference (Katz, 1992).

Katz (2000, p. 38) discusses “the importance of origin, historical continuity and authenticity

for a proper evaluation of artifacts and natural processes”. He suggests that nature has no original

artist or designer; if humans intervene, nature is no longer authentic and it breaks the origin and

continuity of the area. Hargrove(no date, quoted in Katz, 1992, p. 174): “Nature is not simply a

collection of natural objects; it is a process that progressively transforms those objects….When

we admire nature, we also admire that history”. Katz discusses Elliott’s comparison of restored

environment to an art forgery: “even a perfect copy loses the value of the original artwork”

(Katz, 1992, p. 174); “even a technologically perfect reproduction of a natural area is not

equivalent to the original” (Katz, 1992, p. 174). If restored environments are “adequate

replacements” for natural environments then there are no moral consequences to use, degrade

and destroy nature and then replace it.

Katz has been criticized as advocating humans as separate from nature. He replied to the

criticism, stating that he believes in a range of natural to artificial entities and does not support a

complete dualism of humanity and nature. He gives the example of a wooden chair being more

natural than a plastic chair, although neither could be created by nature alone (Katz, 2000).

1.4 Arguments in Favor of Ecological Restoration

The majority of researchers suggest support for restoration in general, and a great number

of researchers refute Katz’s arguments (Ladkin, 2005; Light, 2002). However, most researchers

also suggest some concerns that are similar to Katz and advocate responsible and ethical

restorative practices.

It has been suggested that restoration does not have to control nature, but when done well it

can assist and act in concert with nature (Jordan, 2000; Light, 2002). Jordan (2000) suggests that

restoration is agriculture in reverse: that is, relinquishing control to let nature be. “Restoration

need not determine exactly what grows in a certain place, but may in fact simply be the act of


5

allowing nature to again pursue its own interests rather than shackling it to perpetual human-

induced trauma” (Light, 2002, p. 181).

Light (2002) suggests that even if we cannot reproduce nature in Katz’s sense of the word,

we may still have the moral obligation to “try” to restore it. He suggests that: “even if we agree

with Katz that humans cannot really restore nature, it does not follow that they ought not to

engage in restoration projects which actually repair the damage caused by past domination rather

than furthering that domination” (Light, 2002, p. 182). Ladkin (2005, p. 214) believes that nature

can in its own time recover from degradation, but non-action is irresponsible where human

disruption is so “out-of-keeping with nature’s own processes” such as strip-mines or piles of

human rubbish. He gives the example of wolf re-introduction to Yosemite National Park. After

re-introduction they found endangered plants were thriving in some areas where deer now felt

vulnerable to wolf attacks. Ladkin (2005) suggests the wolves might have eventually returned to

Yosemite, but points out that many of the plants may have gone extinct in the meantime.

Sylvan (1994, cited in Katz, 1992) suggests that not all restoration is artificial since nature

can restore itself over time. Light (2002) suggests two kinds of restoration: benevolent, which is

restoring to rectify a harm, and malevolent, which is justifying destruction since nature can

always be restored to full value. Light (2002) states that the malicious restorations are only

worrisome if they are defended, which he says most environmentalists are unlikely to do. In

response to the argument that restoration restricts the self-realization of nature, Light (2002)

argues that we cannot know what natural self-realization would be in any particular case. He

continues to argue that if we could acquire such knowledge, acceptance of humans helping to

make it happen would be logical.

2.0 Current State of Knowledge

2.1 Overview

The literature suggests that there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about ecological

restoration. Some researchers admit that it can and has been used in the past to undermine

preservation and conservation initiatives (Jordan, 2000; Higgs, 2003). Higgs (2003) also

mentions that we may be overconfident in what we expect to achieve with restoration. There are

some important suggestions in the literature as to how restoration should be conducted to make it

more appropriate and ethical.


6

2.2 A Public Ecology

There is increasing discussion in the literature on the importance of involving the public

in restoration and management decisions (Brunson, 2000; Jordan, 2000; Light, 2002; Hull and

Robertson, 2000). Higgs (2005) suggests that neither ecology nor culture should trump the other.

He warns against relying on cultural values for decision making at the expense of what he calls

“ecological verities” (p.162): “[A]ny model of ecological restoration that embodies cultural

awareness misses the significance of true wilderness” (Higgs, 2005, p.162). However, as

discussed earlier, many researchers agree that ecological terms such as nature and ecological

integrity are cultural constructs. Davis and Slobodkin (2004) suggest restorationists often use

terms such as restoring ecosystem health to justify their goals; however, labeling an ecosystem as

‘healthy’ is a value-based and not a scientific assessment. Hull and Robertson (2000) suggest

terminology should not be allowed to conceal values or scientific uncertainty: “A public ecology

is about creating a language that is accessible enough to support both broad participation and

meaningful deliberation in environmental decision making” (Hull and Robertson, 2000, p. 113).

In regards to the debate over who the experts are, Higgs (2005) agrees that only scientists

are considered “experts”. He suggests that both scientific and local knowledge need to be

incorporated for restoration to be successful. Restoration must continuously negotiate between

science and other forms of knowledge. The problem with scientific information is that it “tends

to reify nature, which is to take an abstraction and make it seem real” (p.162). Restorationists

need to be well rounded people who are trained in technical and scientific knowledge, but also

social, philosophical and economical aspects of the environment as well (Higgs, 2005). Higgs

(2005) also states the importance of developing a program of ecological restoration that

successfully applies an integrative approach.

There is discussion about when social aspects should appear in the restoration process.

Davis and Slobodkin (2004) suggest that defining objectives and values is primarily value-based

and ecological considerations should not be discussed until implementation. However,

Winterhalder, Clewell, and Aronson (2004) feel that expert scientific opinion is necessary in

selecting goals that will be realistic, effective, and attainable. Also decisions about restoration

can only wisely be made if stakeholders have clear ideas of the ecologically, economically and

socially tenable goals and objectives. Helford (2000, p.138) shows agreement for including both

ecology and culture from the beginning by stating: “Certainly, we must have criteria to


7

determine the best course for the management of public natural areas, but we must carefully

reflect on the ways in which these criteria are determined and the meaning they may have for

those beyond the circle of experts who create them”. Douglas (2002) also advocates for

including public involvement as early as possible.

2.3 Limits of Acceptable Change

Brunson (2000) relates restoration to the limits of acceptable change model that includes

a range of natural to non-natural environments. As parks and park managers are very familiar

with this management model, this may be a useful way of applying restoration in parks and

protected areas. This model is also useful for restoration in general as it recognizes that nature

and culture are not separate but blur together along a continuum (Brunson, 2000).

The LAC is based on recreational use of natural areas which automatically causes some

amount of degradation (Brunson, 2000). The different settings along the continuum dictate how

much anthropogenic change is allowed to occur in each setting. Brunson (2000, p. 240) states

that, “in the case of ecological restoration, there may be neither a statute that sets the goals nor a

history of scientific expertise on which to base decisions about where to draw the line between

nature and culture”. Brunson (2000) advocates for the involvement of the public and other

stakeholders in discussions on the type of restoration that is appropriate.

Brunson (2000) suggests that the LAC model helps us to decide what type of restorative

technique to use. He states that an issue such as restoring a mosaic of seral stages might be best

done through silvicultural practices; however, these would not fit with areas where natural

processes are supposed to continue without human intervention. Brunson (2000) suggests that

techniques such as prescribed burning might be more socially acceptable in areas that are more

strictly natural. It is thought that such a rationale could be incorporated into park zones to dictate

what level and/or type of restoration is appropriate in each zone.

2.4 Importance of Scale

Hull and Robertson (2000) write that knowledge must apply at multiple scales: spatial,

temporal, and organizational. “The decision about what scale to manage is not a given but must

be negotiated, and the scale that is selected will influence the desired outcomes of the project”

(Hull and Robertson, 2000, p. 111). Restoration should reflect scales that are relevant to specific

management cases. Studies of single species over short time periods in a small site ignore too

much information, but studies at large spatial scales over long periods may be too general or not


8

detailed enough to aid management decisions (Hull and Robertson, 2000). Therefore, studies

should include both site specific and larger scale data: “management decisions require

information not only about the site at hand, but also about trade-offs among many potential

species, located at multiple sites, over decades of periodic anthropogenic disturbances” (Hull and

Robertson, 2000, p.111).

Restorationists must determine which previous natural state to restore an area to as nature

is constantly changing. There is a big difference between the state of the environment 10,000

years ago and 1,000 years ago. Williams and Patterson (1996) would call this a “wicked

problem” as there is no technical solution; the perceptions and values of all the stakeholders must

be discussed and balanced to reach a solution. Cairns Jr. (2002) implies the importance of

looking at the present temporal scale as well. He states that well-meaning restoration may

displace species that are best able to tolerate anthropogenic stress.

3.0 Restoration in B.C.

3.1 Overview

SER B.C. (2004) suggests that restoration in the province is no longer only conducted

after degradation, but is starting to be a part of resource management and development. Recently,

it has focused on a number of key areas: restoring high impact urban and urban fringe areas,

restoring the carrying capacity of watersheds through instream, riparian, and slope stabilization

projects, restoring habitat and ecosystem functions in managed forests, restoring fire where it had

a historical role in maintaining the ecosystem, and restoring highly degraded ecosystems such as

mine tailings piles.

3.2 Guidelines for B.C.

Guidelines have been established for ecological restoration in B.C. (Douglas, 2002). The

guidelines are not specific to parks but they provide an excellent framework for B.C. Parks to

work with. The guidelines can help B.C. Parks in planning through to monitoring and evaluating

the implementation of specific restoration activities. The guidelines also lay out aquatic and

terrestrial restoration priorities for the province. These priorities have been determined for all the

biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification subzones of B.C. It is important that B.C. Parks looks to

these priorities before carrying out a specific restorative activity to be sure that there aren’t

higher priorities that are being overlooked.


9

One area where the guidelines may need to have more specific suggestions for parks is

with stakeholder involvement. The guidelines state that “early stakeholder and public

involvement” contribute to project success; however, the local community is not considered a

key player in the planning process. For parks, the local community plays a bigger role than it

does on other crown or private land. Not only do they reside in the area but locals often make up

a large percent of visitors to parks. Since they are visiting and recreating in the area, they are

more likely to be aware of and affected by restoration projects. It then follows that in the case of

parks, visitor’s perceptions of restoration are also important.

To the author’s knowledge, no studies have looked at public perceptions of restoration in

general in parks. Although this may be useful information for park managers, the literature

suggests that perceptions may differ among projects due to the specific characteristic values the

area holds and the type of restoration. Therefore, it makes sense for managers to gauge

perceptions in relation to specific restoration projects.

3.3 Restoration in B.C. Parks

To the knowledge of the author, there is no comprehensive collection of restoration

projects that are being conducted in B.C. Parks. Projects may be discussed in ecosystem

management plans for specific parks such as the Mount Robson Ecosystem Management Plan

(B.A. Blackwell and Associates, Ltd. et al., 2001). Some parks even have restoration plans such

as the Dionisio Point Provincial Park Restoration Plan (Gaylor, Scholz, and Erickson, 2002).

Activities largely involve prescribed burns to restore landscape characteristics such as in Mount

Robson (B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd. and Compass Resource Management, 2005), or to

restore specific ecosystem such as the grassland ecosystem at Kikomun Creek Provincial Park

(Cale, 1999). Some parks work at restoring certain ecosystems such as planting pine grass plugs

at Wasa Lake Provincial Park to restore the grassland ecosystem (Cale, 1999). Some parks are

working on removing plant species to restore habitats. Miskelly (no date) tried to remove

Douglas Fir trees from Helliwell Provincial Park to re-establish grassland habitat for Taylor’s

checkerspot butterfly. Kikomun Creek Provincial Park is encouraging harvest for medicinal use

of the non-native plant, St. John’s Wort (Cale, 1999).

Restoration is acknowledged in B.C. Park policies although it is scattered and pertains to

specific types of restoration rather than being a general policy on restoration. It is stated that

prescribed burning is an accepted restoration tool (B.C. Parks Conservation Program Policies,


10

1997). Policies are also described in relation to vegetation, tree removal, and wildlife. Others that

have mentions of restoration include cultural heritage, research, inventory, and monitoring, and

geologic management (B.C. Parks Conservation Program Policies, 1997). Marine park

components do not mention restoration in any way (B.C. Parks Conservation Program Policies,

1997). Other protected areas are practicing unstocking lakes, as in Mount Rainier National Park

in the United States (FRESC, 2003); therefore, restoration in marine environments may have

importance and should have some sort of policy associated with it. A more comprehensive policy

in relation to restoration is recommended.

The only time restoration is mentioned in the B.C. Park Act is in Section 22 in relation to

use permits. The act states that the person a permit is issued to may be required to pay a sum of

money that will cover restoration or repair of the area after its use (Park Act, 1996). This section

should be looked at to determine if it’s a malevolent form of restoration; that is, using the

promise of restoration to justify damaging types of use.

4.0 Recommendations

4.1 Overview

Since restoration as it pertains specifically to parks and protected areas has not generally

been studied, with the exception of urban parks, the research does not offer recommendations

that are specific to parks. However, many of the recommendations they offer can be relevant to

protected areas. The author suggests that restoration in park settings may offer ethical challenges

that are not present in other settings, such as the belief that these areas should be free of human

intervention. Therefore, it is suggested that future research on restoration that is specific to park

settings is important.

4.2 Professionalization and Standardization

Carpenter et al. (2006) suggest the need for professionalization of restoration. The

development of a code of ethics that will guide restorationists has also been suggested

(Carpenter, et al., 2006; Beier, 2005, cited in Dickinson et al., 2006). Carpenter et al. (2006) and

Dickinson et al. (2006) discuss the results of a 2002 survey, by Vidra, of members of the Society

for Ecological Restoration International (SERI). The survey found that more than half of the

respondents reported facing ethical issues while practicing restoration (Dickinson et al., 2006).

Carpenter et al. (2006) report that 79.3 % of respondents thought a code of ethics was needed

and 84.4% said they would sign such a code. Dickinson (2006) quotes Beier in relation to the


11

numerous constraints and pressures a restorationist must face: “the impulse to behave ethically is

sometimes stated simply as ‘[doing] the right thing,’ but all too often there are conflicting right

things to be done”. Furthermore, Harris, Birch and Palmer (1996, p. 225) mention the need for

developing “coherent and testable professional standards for both ecosystem restoration

practitioners and for ecosystem targets”.

Parks should stay up to date on the work of the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER)

and other researchers to follow discussions on the possible establishment of a code of ethics for

restorationists. Whether or not a code of ethics is developed by the SER, B.C. Parks should look

at developing its own code of ethics as there may exist some differences for ethics of restoration

in parks.

4.3 Adaptive Management

Adaptive management is not a new concept to natural resource and environmental

management. It involves taking action based on the best available knowledge and learning more

along the way through monitoring and evaluation. New understanding will be applied to a new

version of the plan. Hull and Robertson (2000) and Douglas (2002) promote adaptive

management in restoration due to recognition that the body of environmental knowledge will

never be perfect or complete.

4.4 Park Zoning

Park zoning is a useful tool for determining the types of activities that are appropriate in

different areas of parks. Brunson (2000) suggests that the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC)

framework can be used to guide what types of restoration are appropriate across a range of urban

to natural settings. This framework could help parks to determine which types of restoration

would fit into parks and park zones. However, Light (2000) warns against too much regulation of

restoration activities which restricts a democratic process. He suggests that discussion and

participation of issues and projects should be encouraged as opposed to setting standards and

specific definitions. Presqu’ile Provincial Park in Ontario provides a compromise. It establishes

resource management plans that guide maintenance or restoration of natural environments for

individual park zones (Ontario Parks, 2000). Therefore, the appropriateness of restoration can

still be compared with the guidelines set out in park zoning without restricting discussion and

participation of the specific issue. Ecosystem management plans are used in B.C. as well but are

not developed for individual zones.


12

4.5 Volunteers

Volunteers in restoration projects are mentioned often in the literature (Higgs, 2003,

Light, 2002; Jordan, 2000; Vining et al., 2000). Some researchers suggest that restoration is not

so much about restoring nature, but rather restoring a relationship with nature (Jordan, 2000;

Light, 2002). This seems evident from the many reported benefits volunteers get from

participating in restoration. Volunteers tend to be very dedicated and get a lot out of the projects.

Restoration tends to make them feel that they are apart of something more meaningful (Ladkin,

2005). It also helps them to learn about the earth and feel more connected to it (Jordan, 2000;

Vining et al., 2000).

5.0 Conclusion

Guidelines for restoration in B.C. in general exist and provide a comprehensive

framework that B.C. Parks can use to develop restoration projects. It is recommended that the

guidelines be amended for parks to include the public and park visitors as key stakeholders in

plan development. Restoration projects and policies of B.C. Parks are scattered and should be

made more coherent. It is recommended that a general policy on restoration in B.C. Parks be

developed. Legislation pertaining to restoration in section 22 of the Park Act should also be

reviewed to determine if it is a malevolent form of restoration.

B.C. Parks should stay up to date on the work of the SER in regards to developing a code

of ethics. They should also look to establishing their own code of ethics as park issues may differ

from those of restoration in general. Adaptive management is not a new management approach

for parks, but it is the recommended approach to managing restoration in parks. Park zoning may

be utilized as a method of determining what types of restoration are appropriate throughout a

park boundary. In order to avoid establishing strict restoration guidelines or standards but

keeping with the guidelines provided for in park zones, ecosystem management plans that

include restoration activities should be developed for individual zones. As suggested in the

literature, both parks and volunteers can benefit from volunteer participation in restoration

projects. It may not always be feasible to utilize unskilled volunteers, such as in prescribed fire

control; however, there are circumstances where their help can be of benefit to both the park and

the volunteers themselves, such as harvesting non-native plants or planting native species.


13

References

B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd. and Compass Resource Management. (2005). Forest Health

Strategy for Mount Robson Provincial Park. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

B.A. Blackwell and Associates Ltd., Keystone Wildlife Research, Laing and McCulloch Forest

Management Services, Oikos Ecological Services Ltd., Phero Tech Inc., and Hugh

Hamilton Ltd. (2001). Mount Robson Provincial Park Ecosystem Management Plan.

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Parks Division. Retrieved November 24,

2006, from

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/conserve/occ_paper/number_6_mt_robson_ecosystem

_mgmt_plan/occ_paper6_mt_robson_ecosystem_mgmt_plan.pdf

B.C. Parks (no date). Mountain Pine Beetle and Provincial Protected Areas: Frequently Asked

Questions. BC Parks. Retrieved November 14, 2006, from

http://www.elp.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/conserve/pine_beetle/pine_beetle.html

B.C. Parks Conservation Program Policies. (1997). B.C. Parks Conservation Management

Program. Retrieved November 15, 2006, from

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/conserve/consprog.html

Cairns Jr., J. (2002). Rationale for restoration. In Perrow, M.R., and Davy, A.J. Handbook of

Ecological Restoration (Vol. 1): Principles of restoration. New York, U.S.A.: Cambridge

University Press.

Cale, I. (1999). Kootenay District – 1998 Highlights. B.C. Parks Newsletter: Visions, 10(1), p.5.

Retrieved November 24, 2006 from

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/publications/visions/visions_feb99.pdf

Carpenter, A., Finley, E., Gao, Y., Lin, C., Nuding, A., Shaheen, P., Stewart, L., Sun, X.,

Taranto, M., Tilley, A., Waggoner, L., Xu, H., and Vidra, R.L. (2006). Developing a code

of ethics for restorationists. Ecological Restoration, 24(2), 105-108.

Daigle, J.-M. and Havinga, D. (1996). Restoring Nature’s Place: A guide to naturalizing Ontario

parks and greenspace. Ontario, Canada: Ecological Outlook Consulting and Ontario

Parks Association.

Davis, M.A. and Slobodkin, L.B. (2004). The science and values of restoration ecology.

Restoration Ecology, 12(1), 1-3.


14

Dickinson, W., Ferreyra, J., Imbesi, K.L., Shyam, J., Kingsolver, C., Klein, E., Lessios, N., Ng,

A., Stamp, T., White, K., Xu, D., and Vidra, R.L. (2006). The ethical challenges faced by

ecological restorationists. Ecological Restoration, 24(2), 102-104.

Dizard, J.E. (2003). Going native: second thoughts on restoration. In Minteer, B.A., and

Manning, R.E. (eds.). Reconstructing Conservation: Finding common ground.

Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Douglas, T. (2002). Ecological Restoration Guidelines for B.C. Terrestrial Ecosystem

Restoration Project (TERP) of British Columbia. Retrieved November 24, 2006, from

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/fia/TERP_eco_rest_guidelines/documents/RestorationGui

delines.pdf

Gunn, A.S. (1995). The restoration of species and natural environments. Reprinted in Brennan,

A. (ed.) The Ethics of the Environment. Aldershot, England: Dartmouth Publishing

Company Ltd.

Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center (FRESC). (2003). Rehabilitation of Salamander

Populations in High Mountain Lakes, Mount Rainier National Park. Retrieved November

24, 2006, from http://fresc.usgs.gov/research/StudyDetail.asp?Study_ID=74

Harris, J.A., Birch, P., and Palmer, J. (1996). Land Restoration and Reclamation: Principles and

practice. Essex, England: Addison Wesley Longman.

Helford, R.M. (2000). Constructing nature as constructing science: expertise, activist science,

and public conflict in the Chicago wilderness. Pp. 119-142. In Gobster, P.H., and Hull,

R.B. (eds.). Restoring Nature: Perspectives from the social sciences and humanities.

Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Higgs, E. (2005). The two-culture problem: ecological restoration and the integration of

knowledge. Restoration Ecology, 13(1), 159-164.

Higgs, E. (2003). Nature by Design: People, natural processes, and ecological restoration.

Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Hull, R. B., and Robertson, D. P., (2000). The language of nature matters: we need a more public

ecology. Pp. 97-118. In Gobster, P.H., and Hull, R.B. (eds.). Restoring Nature:

Perspectives from the social sciences and humanities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.


15

Jordan (III), W.R. (2000). Restoration, community, and wilderness. Pp. 21-36. In Gobster, P.H.,

and Hull, R.B. (eds.). Restoring Nature: Perspectives from the social sciences and

humanities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Gaylor, N., Scholz, O., and Erickson, K. (2002). Restoration Plan for Dionisio Point Provincial

Park Galiano Island. Forest Renewal B.C. Retrieved November 24, 2006, from

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/FIA/2002/FIA2002MR027.pdf

Katz, E. (2000). Another look at restoration: technology and artificial nature. Pp.37-48. In

Gobster, P.H., and Hull, R.B. (eds.). Restoring Nature: Perspectives from the social

sciences and humanities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Katz, E. (1992). The call of the wild. Reprinted in Schmidtz, D. and Willott, E. (2002).

Environmental Ethics: What really matters, what really works. (pp. 172-178). New York

and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Krieger, M.H. (1973). What’s wrong with plastic trees? Reprinted in Schmidtz, D. and Willott,

E. (2002). Environmental Ethics: What really matters, what really works. (pp. 158-171).

New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ladkin, D. (2005). Does ‘restoration’ necessarily imply the domination of nature? Environmental

Values, 14, 203-219.

Light, A. (2002). Ecological restoration and the culture of nature. Pp. 178-187. In Schmidtz, D.

and Willott, E. Environmental Ethics: What really matters, what really works. New York,

NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Light, A. (2000). Restoration, the value of participation, and the risks of professionalization. Pp.

163-181. In Gobster, P.H., and Hull, R.B. (eds.). Restoring Nature: Perspectives from the

social sciences and humanities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Miskelly, J. (no date). Removing conifers to restore habitat for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly in

Helliwell Provincial Park. P.6. Garry Oak Ecosystems Recover Team Research

Colloquium. (2005). Retrieved November 24, 2006, from

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:0eX5FrpZKAkJ:www.wnps.org/ecosystems/west_l

owland_eco/documents/GarryOakRes_Colloq_2005_Proceedings.pdf+removing+scotch+

broom+from+provincial+parks&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=3

Ontario Parks. (2000). Presqu'ile Provincial Park Management Plan Highlights. Retrieved

November 24, 2006, from http://biology.queensu.ca/~bio422/pqhighlights.pdf


16

Park Act. [RSBC 1996] Chapter 344. Victoria, B.C., Canada: Queen’s Printer. Retrieved

November 15, 2006, from http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/P/96344_01.htm

SER-BC. (2004). Ecological Restoration in B.C. Society for Ecological Restoration, British

Columbia Chapter. Retrieved November 24, 2006, from

http://www.serbc.info/public/ser_bc_home

Society for Ecological Restoration International Science and Policy Working Group (SER).

(2004). The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration (version 2). Retrieved

November 15, 2006, from http://www.ser.org/pdf/primer3.pdf

Vining, J. Tyler, E., and Kweon, B.-S. (2000). Public values, opinions, and emotions in

restoration controversies. Pp. 143-161. In Gobster, P.H., and Hull, R.B. (eds.). Restoring

Nature: Perspectives from the social sciences and humanities. Washington, D.C.: Island

Press.

Williams, D.R. and Patterson, M.E. (1996). Environmental meaning and ecosystem

management: Perspectives from environmental psychology and human geography.

Society and Natural Resources, 9, 507-521.

Winterhalder, K., Clewell, A.F., and Aronson, J. (2004). Values and science in ecological

restoration—A response to Davis and Slobodkin. Restoration Ecology, 12(1), 4-7.


17

Chapter 2

The Power of Interpretation in BC Parks

Rebecca Baines

Executive Summary

The objectives of interpretation have changed and grown to facilitate the role of parks.

Originally, when parks were first being established, interpretation was used to enhance the

visitor experience by engaging the park visitors with their surroundings; this was done to

increase public support for parks. Interpretation became a means of education, creating a deeper

understanding of the nature of the park, resulting in an enjoyable and memorable experience.

Changes in recreation, science, and environmental issues have led to new challenges for

parks. Increased use and new forms of recreation has led to a need for new management

strategies. Advances in science have led to a greater understanding of the environment,

revealing facts about the demands and needs of ecology. Environmental issues such as global

warming are threatening the future of parks and the planet. Interpretation can be part of the

solution to the issues that parks are dealing with today.

Interpretation is a means of communication; a way of communicating scientific

information and creating resonance in the viewers mind and soul. This results in a stronger

connection and knowledge of the land, which has potential to change attitudes and behaviour. It

can be used as a sustainable visitor management tool to minimize direct impacts that visitors

have on parks. Another use for interpretation within BC Parks is education of the global issues

that are affecting the ecology of our parks and planet. This is a large issue and with the use of

interpretation BC Parks can take an active role in the solution. Issues can be interpreted to the

visitors’ in parks as well urban outreach program can enlighten non park users. Yet, in order to

generate behaviour change, interpretation should include facts along with solutions.

The principles of interpretation by Tilden correspond with learning theories by

psychologists such as Piaget. In order to change attitudes, interpretation must reach the viewer

on a cognitive level as well as an affective level. Interpretation that best results in behaviour


18

change includes suggestions on how the viewer can be part of the solution. Although these

theories correlate with interpretive principles, empirical evaluations and documented studies on

the effectiveness of interpretation are lacking.

The empirical studies that have been completed have shown ambiguous results. Many

studies conclude that interpretation is effective at increasing knowledge, changing attitudes, and

increasing behavioural intentions. In order to create standards for the creation and monitoring of

effective interpretation, more studies need to be compiled.

The growth and standardization of interpretation by BC Parks will result in a multipurpose

communication tool. This tool can be used for sustainable visitor management and at the same

time it will enhance the visitor experience. Interpretation can also be used to manage the

external factors that are threatening parks, by educating the public and providing solutions.

1.0 Overview and Scope of Interpretation

Interpretation is a powerful tool for communicating knowledge, helping people develop a

greater understanding about the nature that surrounds them, and creating a deeper connection

with nature. Currently parks are being affected by visitor impacts and threatened by external

factors, such as climate change and pollution. In response to the increased use in parks,

interpretation is a tool that park managers can utilize for sustainable visitor management.

Interpretation can also be used to educate park users and the public about current global issues,

their effects on BC parks, and solutions for change.

Interpretation has had many different values over the years and has rarely been recognized

for its full potential. Initially the value of interpretation in parks was its ability to create public

support by enhancing the visitors’ experience. Education through interpretation leads to an

“intellectual appreciation of nature; it involves the enjoyment of the sublimity and beauty; and it

leads to a higher conception of the development of man” (Miles, 1995, p.124). Buchholtz (1978)

recaptures letters that were written about experiences in the first parks. In the letters there are

observations about visitors not being very engaged with their surroundings and hesitant to go

outside. He quotes a letter saying that a little encouragement would add great pleasure to their

visit (Buchholtz, 1978). In the 1920s Parks Services started nature programs such as smelling

herbs, feeling bark or guided overnight hikes (Buchholtz, 1978). Programs such as these helped

create the essence of the park experience for the visitors.

Cuts to interpretation staff and budgets have left many parks lacking adequate staff and


19

resources to provide sufficient interpretive services (Buchholtz, 1978). It seems as though

interpretation has frequently been in crisis, often struggling to prove its value. Park managers

see interpretation as nice but not essential and it often suffers when the budget needs to be cut

(Mackintosh, 1986). These cuts have led to the loss of understanding about the power of

interpretation. A service wide questionnaire in the United States during the 1970’s concluded

that the importance and professionalism of interpretation had declined (Mackintosh, 1986).

Another questionnaire was sent out to find the factors attributing to the decline. Amongst the

most significant were:

organizational changes that had lumped interpretation with resources management in

many parks, often removing people with interpretive backgrounds from leadership; the

de-professionalizing tendency of the new park technician series; increased park visitation

and expansion of the National Park System without commensurate funding and personnel

increases for interpretation; and increased emphasis on law enforcement after a 1970

disturbance in Yosemite, at the expense of interpretive positions and training

(Mackintosh, 1986, p. 10).

Cutbacks have inhibited the wonder and enjoyment that interpretation can create:

“unfortunately, the [U.S. National Park] Service commitment and ability to commit to a mission

of proactive education and interpretation as a high priority, has waxed and waned” (The Vail

Agenda, 1992, p.24). This has led the deterioration of the quality and quantity of interpretation,

taking away from the essence of parks. The Vial Agenda (1992, p.24) recommended that the

National Park Service should “invest in innovative expansions of its ability to provide

interpretation that enhances visitor enjoyment and enlightenment”. The diminished quality of

interpretation in parks resulted in the loss of the value of interpretation. The true value of

interpretation, as means of communication, needs to be recognized and reinforced.

Interpretation is a valuable tool not only for enhancing the visitor experience but as an

indirect form of behaviour management, thus minimizing internal threats on parks. As well,

interpretation can be used as a means of communicating current global issues affecting parks.

Recreation is an integral part of parks, yet it is only part of the dual mandate. Managers are in a

constant position of choices, debating between preservation and use. The number of park users

has increased and tourism is one of the fastest growing industries (Orams, 1994). This is coupled


20

with new forms of recreation such as mountain biking, rock climbing and snowmobiling. The

increasing internal pressures on parks result in a need for visitor management.

There are three main ways to manage visitor behaviour. There can be physical separation

like barriers, pathways and locations, or direct management such as rules and fines (Orams,

1994). The third is interpretation, a form of indirect management which seeks to reduce

inappropriate behaviour on a voluntary basis through education (Orams, 1994). Interpretation is

a tool for managing visitor behaviour by enriching the experience, providing orientation and

information, informing of appropriate behaviour, and advising of safety issues. Interpretation is

therefore seen as a ‘win-win’ situation for park managers and visitors. Another important aspect

of interpretation is that it allows users to retain their freedom of choice, which is a fundamental

part of the recreation and leisure experience (Tubb, 2003).

Currently parks are under siege from external factors like resource extraction, global

warming, and air pollution. According to the 2005 BC Parks household survey, the utmost

concern of BC residents is wilderness preservation (Ministry of Labour and Citizens’ Services,

2005). Residents’ secondary concern is the parks role in providing outdoor recreation and places

to learn about the environment. Recently it has become clear that environmental issues are

inhibiting parks role in wilderness preservation. Interpretation can be used as an educational tool

to teach people about the issues that are affecting parks and the world.

Parks are more frequently called islands; an island of protected habitat for species in a sea

of resource extraction and other types of development. As well, it has become evident that

drawing a boundary around a park does not sufficiently protect it (Eagles and McCool, 2002).

Stats and figures have shown that parks are not large enough to adequately protect habitat for

large animals such as bears and wolves (Theberge and Theberge, 2002). Abiotic and biotic

standards, which are necessary for parks to sufficiently protect and preserve an area, are far from

possible (Theberge and Theberge, 2002). As a result of the degradation in unprotected habitats

by activities such as forestry, mining, and agriculture, there have been habitat losses and

fragmentations. Other factors are species loss, and impacts on air and water quality (Searle,

2000). These resource factors along with the increase of tourism, recreational use, and global

issues are putting immense amounts of stress on the park environment. Natural resource

scientists and resource managers know that the resolution of natural resource issues require

public support, and at times behavioural change (Whatley, 1995).


21

It has been found that communicating this message to people is necessary. The

ecological deterioration of parks is going largely unnoticed by most Canadians and there seems

to be a public acceptance that parks are fulfilling their role to conserve the environment (Searle,

2000). People only notice drastic changes and park changes are too slow for humans to perceive

and react to (Searle, 2000).

Studies have found that most of the characteristics that parks were originally created to

protect will change in this century. Forecasted changes include: sea level rising, reduction in

permafrost, fire, insect, and disease disturbance, and phonology and hydrology changes (Scott et

al., 2002). The sea level rising will dramatically affect coastal parks and residents. Insects,

disease and fire are something that we are already familiar with in BC. Phonology and

hydrology changes mean floods and droughts (Scott et al., 2002). Interpretation can be used as a

form of communication to inform people of issues that are posing external threats on parks and

how the public can be part of the solution.

2.0 Current State of Knowledge of Interpretation

Interpretation is still a relatively new construct. When most people think of an interpreter

they think of a translator. Tilden has developed guidelines and principles for interpretation,

creating a standard on which to learn from. Tilden (1977, p.8) defines interpretation as: “the

revelation of a larger truth that lies behind any statement of fact”. Interpretive messages can be

delivered in many forms, but there are six key principles to follow for each. Tilden’s (1977, p. 9)

principles of interpretation are provided in Table 1.

Along with Tilden’s principles, effective interpretation needs to consider the type of

action, the moral level of the visitor, the use of education, the ability of the interpretation to reach

the feelings and the attitudes that are connected to the motivation of the visitor, and possible

ways the user can be a part of the solution. Studies have shown that visitors are more likely to be

affected by behavioural or environmental signs than regulatory signs (Wirsching, Leung, and

Attarian, 2003).

There are five different types of visitor actions that impact parks, three of which can be

dealt with through interpretation. Illegal actions and unavoidable impacts are the two types of

actions that need alternate methods of management (Hendee and Dawson, 2002). The remaining

three are careless actions, unskilled actions, and uninformed actions. Careless actions include

littering and building of fires where prohibited. These actions can be managed through


22

Table 1: Tilden’s Principles of Interpretation

Source: Tilden, 1977

interpretation by education of the impacts of such actions (Hendee & Dawson, 2002). Unskilled

actions and uninformed actions have the highest potential for behavioural change through

interpretation. This is based on the presumption that the visitor does not intend to perform their

destructive actions. They are actions such as digging a ditch around a tent, burning garbage, or

concentrated use (Hendee & Dawson, 2002). Interpretation can reduce such actions by

educating the visitor on the effects of their actions and providing examples of alternative low

impact practices. It is thought that “wilderness visitors provide a particularly good audience for

information-education programs as one distinguishing socio-economic characteristic of

wilderness visitors is high education levels”(Hendee and Dawson, 2002, p. 481). Most park

visitors also place a high value on the wilderness and many surveys show that preserving nature

is their biggest concern, therefore, once informed they are more likely to change behaviour and

use the area more carefully (Hendee and Dawson, 2002).

i. Any interpretation that does not somehow relate what is being displayed or

described to something within the personality or experience of the visitor will

be sterile.

ii. Information, as such, is not Interpretation. Interpretation is revelation based

upon information. But they are entirely different things. However, all

interpretation includes information

iii. Interpretation is an art, which combines many arts, whether the materials

presented are scientific, historical or architectural. Any art is in some degree

teachable.

iv. The chief aim of Interpretation is not instruction, but provocation.

v. Interpretation should aim to present a whole rather that a part, and must address

itself to the whole man rather that any phase.

vi. Interpretation addressed to children (say, up to the age of twelve) should not be

a dilution of the presentation to adults, but should follow a fundamentally

different approach. To be at its best it should require a separate program.


23

Although it is presumed that park visitors enjoy their experience and want to protect it,

there still are many individual differences that influence the effectiveness of interpretation.

According to Manning (2005), interpretation should be designed to reach each visitor depending

on their level of moral development. For people with lower levels of moral development it is

necessary to emphasize extrinsic rewards and punishments (Manning, 2003). For people with

higher levels of moral development, interpretation can be used to emphasize the rational for

selected behaviours; appealing to the sense of altruism, justice and fairness (Manning, 2003).

Among many things, effectiveness of interpretation is a result of the audience, content, and

delivery of the message to visitors.

Content that is used to facilitate learning and environmental education is most commonly

based on Piaget’s learning theory (Orams, 1995). This theory is centred around the concept of

cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is found when one view such as ‘running through

the forest is fun and exciting’ is met with another view, such as a sign saying ‘parks protect a

fragile ecosystem; it is important to stay on the trail’. Cognitive dissonance is a result of these

two disagreeing messages and it produces a psychological tension which motivates the user to

alter their current belief systems to reduce the conflict (Orams, 1995).

This theory only refers to the educational value and change of beliefs that interpretation

can bring. When interpretation is aimed at not only the cognitive domain but also the affective

domain, further learning, evaluating, and understanding occurs. The affective domain consists of

attitudes, feelings, emotions and value systems (Orams, 1995). Tilden (1977, p.9) notes the

importance of relating to peoples affective domains in his principle “any interpretation that does

not somehow relate what is being displayed or described to something within the personality or

experience of the visitor will be sterile”. The affective domain is central to learning and

evaluating ones choices (Orams 1995).

In addition to reaching people’s cognitive and affective domains, there is another step

that can be taken to enhance the possibility of behaviour change. This step includes providing

examples of how the visitors’ behaviour affects the issue and how they can help. Messages such

as ‘you can make a difference’ are critical to enhancing the effectiveness of interpretative

programs (Orams, 1995). Suggestions for behaviour change can result in instant actions such as

beach clean up activities or things that can be done at home, such as buying environmentally

friendly products or lists of ideas of how to reduce waste.


24

2.1 Literature Review

Interpretation can not forcibly change people’s behaviour; rather it aims to persuade a

voluntary behaviour change (Orams, 1994). Evaluation is necessary to determine if

interpretation is achieving its objectives (Littlefair, 2003). Tilden (1997) also noted the

importance of research and monitoring the effectiveness of interpretation. The effectiveness of

interpretation is measured based on its impacts on visitors. Impacts can be found through

observation, interviews, or questionnaires from participants who were exposed to the

interpretation (Orams, 1994). In is also crucial to have a follow up with the participants to know

the long term effects of interpretation.

There have not been many empirical evaluations and documented studies relating to the

effectiveness of interpretation (Littlefair, 2003). The studies that have been completed show

contradictory results (Littlefair, 2003). Some studies show that interpretation results in increased

knowledge, change in attitude, and increased behavioural intentions (Tubb, 2003, Madin &

Fenton, 2004). Other studies suggest that interpretation has no impact on the visitor.

2.2 Research Approaches to Studies

The effectiveness of interpretation has been studied in Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,

Dartmoor National Park, Lamington National Park, and other protected areas (Tubb, 2002;

Littlefair, 2003; Madin and Fenton, 2004). The studies are completed with varied methods.

Methods of measurement include surveys, observation, focus groups, and interviews (Tubb,

2003). When an experimental design is used, the control group receives a survey before the

interpretation. They are not interviewed or surveyed after because the pre-survey heightens their

awareness when viewing (Tubb, 2003). The surveys administered after the interpretation rated

attitude change, increase in knowledge, and self reported behaviour change. Attitude change is

measured with randomly placed Likert-type attitude statements that are relevant to the natural

environment and the messages that the park is portraying (Tubb, 2003).

For accurate results observation is also needed because self reports do not always

accurately reflect actual behaviour (Littlefair, 2003). To measure effectiveness through

observation, anonymous researchers observe the effectiveness of the interpretation to hold the

viewers attention (Tubb,2003). Observers can also be part the audience in a guided walk to

observe changes in behaviour (Littlefaid, 2003).


25

Based on the limited studies researching the effectiveness of interpretation, there have been some

standards developed for the design and testing of interpretive programs. Programs on how

to create and maintain effective interpretation can be used by managers influence direct or

indirect impacts on parks. They provide park managers with a set of guidelines to consider

when developing an inexpensive and effective visitor communication and education

systems (Wirsching, Leung, and Attarian, 2003). One example is the program developed

by Forestell and Kaufman (cited in Orams, 1994). Although there are a few programs,

there is still a need for more research and standards for interpretation.

3.0 Recommendations for BC Parks

1. Personally learn more about global issues such as global warming.

There are huge global issues affecting parks, such as global warming and pollution. These

issues are too big for parks alone. BC Parks can take the initiative to educate BC residents about

these issues and recommend how they can help. Parks are seen as a benchmark for the ecology

of the world and if they are not sustainable then the environment of the world is not either.

2. Acknowledge interpretation as an educational tool and its potential for attitude and

behaviour change.

Research indicates that when the message is delivered effectively, interpretation creates

increased knowledge, changes in attitudes, and behaviour modification (Tubb, 2003).

3. Take full responsibility and the initiative to manage and create interpretation and increase

funding.

4. Research the effectiveness of interpretation in many situations.

The variances in media of interpretation, audience, and message being portrayed all alter the

effectiveness of interpretation. More research studies with measuring the effectiveness of

interpretation need to take place with variants of audience, means, and message.

5. Create standards and guide lines for creating and monitoring interpretation.

Based on the research compiled from the studies there should be new standard guidelines

created for creating and monitoring interpretation.

6. Research the information to be included in the messages.

Interpretation personalizes scientific information but before interpretation can be created

there needs to be correct scientific information.


26

7. Create interpretation within parks about factors influencing BC parks, the effects visitors

actions have on them either direct or indirect, and potential solutions. To ensure effectiveness,

interpretation should be created by in house professionals.

8. Coordinate urban outreach programs to communicate the importance of parks and the

issues that they are facing.

9. Monitor these new programs, research current issues, assimilate new information, and

act.

4.0 Conclusion

Interpretation is a powerful tool for educating users about nature, forming deeper

meanings and connections. Interpretation has potential to be a solution to the impacts of

increased use and can be used as a tool to combat global issues that are affecting parks. With

proper research, guidelines can be formed for the creation and monitoring of interpretation.

Interpretation can then be used as an effective indirect management tool that facilitates change in

behaviour and attitudes. This can reduce the impacts of the increasing number of park visitors.

Secondly, interpretation should be utilized in a province-wide effort to build awareness of the

issues that are threatening parks and provide potential solutions. In order to ensure the future of

our parks and planet, we all need to work together.

References

Buchholtz, C. (1978). The national parks as a playground. Journal of Sport History. 5(3), 21-37.

Eagles, P. & McCool, S. (2002). Tourism in National Parks and Protected Areas: Planning and

Management. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.

Freemuth. J. (1991). Islands Under Siege: National Parks and the Politics of External Threats.

USA: University Press of Kansas.

Harmon, H., & Putney, A., (2003). Intangible Values and Protected Areas: Towards a

More Holistic Approach to Management. In Harmon, H., & Putney, A., (eds.).

The Full Value of Parks: From Economics to the Intangible (pp 311-327). New

York, USA: Rowman & Littlefield.

Hendee, J.C.. & Dawson, C. (2002). Wilderness Management: Stewardship and

Protection of resources and Values (Third Edition). Golden, CO: North American


27

Press.

Littlefair, C. (2004). The Effectiveness if Interpretation in Reducing the Impacts of Visitors in

National Parks. Webhumans: Griffith University.

Mackintosh, B. (1986). Interpretation in the National Park Service: A Historical

Perspective. Retrieved November 6, 2006 from http://www.cr.nps.gov

/history/online_books/mackintosh2/directions_av_other.htm.

Madin, E., & Fenton, D. (2004). Environmental interpretation in the Great Barrier Reef Marine

Park: An assessment of programme effectiveness. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 12(2),

(pp 121-130).

Manning, R.E., (2003). Emerging Principles for Using Information/Education in

Wilderness Management. International Journal of Wilderness, 9(1).

McNeely, J.A., (1992). The World Conservation Union. Parks for Life: Report of the IVth

World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas. Cambridge, UK: IUNC

Publications Services Unit.

Miles, J.C., (1995). Guardians of the Parks. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Ministry of Labour & Citizens’ Services. (2005). BC Parks Household Survey 2005 Provincial

Report.

Orams, M.B., (1994). Using Interpretation to Manage Nature-based Tourism. Department of

Management Systems, Massy University. Retrieved November 6, 2006, from

http://www.multilingual-matters.net/jost/004/0081/jost00481.pdf.

Parks Canada Agency (2000). Unimpaired for Future Generations? Protecting Integrity with

Canada’s National Parks. Vol. I & II “Setting a New Direction for Canada’s National

Parks”. Report of the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada’s National Parks.

Ottawa, Parks Canada Agency.

Searle, R. (2000). Phantom Parks: The Struggle to Save Canada’s National Parks. Toronto: Key

Porter Books.

Scott, Malcolm & Lemieux. (2002) Climate Change and Modeled Biome Representation in

Canada’s National Park System: Implications for System Planning and Park Mandates.

Global Ecology & Biogeography. 11, (pp 475-484).


28

Theberge, J. & Theberge, J.B. (2002). Application of ecological concepts to the management of

protected areas. In P. Dearden and R. Rollings (eds.), Parks and protected areas in

Canada: Planning and management (pp. 70-96). Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Tilden, Freedman. (1977). Interpreting Our Heritage. USA: The University of North Carolina

Press.

Tubb, K. (2003). An evaluation of the effectiveness of interpretation within Dartmoor National

Park in reaching the goals of sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable

Tourism. 11(6), (pp 47-50).

Whatley, M.E. (no date), Interpreting Critical Natural Resource Issues in Canadian and United

States National Parks Service Areas. Retrieved November 6, 2006, from

http://www2.nature.nps.gov/pubs/whatley/whatley.pdf.

Wirsching, Leung, & Attarian, (2003). Swatting Litter Bugs. Parks & Recreation.

The Vail Agenda. (1992). National Parks for the 21st Century: Report and Recommendations to

the Director of the National Park Service. Montpelier, Vermont: Electric Dragon

Productions.


29

Chapter 3

Shifting Tides: The Marine Protected Areas System in

British Columbia

Adam Leavitt

Executive Summary

Marine protected areas (MPA’s) are a type of protected area that specifically focuses on

protecting the marine environment and the marine environments’ adjacent features. MPA’s have

faced many challenges in terms of their understanding, creation, definition, purpose and overall

scope. In BC, the completion of a MPA system is a critical issue for both the provincial and

federal governments. Marine protected areas are critical as they can protect the marine

environment and its associated natural, recreational and cultural features. They also provide

benchmarks for research and provide invaluable opportunities for protected areas managers and

other stakeholders.

This chapter provides an analysis of the MPA system in British Columbia, with special

emphasis being placed on BC Parks. This report will provide a definition of what an MPA is and

it will look the history of these areas in B.C. The reasons and benefits for their creation will also

be highlighted. It will review the rationales for the completion of such a system in British

Columbia and it will look at what has been done so far towards creating the current system in

this province. The management and planning techniques that BC Parks and other agencies

utilize in creating and managing MPA’s will be highlighted as well. The views of marine

dependent communities in regards to these areas will be analyzed and the issues and challenges

that are encountered in their creation will be discussed.

1.0 Overview and Scope of the Issue

Marine protected areas (MPA’s) are a unique concept within the standard protected areas ethos.

Even though they aren’t relatively new, they present a unique model that focuses mainly on the

marine ecosystem. While protection of the marine environment is their primary goal, an MPA


30

can be utilized to represent both recreational and cultural aspects as well. Marine protected areas

are defined as “any area of the intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and

associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other

effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment” (Kelleher, 1999, in Dearden,

2002).

Currently more than half the inhabitants of the world can be found within 200 km of a

coastline (Hinrichsen, 1998, in Dearden, 2002). Marine habitats and inhabitants are known to

fulfill the roles of resistance to diseases, food production, filtering pollution, and stress recovery

that results from climate change (Stockstad, 2006).

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), it is estimated that 70% of

the world’s marine fisheries are over exploited (Dearden, 2002) This is a major source of

concern, as there are many who rely on these valuable resources. According to Stockstad (2006),

40% of species fished historically had collapsed by 2003. It’s estimated that the remainder of all

wild seafood will collapse by 2048 if the trend of overexploitation continues (Stockstad, 2006).

Many environmental impacts have occurred in the marine environment: overfishing, aquaculture,

dredging, various fishing practices and methods, drilling, climate change/global warming, oil and

gas drilling, boating and the dumping of pollutants have all had major impacts on the marine

ecosystem. There are now fewer nurseries where fish produce, and these practices have resulted

in the water column being stripped of one species at a time (Stockstad, 2006). This loss of

marine species has been linked with the increases in coastal flooding, shellfish closures, beach

closures, fish kills and the presence of invasive species (Stockstad, 2006) It also has been found

that destruction has occurred to nearly half of the world’s salt marshes, mangroves and coastal

wetlands had been destroyed (Dearden, 2002). This is a dire situation for all those that rely on

ocean resources for their health and livelihoods.

Marine protected areas are known to provide many benefits. Some of these include

providing marine biodiversity, representing ecosystems, protecting special natural features,

supporting the rebuilding of depleted fish stocks (particularly groundfish), protection of

spawning and nursery grounds, insurance against current inadequate management of marine

resources, provision of benchmark sites, recognition of cultural links of coastal communities to

biodiversity and the provision of opportunities for recreation and interpretation/education

(Dearden, 2002). Marine protected areas also provide many opportunities for marine research in


31

terms of studying various ecosystems, species, trends and various geographic, geologic and

archaeological/historical features. Marine research can be conducted by such organizations as

universities, governments, First Nations, NGO’s and other institutions and organizations that

have a vested interest in marine areas. Hydrothermal vents, seamounts, cold-water sponge reefs,

rookeries and haul-outs are examples of unique features that add to the benefits of protecting

marine areas.


There are many jurisdictions that manage various marine protected area networks, including

Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand. The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands

National Marine Monument is the worlds largest MPA. It was created on June 15, 2006 under

the US Antiquities Act and it encompasses nearly 140,000 square miles. (360,000 km2)

(http://www.hawaiireef.noaa.gov/management/). This area protects nearly 4,500 square miles of

“relatively undisturbed” coral reef habitat and nearly 7000 species that call the area home . The

current management techniques for this area include the requirement of permits for research,

education, conservation & management, Native Hawaiian practices, and non-extractive ‘special

ocean uses’. Prohibited activities include commercial and recreational extractive activities,

commercial fishing (by 2011) and oil & gas development

(http://www.hawaiireef.noaa.gov/management/).

In Canada, the federal government manages a MPA network that is administered by

several different agencies, including Parks Canada (PC), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (FOC)

and the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS). The federal government utilizes the Oceans Act,

Fisheries Act, Wildlife Act, Migratory Birds Convention Act, National Parks Act and the Marine

Conservation Areas Act to create MPA’s (Dearden 2002). Federal areas include National Parks,

National Conservation Areas, FOC Marine Protected Areas, FOC Fisheries Closures, National

Wildlife Areas, National Marine Wildlife Areas and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries (Dearden 2002).

The first National Marine Conservation Area to be created was the Fathom Five National Marine

Park in 1987. Focusing on BC, areas such as Gwaii Haanas and the Southern Straight of Georgia

are ‘candidate areas’ for protection as National Marine Conservation Areas

(http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/amnc-nmca/index_E.asp). Pacific Rim and Gulf Island National Park

Reserves are the only terrestrial protected areas to have marine components (Dearden, 2002). In


32

BC, there are currently there are two NWA’s with marine components and five MBS’s with

marine components (Jamieson and Lessard, 2000). As of yet there has been no designation of

Marine Wildlife Areas; however, the CWS is currently in the developmental stage of setting a

national criteria to identify areas of interest, and the Scott Islands has been identified as a

possible area in B.C. (Dearden, 2002; http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/mpa/default_e.htm).

There is also one FOC Marine Protected Area (Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents) and three MPA

pilot sites in BC (http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/mpa/default_e.htm). There are numerous

fisheries closure areas as well.

In order to create a system of MPA’s, Parks Canada has identified 29 marine natural

regions. These 29 marine natural regions are based on temperature, salinity, currents, depth

profiles and species distributions (http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/amnc-nmca/index_E.asp). In BC,

there are five of these marine natural regions (http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/amnc-

nmca/index_E.asp). Three zones for NMCA’s are proposed: a Preservation Zone (no

use/development), a Natural Environment Zone (no renewable resource harvesting), and a zone

that’s dedicated to allowing many uses while at the same time maintaining ecosystem structure

and function (http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/amnc-nmca/index_E.asp). The 1994 Parks Canada

policy of NMCA’s stated that they will be “Managed for ‘sustainable use’ rather than the “strict

protection of ecological integrity”. They will be managed on a partnership basis with local

stakeholders, and will allow more existing extractive uses to continue (Dearden, 2002). The

strategy for marine and coastal conservation, protection and management and the development

integrated coastal zone management plans falls under the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans

Canada (Dearden, 2002). For the Fisheries and Oceans MPA’s, the vision is that an internal

zoning system will be initiated that allows for various levels of resource extraction. In addition, a

management plan will be required before an area can be designated under the Oceans Act

(Dearden, 2002).

Marine Protected Areas in British Columbia

The definition of MPAs in British Columbia is “any area of tidal water together with associated

natural and cultural features in the water column, within, or on top of the seabed which has been

designated under the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act or under the Park Act, Ecological

Reserve Act and Environment and Land Use Act” (Dunham, Zacharias, Biffard, Westmacott,

Dunham and Ogborne, 2002, unpaginated). The various LRMP and Coastal Planning processes


33

and the BC Marine Ecological Classification System (which contain 12 distinct Marine

Ecosections) are also used in MPA creation and management (Dunham et al., 2002). This

process is led by the Integrated Land Management Bureau of the Ministry of Agriculture and

Lands through the LRMP and Coastal Planning Processes (Dearden, 2002;

http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/lup/coastal/index.html).

A MPA designated by BC Parks can include a provincial park, conservancy, protected

area or an ecological reserve (Dunham et al., 2002). In British Columbia, the primary managing

agency is the Ministry of Environment’s Parks and Protected Areas Branch (BC Parks). When

creating MPA’s in BC, the BC Parks two Goal Conservation System for Ecosystem

Representation and Special Features is always applied when selecting potential MPA’s (Dunham

et al., 2002) No specific zoning system has yet been designated for MPA’s in BC Currently, the

BC Parks’ MPA system encompasses 240,000ha, or 0.5% of BC’s total marine area (BC

Ministry of Environment, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, University of British Columbia

Fisheries Centre, University of Victoria Geography Department, Environment Canada [BCME et

al.], 2006). The deep sea is one of the least represented areas, while areas that are located in the

near shore zone (>20m deep) are the most represented marine zone (BCME et al., 2006). Out of

the MPA’s managed by BC Parks, five are known to be exclusively marine while the rest include

land located above the high-tide mark (BCME, 2006) Approximately 5% of B.C.’s MPA’s are

known to be larger than 1000 hectares, making up nearly 92% of the BC’s total protected marine

area. Out of the 12 Marine Ecosections, none of them have more than 6% of their area protected.

The Vancouver Island Shelf Ecosection, which includes Pacific Rim National Park, is the best

represented. In total, less than 1% of five marine ecosections are protected and the Subarctic

Pacific Ecosection has no representation (BCME et al., 2006).

There are many terrestrial protected areas in BC which have a coastal component; that is,

there are not marine parks by definition, but merely comprise shorelines. The first protected area

to be created with a marine component was Strathcona in 1911. The first protected area to be

created solely based on its marine values was Rebecca Spit Park in 1957 (Dunham et al., 2002).

There are now 105 protected areas managed by BC Parks that have a coastal component

(Dunham et. al., 2002). In April 2006, the BC Government created a new designation called a

Conservancy in order to meet the objectives of the North and Central Coast LRMP (BC MOE

News Release – 4/24/2006). As a result, 23 new areas with marine based components were


34

added to the new schedules “E and F” of the Park Act (BC MOE News Release – 4/24/ 2006).

BC Parks also manages 7 marine-based Wildlife Management Areas established under the

Wildlife Act and 17 Land Act, marine-based Wildlife Reserves (Jamieson and Lessard, 2000)

BC Parks also manages 128 Boat Havens in a partnership agreement with the Council of BC

Yacht Clubs (Council of BC Yacht Clubs). Again, it is important to reiterate that these areas are

not MPA’s in the traditional sense, as the Federal Government holds jurisdiction over the water

column itself. Only the seabed portion of the provincial marine parks, ecological reserves,

wildlife management areas and wildlife reserves are protected. However, in some cases, there are

numerous FOC Fisheries Closures that benefit provincial MPA’s. They include coast-wide

closures, closures that overlap and closures that are specific to that MPA (Dunham et al., 2002;

Jamieson and Lessard 2000). For a provincial MPA to receive full protection, it’s integral for the

water column in these areas to be protected thorough further Federal and Provincial Government

agreements (e.g., Fisheries Closures). Changes in the various pieces of provincial legislation

would have to define what a provincial marine protected area is and what type of regulations

would be applicable save the current regulations found in present provincial legislation such as

the BC Park Act.

In order to analyze their existing network of MPA’s (as of 2002) the BC Government

created a report titled Provincial Marine Protected Areas in British Columbia (Dunham et al.,

2002). The purpose of the report was to utilize a number of “inventory, analysis and planning

tools developed by the BC Government in order to identify values captured within the existing

system of BC’s MPA’s”(Dunham et. al., 2002, unpaginated). The Coastal Resource Information

System (CRIS), Valued Marine Environments and/or Features (VMEF) and the BC Marine

Ecological Classification System (BCMEC) were tools used to evaluate the network of MPA’s

managed by BC Parks (Dunham et. al., 2002). The VMEF classification ranking is based on

marine conservation, marine recreation, marine cultural heritage, marine biota extraction, marine

biota creation, marine industrial activities and ecounits (Dunham et. al., 2002). The 104 MPA’s

researched were also analyzed if they had FOC Fisheries Closures were applicable (Dunham et.

al., 2002; Jamieson and Lessard, 2000). The findings of this report found that high-exposure,

high current and hard substrate areas were over-represented, while areas with moderate depth

with mud and sand bottom substrates were under-represented (Dunham et. al., 2002). It was also

expected that the report would provide further direction for the establishment of future MPA’s,


35

identify current provincial MPA’s that could benefit from additional FOC fisheries closures and

identify potential opportunities and conflicts with other coastal and marine issues (Dunham et.

al., 2002). The report argued that in order for future establishment of MPA’s to be successful,

they needed to have support from First Nations, communities, industry, and be feasible in terms

of , costs, jurisdictional compatibility and contribution toward trends monitoring (Dunham et al.

2002).

Challenges to Creating Marine Parks in British Columbia

There are many challenges that come about from the protection of marine areas. One is

the difficulty in translating the well-established approaches for protection in terrestrial

environments into the marine context. An example derives from is trans-boundary effects and

connectivity of marine ecosystems (Dearden, 2002). Competition with existing uses is another

key stumbling block to the creation of MPAs. As a result, another challenge has been the

timeliness in creating a network of marine protected areas. For example, it has been nearly

almost 20 years since the MPA initiative began and almost a decade since the Tri-Council

statement was signed. The Tri-Council is a group that consists of the Canadian Councils of the

Ministers of Environment, Parks Ministers and Wildlife Ministers (Dearden, 2002). The Federal

and Provincial Governments in 1998 originally wanted to create a Protected Areas System on the

BC Coast by 2010 (Dearden, 2002).

Perhaps the primary barrier in the creation of a network of marine protected areas is the

jurisdictional challenges currently in place. When the original Canadian Constitution was signed

in 1867, all marine waters and species fell under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government

(Dearden, 2002). The provincial government retained the rights to the seabed located along the

coastline with the exception of the outer coastlines of Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlotte

Islands (Dearden, 2002). The responsibilities of the Federal Government would include

“beacons, buoys and lighthouses, navigation and shipping, and sea coast and inland fisheries”

(Federal Government - Canada Constitution Act of 1867 s. 91) and marine biota not managed by

the province (Dunham et. al., 2002). The provincial responsibilities include the management and

development of natural resources and the management of marine biota which include: attached

marine plants, the Pacific Oyster and anadromous salmonid species such as Dolly Varden

(Salvelinus malma) and Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Dunham et al., 2002). These

challenges in terms of jurisdictional responsibility create a conundrum for the definition, purpose


36

and future creation of provincial MPA’s. For example, if you look at a provincial marine park

that has a significant amount of foreshore protected within it, the only part that’s truly protected

by the province is the seabed. This could potentially create some problems such as overlapping

management and regulatory confusion. However, in some cases (e.g., Porteau Cove Provincial

Park), the marine-based boundary also contains a FOC Fisheries Closure area. The jurisdictions

that have vested interest in BC’s coastal marine waters other than the agencies previously

mentioned in this report include Transport Canada, BC Ministry of Environment - Ocean and

Marine Fisheries Division, BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, BC

Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, BC Ministry of Forests and Range, Federal Department of

National Defense and various First Nations groups through the BC Treaty Process.

Another issue that has stymied the creation of a network of marine protected areas is the

lack of scientific information, management experience, background information, monitoring

programs and research conducted (Dearden, 2002). The understanding of the marine

environment is not as extensive as for the terrestrial environment. In BC, many unique areas are

constantly being discovered. Examples include the Hecate Straight Sponge Reefs and the Strait

of Juan De Fuca “Big Eddy” ecosystem (CPAWS BC Chapter, no date). The CPAWS

Wilderness Vision Colloquium of 1994 came to the conclusion that Canada seriously lags in

other nations’ initiatives to protect the marine environment due to the lack of political will

(Jessen, 1996). It was also stated that in the short term a community driven approach be applied.

Successful community driven approaches include the Whytecliff Marine Park and Gwaii Haanas

and Duu-Guusd Tribal Park in Haida Gwaii (Jessen, 1996). There are many challenges in

creating marine protected areas, yet it is clear these challenges can be overcome.

One last issue and challenge is the virtual permeability and vulnerability that marine

protected areas face. Terrestrial parks are relatively easily defined by their geography. Marine

areas are much more difficult to define due to their aquatic environment: it is much more

difficult to draw lines on marine maps since there are truly no well defined geographical markers

to go by. It would be easier to have a marine protected area with a defined coastline or network

of islands, yet if the area is completely ‘water-based’ it serves as an even greater challenge.

Perhaps potential solutions would be to update marine charts, post “floating” signage and

provide informational signage at marinas. Another key problem the permeability and

vulnerability issue presents is the potential exposure to oil spills, pollution, rising ocean


37

temperatures, poaching, etc. There are currently 28 BC Parks MPA’s that are affected directly by

pollution (Dunham et al., 2002). On a positive note, there are six BC Parks MPA’s that have

been designated under the Federal Governments Pleasure Craft Sewage Prevention Regulation as

‘no dump zones’ (Dunham et al., 2002). Twenty three other BC MPA’s are proposed to receive

this designation (Dunham et al., 2002) In terms of other stressors it was found that 40% of BC’s

MPA’s are affected by forestry/ mining/agricultural activities (Gilkeson et. al, 2006). Recreation

use and gathering/harvesting activities which included recreational fishing were the most

common internal stressors (BCME et al., 2006). Only one-third of the areas protected in BC can

be considered ecologically intact (areas not subject to specific activities, such as fishing,

aquaculture, boat anchorages, industrial sites and cruise ship routes) (BCME et al., 2006).

First Nations Perspectives on MPAs

This section of the report will look at some of the views that communities and First

Nations hold toward marine protected areas. The challenge on non-First Nation community

involvement and support is also addressed.

The public generally holds a low perception of the value of the preservation of the marine

environment in relation to terrestrial parks (Paisley, 1995, in Guénette et al., 2000). It was also

found that the policies of government generally tend to favor resource harvesting in order to

“minimize conflicts with historical subsistence” users (Paisley, 1995, in Guénette et. al 2000, p.

). It is interesting to note that not long ago it was quite common for public interest groups to

focus their attention on protecting key sites and develop complimentary management plans and

interpretive programs in order to enhance their uniqueness (Guénette et al., 2000). According to

Guénette et al. (2000, p. ), the primary objective of MPA creation is to “always to have an

inclusive shared decision making process and partnership that involves stakeholders, First

Nations, coastal communities and the general public.”

One example of a successful MPA partnership model is Whytecliff Park in West

Vancouver, BC. Whytecliff Park is unique since it is subject to an annual fishery closure from

it’s shoreline to a point 100m from it. However it’s not subject to a legal designation as an MPA,

despite being considered as the first MPA with a fisheries closure in Canada (Guénette et al.,

2000). The Whytecliff project was also a success for its time since it was the first area to have

both ‘bottom-up’ and process oriented partnership management approaches applied to it. A

process oriented management approach is a system that where “different knowledge bases, skills,


38

expertise and common goals are brought to the table by all stakeholders and agencies represented

by the government and NGO’s” (Guénette et al., 2000). These are the reasons that made the

creation of the Wytecliff Park no-take area so successful. On the other hand, such community-

driven endeavors may not be so successful. The proposed NMCA for Newfoundland’s

Bonavista-Notre Dame Bays was turned down as a potential MPA since it was deemed that the

fisheries activities would possibly be curtailed by Parks Canada (Lien 1999, in Dearden, 2002).

Another concern that came out of the meetings included the fact that a NMCA would negatively

impact the families and communities through the potential loss of their livelihoods (Lien 1999, in

Dearden, 2002). The aquaculture industry also felt that a NMCA would be incompatible with

their objectives (Lien 1999, in Dearden, 2002). One final reason why the NMCA proposal was

declined had to be attributed to the fact that various conservation initiatives such as lobster

enhancement were already in place (Lien 1999, in Dearden, 2002).

For First Nations, MPA’s have the potential to create social, food related, ceremonial,

recreational and commercial opportunities (Dunham et al., 2002). In terms of First Nations

issues, there are a couple of examples as to where the creation of an MPA has been successful

through the establishment of agreements. In Haida Gwaii, there was a quick development of

fishing lodges in a short time period (from 1985-89) (Jones, 1994, in Jessen, 1996) To address

this, the Haida Nation met with the public and the lodge owners to discuss their concerns in

regards to this sudden expansion (Jones, 1994, in Jessen, 1996) As a result of various discussions

that took place, an Interim Measures Agreement was signed in 1993 between the Haida Nation

and the BC Government for a potential moratorium on lodge expansion (Jones, 1994, in Jessen,

1996). While unrelated to the fishing lodge issue, a Haida Fisheries Co-management program

was also signed. This co-management agreement called for reaching settlements on allocation

issues, decision making roles and gaining access to fish based on a ‘buy back’ system based on

historic aboriginal use (Jones, 1994, in Jessen, 1996).

The Hakai Luxvbalis Conservancy Area is another example of a MPA involving First

Nations. Hakai was first designated as a provincial recreation area in 1987 without the

consultation of aboriginal people (Hamilton and Wilson, 2005). This area is famous for world

class fishing in the Hakai Pass area and also has many outstanding marine resources and

ecosystems that make the area unique; the area is significant to the aboriginal people that hold

title over the area (Hamilton and Wilson, 2005). As a result of the recreation area designation in


39

1987, the Heiltsuk First Nation felt that the area would infringe upon their traditional rights and

concurrently opposed the protection of this area (Hamilton and Wilson, 2005). About more than

10 years of conflict between the Heiltsuk First Nation and the provincial government, a

collaborative agreement process was initiated (Hamilton and Wilson, 2005). On September 28,

2003 a collaborative agreement was signed between the BC Government and the Heiltsuk First

Nation. The agreement basically stated that the Heiltsuk First Nation would be able to access the

land and resources within the protected area in accordance to their rights (www.bcparks.ca).

Other MPA’s with successful collaborative management agreements include: Kitlope Heritage

Conservancy, Khutzeymateen Grizzly Bear Sanctuary, Ha’thayim (Von-Donop) Marine, and the

Clayoquot Sound Protected Area Complex (14 parks which include Vargas Island and Hesquiat

Peninsula). (www.bcparks.ca). Recently, a new co-management agreement was signed on May

16, 2006 with the ‘Namgis Nation. This agreement will apply to all 10 protected areas located

within the ‘Namgis Nation traditional territories (BC MOE News Release – 5/16/06). Marine

areas that benefit from this include the Robson Bight Ecological Reserve and Cormorant

Channel Provincial Marine Park.

3.0 Recommendations for the BC Ministry of Environment

The following provides a basis of sound and realistic recommendations created to assist

the BC Ministry of Environment (BC Parks) in developing and managing an expanded MPA

system.

1. Create an effective research program that utilizes partnerships. This can include the use of

volunteers, university faculty/students, institutions such as the Vancouver Aquarium, other

Government agencies, First Nations (co-management agreements) or consultants.

2. Create a public educational awareness program for a BC Parks MPA system though

educational institutions, interpretive programming (e.g., BC Conservation Corps – Federation of

BC Naturalists Park Interpretive Program), signage, the Vancouver Aquarium, First Nations (co-

management agreements) and web-based information.

3. Establish an effective monitoring system. This could possibly utilize existing parks and

protected areas branch/section staff located in marine regions to monitor their respective MPA’s.


40

This could include the use of existing watercraft and the dedication existing patrol/work hours.

Monitoring should be a top priority for each respective protected areas section head in order for

MPAs to be effective. Establishing partnerships with previously mentioned parties, and possibly

establishing a Marine Park Watch could be complementary methods of involving communities as

well.

4.0 Conclusion: The Future of Marine Protected Areas in B.C.

This report provided a clear definition of MPAs and examined their benefits and reasons

for their establishment. It also looked at the various issues and challenges that the creation of

MPAs face and also reviewed how various communities and aboriginal groups tend to view

marine protected areas. I personally hope there is going to be a bright and prosperous future for

Marine Protected Areas in both Canada and British Columbia. Even though the first ‘official’

MPA in British Columbia has yet to be established, I feel that once the hurdles have been

identified and significant resources put towards solving these issues BC will be able to have a

world class MPA system that our provincial and national residents will be proud of.

References

BC Ministry of Environment News Release: April 24, 2006 BC Leads in Creation of

Protected Areas. http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2006ENV0028-

000477.htm

BC Ministry of Environment News Release: May 16, 2006 Province Signs Parks

Agreement with ‘Namgis Nation. Available at http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/

news_releases_2005-2009/2006ENV0036-000603.htm (accessed Nov 29, 2006)

BC Ministry of Environment, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, University of British Columbia

Fisheries Centre, University of Victoria Geography Department, Environment Canada.

(2006). Alive and Inseparable – British Columbia’s Coastal Environment: 2006.

Victoria, BC: Author. Available at http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/bcce/images/

bcce_report.pdf (accessed Nov. 30, 2006).

BC Parks Website: Coastal Marine Parks, Hakai Luxvbalis Conservancy, Shuswap Lake Marine

Park and BC Parks Ecological Reserves. Available at http://www.bcparks.ca (accessed

Nov 30, 2006).

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society: BC Chapter Marine Spaces Campaign.

Available at http://www.cpawsbc.org/marine/index.php (accessed on Nov 28, 2006).


41

Dearden, P. (2002). Marine parks. In P.Dearden and R. Rollins (eds.), Parks and

Protected Areas in Canada: Planning and Management (pp. 354-378) Toronto: Oxford

University

Fisheries and Oceans Canada Pacific Region – Marine Protected Areas. Available at

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/mpa/default_e.htm (accessed Nov 30, 2006).

Council of BC Yacht Clubs. Provincial Boat Havens. Available at

http://www.cbcyachtclubs.ca/boathavens.htm (accessed Nov 29, 2006).

Dunham J.S., et al. (2002). Provincial Marine Protected Areas in British Columbia, BC

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. Decision Support Services, Victoria, BC:

Available at ftp://ftp.gis.luco.gov.bc.ca/pub/coastal/rpts/MSRM_PMPA.pdf (accessed

Nov 23, 2006)

Government of Canada, Department of Justice. (no date) The Constitution Act of 1867.

Available at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html#distribution (accessed Nov

24, 2006).

Guénette, S., Ratana, C., Jones, R. 2000, Marine Protected Areas with and Emphasis on

Local Communities and Indigenous People: A Review. Fisheries Center Research

Reports, 8(1): UBC Fisheries Center.

Hamilton, C., Wilson, R. 2005. Marine Protected Areas and Aboriginal People in British

Columbia: From Conflict to Collaboration. Commission for Environmental Cooperation.

Available at http://www.cec.org/pubs_docs/documents/

index.cfm?varlan=english&ID=1776 (accessed Nov 26, 2006).

Integrated Land Management Bureau, Marine Planning Office, and BC Ministry of

Agriculture and Lands. (no date). Integrated Land Management Bureau, Marine Planning

Office Available at http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/lup/coastal/index.html (accessed Nov 23,

2006).

Jamieson, G. and Lessard, J. (2000). Marine Protected Areas and Fisheries Closures in

British Columbia. Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Pacific Biological Station. Nanaimo,

B.C. and NRC-CNRC Research Press, Ottawa

Jessen, S. (1996). Introduction The Wilderness Vision for British Columbia: Proceedings

from a Colloquium on Completing British Columbia’ Protected Area System. Canadian

Parks and Wilderness Society. Vancouver, BC.


42

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument. (no date). Northwestern Hawaiian

Islands Marine National Monument: Management. Available at

http://www.hawaiireef.noaa.gov/management/ (accessed Nov 21, 2006).

Parks Canada. (no date). National Marine Conservation Areas of Canada. Available at

http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/amnc-nmca/index_E.asp (accessed Nov 26, 2006).

Stockstad, E. (2006). Global Loss of Biodiversity Harming Ocean Bounty. Journal of

Science, 314(5800), 745.


43

Chapter 4

Managing Mountain Pine Beetle in BC Parks

Sara Sundin

Executive Summary

A landscape with forests that have turned red does not have to mean ecological

devastation, even if that is what it looks like (Gawalko, no date). These dead trees serve as

habitat for vertebrates and invertebrates both when they are still standing and later when they

have fallen down to the ground (Chan-McLeoyd, 2006). Affected trees starts to fall down after

3-20 years and can then be a danger for people recreating in the area. Park managers may have to

fell or make stumps of trees in the area around trails or campsites for people’s protection.

Mountain pine beetle attacks should be seen as a normal process in parks and protected

areas and, if managed, should follow the ecological preservation prescriptions a park has. Ways

to manage the affected forest is baiting, and burning of trees and whole areas (Gawalko, no date).

The beetle management in parks and protected areas is a challenge because there are so many

things that need to be considered, the ecological integrity, acceptance from the public and that

the management options do not have negative impact on the visitors’ experience (McFarlane,

Stumpf-Allen and Watson, 2006).

In this report, several recommendations for mountain pine beetle management in BC

Parks are made. To involve the management of mountain pine beetle in the ecosystem

management plans, it is important to be able to follow what should be done and when. This has

been done in Mount Robson Provincial Park. The management plans should map the area which

would help beetle management in the future, by improving planning. In terms of information

required, research about people’s attitudes towards the mountain pine beetle showed that people

had little knowledge about the mountain pine beetle; few knew that the beetle was naturally

occurring in the national parks (McFarlane et al., 2006). Education and information is important

in order to get the public to know that a mountain pine beetle attack not always is a bad sign and

understanding of the best ways to prevent future attacks.


44

1.0 Introduction

The mountain pine beetle epidemic that is now affecting lodgepole pine forests in British

Columbia will have management implications for parks which want to maintain ecological

values and preventing the beetle from spreading (Gawalko, 2003). The mountain pine beetle

occurs naturally in British Columbia (Gawalko, no date; McFarlane et al., 2006), the quote above

suggest native species and alteration are part of the achievement and maintenance of ecological

integrity. This means that the pine beetle should be allowed to continue its infestations without

the interference of any management options (McFarlane et al., 2006).

Mild winters, natural beetle population cycles and a large quantity of mature lodgepole

pine forests as a result of fire suppression are all some factors that have caused the epidemic

(Gawalko, 2003). The mountain pine beetle is very aggressive and it kills nearly every large and

prevailing tree in a lodge pole pine stand (Amman and Baker, 1972). In British Columbia, about

4.2 million ha of land is attacked by the mountain pine beetle; 623,000 ha of these are located in

60 parks and protected areas (Gawalko, 2003). British Columbia’s provincial parks and protected

areas have never seen a natural disturbance this extensive. The beetle management in parks and

protected areas is a challenge though there are so many things that need to be considered, the

ecological integrity, acceptance from the public and that the management options do not have

negative impact on the visitors’ experience (McFarlane et al., 2006). This study shows the

background of both possibilities and challenges that parks will face during mountain pine beetle

management.


2.1 Literature Review

Mountain pine beetle is an endemic species in lodge pole pine stands in British Colombia

(Gawalko, no date; McFarlane et al, 2006). The normal process is small infestations; the

epidemic we see now is a result of warm weather and a large amount of suitable host trees.

Beetle infestations are not a new thing; they have been present in British Columbia for millennia

(Taylor and Carrol, no date). In the last century there have been four major outbreaks; each of

these outbreaks enlarged the total area affected by the beetle. The present infestation is the

largest one recorded in history.

Park management must balance the beetle control activities with the preservation of park

ideals; this makes beetle control in parks and protected areas more complicated than beetle


45

management in forests managed for timber values (Gawalko, no date). Even if the mountain pine

beetle attacks are thought to be a natural process in parks and protected areas, there might be a

need to do some management to stop the beetles from spreading to timber managed forests. Of

the control actions that are used in parks and protected areas in British Columbia, pheromone

baits are the most common. It is used to gather the beetles in small concentrations of trees and

then fall and burn the trees to kill the beetle larvae. In bigger beetle populations, a larger area can

be burned.

Burton (2006) states that the sight of dead of dead and dying trees are a big concern; for

most people there is a willingness to help the dying forest, both from forest operators and

environmental groups. Many people think that the parks are ecologically ruined after a mountain

pine beetle attack (Gawalko, no date). How to restore the forest is a big concern; the provincial

government has given $2.7 million to allay mountain pine beetle impacts in parks and protected

areas (Government of B.C. 2005, in Burton, 2006). Research, planning and sustainable

ecosystem supervision costs money for the park managers and they have to try to find funding

for this (Gawalko, no date). The government funds the management actions for the pine beetle in

parks and protected areas, with the main focus of preventing beetles from parks to spread to

forests on Crown lands.

These areas can not be harvested and managed by the forest industry but have to be

restored to protect species at risk (Burton, 2006). Productivity shifts from pure pine stands to

non-pine or non-tree species after a mountain pine beetle infestation. Previous mountain pine

beetle attacks show that stands has recovered with full but often irregular stockings (Hawkes et

al., 2004, in Burton, 2006). Pine stands often have an understory of shade tolerant species as

spruce, sub-alpine fir and Douglas-fir that starts to grow when the pine trees are dead and this

shows the ecosystems ability to restore itself. In Tweedsmuir Provincial Park, samplings from

the most beetle affected area show that understory and codominant tree species that grow under

the beetle killed trees will be a good forest in the future (Cichowski, 2000, in Gawalko, no date).

2.1.1 Cover Disappearance

When the mountain pine beetle affected tree dies, it loses all it needles, which affects the

canopy cover. This will affect the wildlife both at the stand level and at the landscape level

(Chan-McLeoyd, 2006). Animals prefer covered, continues, mature forested landscapes to move

in when searching for food or new habitats. Wildlife prefers large trees because of their big and


46

multifaceted crowns; these are the trees the pine beetles also favour. In forests with a mixed

species composition, the forest vertebrates should be able to get their requirements from spruce

or fir. In pure lodgepole pine stands that are very affected by the pine beetle, wildlife species that

depend on canopy cover (e.g., Townsend’s warbler, golden- crowned kinglet or marten) will

diminish or vanish from the area.

2.1.2 Hazard Tree Management

Standing dead trees provide nesting sites, important feeding substrates and habitat for

different kinds of vertebrates and invertebrates (Laudenslayer, 1997 in Shea et al., 2002). These

functions continue even after the tree falls down. Despite these positive functions, the standing

dead trees are also a potential danger for people that are in the forest (Rakochy and Hawkins,

2006). Trees start to fall down between three and twenty years after the attack (Keen 1955;

Harrington 1996; Mitchell and Preisler, 1998, in Rakochy and Hawkins, 2006). The more

moisture in the soil the higher fall rate the trees have (Lewis and Hartley, 2005 in Rakochy and

Hawkins, 2006). This calls for management in certain areas to ensure human safety (Rakochy

and Hawkins, 2006). Required management actions may include felling dangerous trees beside

often used trails, stubbing individual dangerous or suspected trees (stubbing is to cut trees in the

height of 3-5 meters), rerouting trails and relocating picnic tables.

2.1.3 Fire Management

Fire has been suppressed both in parks and in other forests in modern time. British

Columbia has 65% of mature lodge pole pine stands which are suitable for attacks by the

mountain pine beetle (Gawalko, no date). In a natural fire regime, an unmanaged lodge pole pine

stand, suitable stands for the mountain pine beetle, will reach a maximum of 25% in a 100-120

year fire cycle. This will diminish with more or less frequent fires (Taylor and Carrol, no date).

Prescribed fire will not stop the mountain pine beetle, but it will decrease its reproduction

up to 50% (Safranyik et al., 2001) and also it will diminish the risk for a high fire hazard in the

stands (Ross et al., no date).

2.1.4 Possibilities

Wildlife will often be positively affected in the remains of stands after a mountain pine

beetle attack (Chan-McLeoyd, 2006). Many birds have the mountain pine beetle as an important

food source, especially the tree-toed woodpecker and the black-backed woodpecker. A number

of studies prove that woodpecker populations increase after beetle epidemics due to an increased


47

food supply (Baldwin 1960; Koplin 1969, in Chan-McLeoyd, 2006). The trees are host for the

mountain pine beetles for one year, which also is the life cycle of the beetle (Chan-McLeoyd,

2006).

Chan-McLeoyd (2006) notes that “Dead and dying trees provides enhanced opportunities

for nesting, roosting, denning, perching, and foraging and will therefore support more wildlife

trees than live trees alone”. Birds and mammals use standing dead trees as nesting and denning

sites. Dead trees produce important habitat qualities such as bark slabs and downed wood; they

are also habitat for invertebrates and provide food storage for animals. More than 179 forest

vertebrates live on coarse woody debris in BC.

The increased light that reaches the forest floor after a mountain pine beetle infestation

makes a suitable habitat for deciduous shrubs, spruce and Douglas-fir (Hawkes et al., 2004, in

Chan-McLeoyd, 2006).

2.1.5 To Manage or Not to Manage?

Mountain Pine beetle are seen as a natural species in parks and protected areas; the

attacks contribute to a natural forest regeneration (Gawalko, no date). However, management of

the beetle can be needed to help prevent it to spread to forests managed for timber values.

Gawalko (no date) describes three beetle management problems in parks: a higher level of

planning usually is needed to protect unique values; affected areas usually are situated far from

roads; and forest inventories usually stops at the park borders which means no forest mapping is

available in the parks.

The Ministry of Forestry has a management strategy for the beetle infestation, which

includes management units. These units are divided in different levels of infestation (Gawalko,

no date). Beetle control in parks and protected areas is only done if they fall into these units. If

beetle control needs to be done it can not interference with the preservation of parks values. The

public response to beetle management is, according to McFarlane et al. (2006), that they feel it

was unacceptable to let the outbreak continue without doing anything to stop it. People in general

had a negative attitude to the beetle and they supported the management against mountain pine

beetle in parks.

Commercial logging, used in the timber managed forests to control the beetle, is not

allowed in parks. (Premiers Office, 2003 in Gawalko, no date) To log in a park would have

major ecological impacts. Much of the beetle affected forests are in remote areas far from roads


48

(Gawalko, no date). To reach this forest a network of roads would have to be built which would

affect the wilderness and recreation values in the park.

Beetle control in parks must be done to diminish direct impacts, preserve the nature of the

park and it should be done in a way that is close as possible to natural processes. (BC Parks,

1997 in Gawalko, no date) One method is to use pheromone baits that gather the beetles to a few

trees that will be felled down and then burned. Fifteen thousand beetle trees in 38 parks were

felled in the winter 2001/02. This is also the most acceptable way to mange the beetle, according

to the public respondents in a research made by McFarlane et al. (2006). If there are larger beetle

invasions in an area, prescribed burning over the whole area may be the best way to manage it

(BC Parks, 1997, in Gawalko, no date) McFarlane et al.’s (2006) research show that prescribed

burning is not supported by the public.

2.2 Research Approaches to Studying the Issue

In order to examine what it is that influence people’s knowledge, attitudes and support

towards mountain pine beetle management in parks, McFarlane et al. (2006) surveyed residents

in the Banff and Kootenay National Parks areas. The research was conducted via a questionnaire;

the respondents were located in three groups with different distance from the national parks.

They were questioned about demographic information, their knowledge and attitude about the

beetle, their environmental world view, their attitude towards management in parks and their

preference for beetle control in parks.

Rakochy and Hawkins (2006) studied the safest time for forest workers, recreationalists,

and First Nations to be in the forest after a mountain pine beetle attack according to hazard trees

and safety precautions. The study was made with 303 sample plots that were selected randomly

by the use of transects and fixed radius plots. Each mature tree at the plot was measured by

height, diameter at breast height and the species of the potential hazard trees were counted.

In order to understand the mountain pine beetles habitat needs, Elkin (2001) conducted

research in Kootenay National Park so assess if habitat choice changed with population density.

Five sites with different density were chosen; beetles were implanted in the trees and traps were

put on the trees. The trees were visited weekly and beetles caught in the traps were collected and

measured. The attack density was measured by counting the numbers of new entry holes.

In the creation of Mount Robson Ecosystem Management Plan the authors looked at a

hazard rating system made by Shore and Safranyik in 1992. The hazard system can analyze the


49

stand by looking at tree form, elevation, and density. These were compared with forest inventory

data. By comparing these factors, a potential mountain pine beetle productivity in Mount Robson

National Park was created.


1) Management Plans

To involve the management of mountain pine beetle in ecosystem management plans, it

is important to be able to follow what should be done and when. A good example of this is the

practical application in Mount Robson Provincial Park, British Columbia (Ross, et al., no date).

Beetle danger areas were mapped in a GIS and compared to the ecological management plan; the

result showed a direct danger to management objectives. The recommendation that came from

this was a development of a prescribed burn plan.

Gawalko (no date) writes that parks do not have areas mapped like the forest companies

have. Mapping areas with high beetle infestation within the park will help hazard tree

management in the future. It would also help to have the areas with high lodge pole pine content

mapped out for future management; this should be found in the management plan.

Removal of hazard trees should be done by stumping, not by felling the whole tree; a lot

of species depend on standing dead wood. The tree tops that are cut of should be left on the

ground to decompose in its own time. Suggestions on how, why and where to do this should be

in the management plan.

Trees killed by the mountain pine beetle can be a danger for people recreation in parks

when they start to fall down; this occurs between 3-20 years (Rakochy & Hawkins, 2006). This

has to be supervised by park managers, which have to remove or stump trees in the area where

people are recreating.

2) Information

McFarlane et al. (2006) researched peoples’ attitudes towards the mountain pine beetle. It

showed that people had little knowledge about the mountain pine beetle; few knew that the

beetle was naturally occurring in national parks. This shows that information is an important

aspect in the mountain pine beetle management, especially since so many people think that the

affected forests are ecologically devastated. Information signs should be put up in the parks and

information papers should be available. BC Parks have information about pine beetle on its web

site now, which is useful. When stump cutting is performed near trails or campsites, it is


50

important to inform people why it is done and what animals that can benefit from that stump.

Prescribed burning, according to McFarlane et al. (2006) is still not supported by the public, but

it has significant meaning for ecosystem variability. It will not just help to prevent this mountain

pine beetle attack: it will also put the forest to a more natural diversity species composition that

was there before the fire suppression started. Education about this should be done!

4.0 Conclusion

Park managers must balance the beetle control activities with the preservation of park

legislation and policy (Gawalko, no date). The mountain pine beetle infestations are a natural

process that has affected British Colombia for millennia; this outbreak is the most severe

(Taylor, and Carrol, no date). This outbreak is caused by a number of things such as mild

winters, natural beetle population cycles and a large quantity of mature lodge pole pine forests

(Gawalko, no date). The large amount of large quantity forests is related to years of fire

suppression.

Management of pine beetle includes baiting and burning of single trees or prescribed

burning over a big area. This can increase reproduction up to 50% (Safranyik et al 2001) and

also it will diminish the risk for a high fire hazard in the stands (Ross et al., no date).

Even if the mountain pine beetle killed trees looks ecologically devastated, they serve a

living for many species. Both birds and mammals live in the trees, and after the tree has fallen

down, many vertebrates live in the wood.

References

Amman, G.D. and Baker, B.H (1972). Mountain Pine Beetle influence on lodgepole pine stand

structure. Journal of Forestry, 70, 204-213.

Burton, P.J. (2006). Restoration of forests attacked by mountain pine beetle: Misnomer,

misdirected, or must-do? BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management.7(2), 1-

10.

Chan-McLeoyd, A.C.A (2006). A review and synthesis of the effects of unsalvaged

mountain-pine-beetle attacked stands on wildlife and implications for forest

management. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management. 7(2), 119-132.

Elkin, C. (2001). Does habitat choice by Mountain Pine Beetle vary with population

density? Research Links 9(1),8-11.


51

Gawalko, L. (no date). Management of the mountain pine beetle epidemic in British

Columbia’s parks and protected areas. Environmental Stewardship Division, Parks and

Protected Areas Branch, Victoria, B.C

Gawalko, L. (2003).. Mountain Pine Beetle Management in British Columbia Parks and

Protected Areas. Mountain Pine Beetle Symposium: Challenges and Solutions.

October 30-31, 2003, Kelowna, BC. Information Report BC-X-399. Natural

Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, BC.

McFarlane, B.L., Stumpf-Allen, C.G. and Watson, D.O. (2006). Public perceptions of

natural disturbances in Canada’s national park: The case of mountain pine beetle

(Dendroctonus pondaerosa Hopkins). Biological Conservation 130(3), 340-348.

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Parks Division. (2001). Mount Robson Ecosystem

Management Plan. Occasional Paper No. 6. BC Parks, Ministry of Environment,

Lands and Parks: Victoria, BC.

Rakochy, P. and Hawkins, C. (2006). Wildlife/danger tree assessment in unharvested stands

attacked by mountain pine beetle in the central interior of British Columbia. BC

Journal of Ecosystems and Management. 7(2), 72-80.

Ross, G., Blackwell, B., Needoba, A. and Steele, F. (no date). Ecosystem-based

management: practical application in Mount Robson Provincial Park, British

Columbia. BC Parks, Prince George District Office.

Taylor, S.W and Carrol, A.L. (2004). Disturbance, forest Age, and mountain pine beetle

outbreak dynamics in BC: a historical perspective. Mountain Pine Beetle Symposium:

Challenges and Solutions. October 30-31, 2003, Kelowna, BC. Information Report BC-X-

399. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre:

Victoria, BC.

Safranyik, L, Linton, D.A., Shore, T.L and Hawkes, B.C (2001). The effects of prescribed

burning on mountain pine beetle in lodge pole pine. Information report BC-

X391. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry

Centre.

Shea, P.J., Laudenslayer, Jr. W.F., Ferrel, G. and Borys, R. (2002). Girdled vs. Bark Beetle

Created Ponderosa Pine Snags: Utilization by Cavity-dependent Species and

Differences in Decay rate and Insect Diversity. USDA Forest Service Gen.


52

Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR 181.

Woodley, S. (2002). Planning and Managing for Ecological Integrity in Canadian National

Parks. In P. Dearden and R. Rollins (eds.), Parks and Protected Areas in

Canada: Planning and Management (pp.97-114). Oxford University Press:

Toronto.


53

Chapter 5

Sustainable Tourism and BC Parks

Shannon Davies

Executive Summary

British Columbia is “a region of immense natural and cultural wealth and beauty,

containing a rich diversity of ecotourism attractions” (CEC 2000). The increasing numbers of

visitors to these regions can lead to their deterioration (CEC 200). With the Olympics fast

approaching, these numbers will increase substantially. This “degradation and loss of diversity

in these areas will eliminate the very attractions that draw travelers and provide revenue to the

industry” (CEC 2000). It is a crucial time in BC to incorporate long-term park planning.

It is important to develop and promote tourism that will be sustainable and

environmentally sound if we want to continue to take pride upon British Columbia’s

opportunities. Responsible development and proper management of ‘sustainable tourism’ and

niches such as ecotourism in natural areas will benefit the economy and environment of British

Columbia (CEC 2000). This report provides a brief background, definition, and importance of

sustainable tourism and ecotourism within BC.

This report also discusses the importance of the sustainable tourism industry and outlines

six recommendations for the government of BC and its parks managers: (1) reduce energy usage

in new and upcoming park facilities and establishments; (2) strongly promote waste and

pollution reduction programs and actions; (3) develop a common understanding of the term

sustainable tourism and ecotourism; (4) increase funding, research, and enforcement toward

environmentally sustainable tourism; (5) maintain public participation in planning and

development processes; and (6) consolidate environmentally friendly policy.

1.0 Overview

The tourism industry is currently the world’s largest and one of the fastest growing (CEC,

2000). In the Americas for example, the regional share of total world income from tourism in

1993 represented thirty percent of the world market (CEC, 2000). In British Columbia, the


54

tourism industry generated $9.4 billion in revenues just in 2004, with a gross domestic profit of

$5 billion (BC Government, 2005). Tourism in BC is the third largest sector after retail trade and

construction (BC Government, 2005).

Tourism is a highly valued part of global and regional economies, and one highly

promoted by all three North American countries (CEC 2000). There is a great deal of evidence

that “many forms of traditional tourist development cause varying degrees of harm to the

environment, as well as to local populations” (CEC 2000); especially in areas of natural beauty

and in small communities of cultural significance.

British Columbia is “a region of immense natural and cultural wealth and beauty,

containing a rich diversity of ecotourism attractions” (CEC, 2000). It is important to note that

the increasing numbers of visitors to these regions can lead to their deterioration (CEC, 2000).

This “degradation and loss of diversity in these areas will eliminate the very attractions that draw

travelers and provide revenue to the industry” (CEC, 2000). It is important to develop and

promote new ways of tourism that will be sustainable and environmentally sound if we want to

continue to take pride upon British Columbia’s natural beauty and nature-tourism opportunities.

Responsible development and proper management of ‘sustainable tourism’ in BC’s natural areas

will benefit the economy; it also has the potential to provide important financial resources to

some of Canada’s poorest regions (CEC, 2000).

British Columbia’s Ministry of Tourism acknowledges that “the need to plan for the

sustainability of tourism is growing in importance, as British Columbia works to make the most

of future environmental, economic and social changes” (BC Government, 2005). In one of

British Columbia’s current planning statements it also stated that:

• “The ministry can work with its partners to increase forms of high-yield

tourism.

• The ministry will carry out activities directed at encouraging tourism

investment and economic development.

• It will provide leadership and advocacy to stimulate strategic planning and

investments in the sector, optimal use of crown lands to support resort

development and commercial recreation, increased opportunity to attract

high-yield tourism and promotion of long term sustainability of the sector.


55

• …focusing its activities on accelerating economic development in key

sectors such as tourism, resorts and public outdoor recreation” (BC

Government, 2005).

It seems that a lot of focus is towards economic growth and the promotion of tourism in BC, with

little focus on environmental protection. With this promotion and increase in tourism there can

be a downside. More promotion means more people, and more people mean more deterioration

of the environment.

A long-term goal needs to be followed in sustaining this environment (IUCN, 1996).

More development of environmentally sound options needs to take place. Although the

promotion of sustainable tourism and options like green tourism and ecotourism are not the only

answer, it is a good niche to partake in when possible. It is also proven to attract a significant

number of tourists compared to regular tourism, as people are interested in helping to maintain

the environment (McCool, 1994). It should be noted that nature travel is the fastest growing

sector in the tourism business; estimates of its growth vary between 10 and 30 percent per year

(CEC, 2000). Eco-tourism is, in part, nature-tourism; therefore it has a possibility for success.


Sustainable Tourism

Limiting the negative impacts of tourism on the natural and cultural environment is

important (Royal Roads University, no date); this can be done through “the responsible use of

resources, effective waste management and minimizing of pollution” (Royal Roads University,

no date). These actions are important when planning for sustainable tourism, but first it is

necessary to understand the concept of sustainable tourism:

� ”Sustainable tourism actively fosters appreciation and stewardship of the

natural, cultural and historic resources and special places by local

residents, the tourism industry, governments and visitors. It is tourism that

is viable over the long term because it results in benefits for the social,

economic, natural and cultural environments of the areas where it takes

place.” (Royal Roads University, no date).

� “Sustainable Tourism meets the needs of present tourist and host regions

while protecting and enhancing opportunity for the future. It is envisaged as


56

leading to management of all resources in such a way that economic, social

and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity,

essential ecological processes, biological diversity, and life-support

systems” (CEC, 2000).

Another very common definition of sustainability is that it meets the needs of the present

without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (IUCN, 1996).

“There are three aspects of development that need to be sustained: economic, social and

environmental” (McCool 1994); for the purpose of this paper, we will concentrate on the

environmental aspects.

Ecotourism

In tourism, “sustainability is frequently associated with discussions of ‘ecotourism’ and

nature-based tourism” (McCool, 1994). Ecotourism is a type of nature based tourism (Wood,

2002). It has been studied as a sustainable development tool by development experts and

academics since 1990 (McCool, 1994).

Ecotourism is also described as ‘responsible travel to natural areas’ that “conserves the

environment and sustains the well being of local people” (McCool, 1994). While ecotourism has

the potential to create positive environmental, social, and economical impacts it can be as

damaging as mass tourism if not done properly. Since ecotourism is usually done in pristine,

fragile ecosystems it “runs the risk of destroying the very environmental assets in which it

depends” (Wood, 2002).

Many global environmental organizations and agencies favour ecotourism as a vehicle to

sustainable development (Wikipedia, 2006), but the “concept of ecotourism is widely

misunderstood and, in practice, is often simply used as a marketing tool to promote tourism that

is related to nature” (Wikipedia, 2006). Critics claim that “ecotourism often consists of placing a

hotel in a splendid landscape” (cited in Wikipedia, 2006), which leads to damage of that

ecosystem. Some operators use the label of "ecotourism" and "green-friendly" to promote their

tour, while behaving in environmentally capricious ways (Wikipedia, 2006).

It is said that true ecotourism should adopt the following criteria:


57

� Conservation (and justification for conservation) of biological diversity and

cultural diversity, through ecosystems protection

� Promotion of sustainable use of biodiversity, by providing jobs to local

populations

� Sharing of socio-economic benefits with local communities and indigenous

people by having their informed consent and participation in the

management of ecotourism enterprises.

� Increase of environmental & cultural knowledge

� Minimization of tourism's own environmental impact

� Affordability and lack of waste in the form of luxury

� Local culture, flora and fauna being the main attractions (Wikipedia, 2006).

Responsible ecotourism includes “programs that minimize the adverse effects of

traditional tourism on the natural environment, and enhance the cultural integrity of local people”

(Wikipedia, 2006). Therefore, “initiatives by hospitality providers to promote (and engage in)

recycling, energy efficiency, water re-use, and the creation of economic opportunities for local

communities is an integral part of ecotourism” (Wikipedia, 2006).

The responsibility of environmentally sustainable tourism is important in BC parks,

especially with the new fixed roof accommodation proposals now under-way in twelve of BC

parks (BC Parks, 2006). This new private-for-profit development will increase the chances of

negative impacts to BC’s pristine environment and ecological integrity (WCWC, 2006),

especially if not managed carefully. Ecotourism can allow for positive and successful

management guidelines in these areas, especially to international investors who may not fully

understand the sensitive ecosystems within BC.

The fast approaching Olympics in 2010 is also an important issue in British Columbia.

With the Olympics will follow a huge increase in visitors and developments in BC (BC

Government, 2004). The growth of tourism involved with the Olympics is starting now, and will

carry on well past the Games (BC Government, 2004); this puts strain on the environment in a

number of ways. More wastes, pollutions, degradation, etc. will accompany these visitors. The

promotion of going green and following environmentally safe initiatives within and among BC

parks boundaries will come of importance, and is an asset when planning for sustainability.


58

2.2 Research

Sustainable Tourism

A “serious lack of strong data pertaining to the market characteristics of the sustainable-

tourism industry, and the lack of ‘agreed upon’ or the lack in consistency of definitions and

terminology dampen collective efforts to promote sustainable tourism” (CEC, 2000). There is

“no agreed-upon definition, set of criteria, list of indicators, or single recognized seal or

certification system for sustainable tourism in North America” (CEC, 2000).

The Commission of Environmental Conservation recognizes that “it would be more

useful to define the parameters of sustainable tourism and to set out principles to guide

sustainable practices in the tourism sector than to seek an agreed-upon definition of the term”

(CEC, 2000). There is “a need for a common North American and British Columbian

understanding of the guiding principles of sustainable tourism” (CEC, 2000) with-in

organizations and with-in the field. The Commission of Environmental Conservation is currently

beginning the production of an abstract set of criteria for in North America (CEC, 2000),

“highlighting the common elements of different criteria sets” (CEC, 2000). This project will also

“assemble examples of best practices that put principles and criteria for sustainable tourism, into

action” (CEC, 2000). This would be beneficial for BC Parks to take into account, so all of

Canada can be on the same page when planning for sustainable tourism; it will help change the

complexity of the issue when the definition and understanding of the term is shared.

Various management tools exist and have been tried out to achieve and guide sustainable

tourism development in natural areas. Among the best practices for sustainable tourism

development are “intersectoral collaboration and public participation, environmental impact

assessments, land use planning and zoning, and indicators” (CEC, 2000). Currently BC engages

in the majority of these practices when panning for development, but could and should make use

of them even more. Often some of these tools are neglected; for example, the allowance of the

new fixed roof accommodation proposals have been implemented without full public

consultation (WCWC, 2006). An increase in public participation could have provided different

knowledge, ideas, and views for sustainable planning among these developments.

Ecotourism

In 2002 the global importance of the issue regarding to sustainable tourism was raised by

the United Nations, by claiming that year as the ‘international year of ecotourism’ (Wood, 2002).


59

Many conferences of the parties of the UN Convention on Biological Diversities realized that

with the growing interests in nature tourism, ecotourism can have its benefits not only

economically, but conservation wise as well (Wood, 2002).

According to the fifth meeting at a convention on biological diversity, “ecotourism has a

unique role to play in educating travelers about the value of a healthy environment and biological

diversity” (Wood, 2002). Although it was noted that proper and strict planning needs to be done;

otherwise it can threaten biological diversity (Wood 2002). It is shown that businesses,

government, non-governmental organizations, and local communities must be involved in its

planning and implementation (Wood, 2002). It is also shown that local communities have the

most at stake; therefore, they need to be fully involved and educated on its implementation

(Wood, 2002).

The World Ecotourism summit in 2002 in Quebec came to some important conclusions

worth noting:

• Ecotourism works and benefits the local communities, enhances conservation

efforts, and is a sustainable way of tourism development.

• In order to make people participate in ecotourism, and most importantly not to

disturb the culture and the natural environment, there is a need of community

support, encouraging joint venture and partnership and most importantly,

communication, education and awareness

• There is an importance of certification and labeling of ecotourism businesses, as it

creates a marketing purpose allowing those who have the certificate to sell their

products better.

• There are frequent conflicts between national policies and planning of

development to that of environmental protection.

• Auditing, licensing and providing liability insurance to ecotourism business is

also a way to measure success in the business as well as providing a safety net as

well. (Wood, 2002).

These findings are important when looking at the current developments, and possible growth of

this industry, within BC Parks. It states clearly that ecotourism can prove to be a sustainable way


60

of tourism if planned and managed properly and if some if its challenges are addressed (e.g.,

conflicts between policies).

3.0 Recommendations

1. Reduce Energy Use

It is no secret that energy consumption is becoming a big concern throughout the

world. The population is rising, and the demand for energy is increasing. There is strain

on the world’s resources and overall ecology (IUCN, 1996). It is Canada’s, and British

Columbia’s, responsibility being that of a developed nation to do all that it can to

encourage the conservation of energy in parks campgrounds, businesses, resorts etc. This

includes striving for energy efficient light bulbs, heating systems, cooling systems,

transport, bathing utilities etc. (CWDT, 1995) in already existing establishments and

enforcing this approach to any new developments.

2. Highly Promote Waste & Pollution Reduction Programs

Another recommendation is to limit waste to implement recycling programs in

parks campgrounds, businesses, rest stops, etc for all recyclable wastes (CWDT, 1995).

There are many other wastes that can be recycled, besides the current concentration on

drink containers; such as, newspapers, plastic containers, milk jugs, cardboard, etc.

(CWDT, 1995). Another important waste that can be disposed of differently is food

wastes. A large number of food wastes can be generated especially among resorts.

Incorporating a compost program can limit this waste as well as provide environmentally

friendly fertilizer for the surrounding soils (IUCN, 1996).

Sometimes the promotion of recycling and waste reduction is not enough; it needs

to become a priority when planning for sustainable tourism. The use of levies on all

recyclable materials, or such things as tax credits rewarded to optimal

recycling/reduce/reuse programs amongst stakeholders will provide more incentive for

people to take part in such a program (Conservation International [CI], 1999). Enforcing

fines for littering and improper disposal of wastes, and passing more eco-friendly

development proposals can give incentive for more developers to adopt an

environmentally friendly approach (CI, 1999); otherwise, they have the possibility of

losing out on future proposals.


61

Increase in tax breaks or financial support towards pollution control equipment, recycling

plants and gray water systems, or other technology such as solar and wind energy systems could

also be implemented (CI, 1999)) This type of incentive may be necessary if firms are either

unwilling or unable to pay for changes (CI, 1999).

It may also be useful to educate tourists on ways they can reduce wastes and become

more eco-friendly; such as promoting the re-use of drink and food containers and bags, using

biodegradable soaps, not burning garbage, recycling, using better disposal methods, etc. (IUCN,

1996).

3. Develop a Common Understanding of Ecotourism

The task of planning projects that are aimed toward the conservation of nature will be

more difficult without a system that efficiently collects, shares, and disseminates information on

the tourism industry (CEC, 2000). One of the problems today is that not all mangers separate

nature tourism from conventional tourism in their accounts (CEC, 2000). Managers should work

towards defining and separating all types of tourism. There is a lack of consensus or consistency

in the definition of terms; therefore, “recognizing, promoting and managing ‘sustainable tourism’

requires that there be some mutual understanding of the meaning of the term” among all types of

stakeholders nationally and internationally (CEC 2000).

4. More Funding & More Research and More Enforcement

The United Nations Environment Programme suggests that eventually guiding codes for

sustainable development may “need to become, to some degree, enforceable if they are to

become primary management tools” (Wood, 2002). Another factual need is that of an accurate

baseline of information concerning environmental degradation caused by tourists (Wood, 2002).

There also needs to be more market research, although the market characteristics of

ecotourism, nature tourism and sustainable tourism are difficult to measure (CEC, 2000). There

is a serious lack of data about the market characteristics of the industry (CEC, 2000). No

definitive studies exist “explaining the specific demand for ecotourism from conventional

tourism in North America” (CEC, 2000). Therefore, there is “a critical need for more information

on tourism in general, and on the different ‘branches’ of the industry” (CEC, 2000), particularly

ecotourism and nature tourism.

More research needs to be done, and more funding needs to be provided to help

carry out this research, and incorporate its findings.


62

5. Maintain Public Participation

It is vital that “the public and private sectors are both involved in all discussions

regarding sustainable tourism development so as to balance the economic aspects of the industry,

with the need to protect environmental resources” (CEC, 2000). Public participation in

sustainable tourism is also achieved through training and education projects for local

communities (CEC, 2000).

It is of crucial importance that “indigenous communities are involved in aspects of the

sustainable tourism development process, from meetings and conferences to the management and

ownership of operations, including the provision of training and education” (CEC, 2000).

“Indigenous peoples often possess an intimate knowledge of local ecosystems, and can make

unique and valuable contributions to the sustainable management of natural resources” (CEC,

2000).

6. Adopt Advice from Environmentally Friendly Policy

Politicians often have different views and different standards when it comes to the tourism

industry. It is best to consolidate leaders that have appreciation and understanding of the

environment as a whole, not just the economic baseline of tourism. For example, the Green Party

of Canada has many policies that can provide exceptional advice when planning for sustainable

tourism. Some of these planning suggestions include:

• Develop and adopt codes of conduct for ecologically and socially sustainable tourism

practices;

• Develop more targeted marketing opportunities for BC's ecotourism operators;

• Conduct early and “thorough” environmental and social impact assessments;

• Ensure that development is appropriate to the specific location (doesn’t take away from

the ecological integrity);

• Design an environmental and social strategy to guide operations;

• Use and dispose of resources in an efficient and responsible manner;

• Minimize the negative impact of tourist activity on local ecosystems and cultures;

• Increase public sector capacity to manage and regulate the tourism sector; and

• Enact environmental and social “legislation” to guide development (GPC, 2005).


63

4.0 Conclusion

British Columbia's natural resources attract visitors from all over the world. The

“continued success of tourism as a sustainable industry in BC is dependent on its ability to access

and responsibly utilize the land, water and air resources of the province” (COTABC, no date).

As the supply of natural areas decreases, the value placed on these resources will continue to

increase (COTABC, no date). It seems that when looking at certain management plans or

tourism strategies (such as the 2010 tourism strategy) written by the BC government, the focus is

on the economic values and the need for increases in tourism capabilities, utilization, and

visitors; environmental protection is often put on the back-burner, even in protected areas.

Since BC’s tourism value is so high in parks, it is not impossible to develop stricter

guidelines with new developments, especially among private stakeholders. In fact, if stakeholders

want to compete for a new development initiative they will pay what they need to, regardless of

the environmental guidelines. People around the world know the economic tourist potential among

BC, private developers will incorporate whatever sustainable actions we ask of them with their

development proposals, or the next person in line will.

Is it too much to strive for, in a world full of increasing environmental problems, to

preserve our protected lands to our fullest capability? Make recycling/reduce/reuse programs,

energy efficient products, non-polluting tours and accommodations a law amongst new tourism

developments. Sustainability means leaving this province in a state that does not compromise the

needs of the future. If we leave our parks polluted and degraded, it is immoral, unethical, and

irresponsible.

By encouraging travelers, stakeholders, and park employees to behave in an

environmentally responsible way, and by offering travelers the opportunity to participate in

conservation or preservation projects, the path to sustainable tourism and eco-tourism can be

successful. It is important to remember the importance of education in this type of project. The

goal among many eco-tourism companies is that “through participation, eco travelers will return

home with increased awareness and concern for environmental issues and therefore continue to

behave in an environmentally conscious way” (EcoTour, 2006).

The “overriding concern for tourism is: to enhance rather than degrade tourism's core

product - land, water and air resources” (COTABC, no date). Ecotourism has been realized to

have a potential importance in sustainable development, and market research shows that eco-


64

tourists are particularly interested in wilderness settings and pristine areas (McCool, 1994).

“Many global environmental organizations and aid agencies favour ecotourism as a vehicle to

sustainable development” (Royal Roads University, no date), and there is vast amounts of

written material suggesting positive approaches towards environmentally sustainable tourism

that should be taken into account.

References

BC Parks. (2006). Fixed roof accommodation guidelines. Available at

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/fixed_roof/fixed_roof_accomm_dev_guide_06.pdf

(accessed Nov 23, 2006).

Commission for Environmental Cooperation. (May 2000). Promoting Sustainable Tourism in

North America’s Natural Areas: The Steps Forward. Montreal. Available at

http://www.cec.org/files/pdf/ECONOMY/sustaine_EN.pdf (accessed Nov 20, 2006).

Commonwealth Department of Tourism. (1995). Best Practice: Ecotourism. A guide to energy

and waste management. Commonwealth of Australia.

Conservation International. (1999). The Green Host Effect: An integrated approach to

sustainable tourism and resort development. Washington, DC: Conservation

International.

Council of Tourism Associations of BC. (no date). Creating Sound Environmental Practices.

Vancouver, BC. Available at http://www.cotabc.com/policy/land_and_resources.aspx

(accessed Nov 30, 2006).

EcoTour Directory. (2006). Environmental issues. Available at

http://www.ecotourdirectory.com/ecotourism/index.php (accessed Nov 28, 2006).

Government of British Columbia. Sept 2005) Service Plan Update:

Ministry of Tourism. Available at http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/

2005_Sept_Update/sp/tsa/StrategicContext4.htm (accessed Nov 24, 2006).

Government of British Columbia. (2004). Spirit of 2010 Tourism Strategy. Available at

http://www.ecdev.gov.bc.ca/ProgramsAndServices/Tourism/SUMMIT.pdf (accessed

Nov 28, 2006).

Green Party of Canada. (2005). Green Book: Expand Tourism and Ecotourism. Available at

http://www.greenparty.bc.ca/frames/frame404.html (accessed Nov 23, 2006).


65

International Union for Conservation of Nature. (1996). Tourism, Ecotourism, and Protected

Areas. Gland: IUCN.

McCool, S.F. (1994). Linking Tourism, the Environment, and Concepts of Sustainability:

Setting the Stage. National Recreation and Park Association. Minneapolis.

Royal Roads University. (no date). Hatley Park: Our Tourism Vision. Victoria, BC. Available at

http://www.hatleypark.ca/ (accessed Nov 30, 2006).

Wikipedia Encyclopedia. (Nov 2006). Ecotourism. Available at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-tourism (accessed Nov 23, 2006).

Wood, M.E. (2002). Ecotourism. Principles, Practices and Policies for Sustainability. Gland:

United Nations.


66

Recreation Conflict Management in

Parks and Protected Areas

Rhona Dulay

Executive Summary

Recreation conflict is common in all types of protected areas; it needs to be constantly

managed and planned in order for visitors to enjoy their outdoor recreation experiences. Various

studies have been undertaken in the past 20 years investigating the phenomenon of recreation

conflict. These studies range from specific user group interactions to social versus interpersonal

value conflicts. Many of these studies have resulted in the compilation of various models to help

recognize the occurrence of conflicts and predict when it will occur. The result has been an

increase in awareness and knowledge as well as the establishment of better management tactics

in parks. Public participation in the planning processes and monitoring of policies currently in

place has resulted in the refinement of principles and approaches. Those plans in place today

will only aid in the enhancement of future conflict strategies. It is recommended that BC Parks

should:

1. maintain open channels of communication between users and managers;

2. promote/develop alternative recreation opportunities;

3. redistribute users spatially and/or temporally;

4. establish a working code of ethics for outdoor recreation in protected areas;

5. more actively enforce proper behaviour in protected areas;

6. legally designate use areas by activity;

7. implement a carrying capacity process to minimize recreation conflict in high use

areas;

8. increase public participation in the decision-making process to ensure transparency in

different planning stages;

9. increase funding to ensure appropriate levels of management and staff; and

10. educate the public on the issue of recreation conflict.


67

1.0 Overview and Scope of Recreation Conflict

Recreation conflict, with respect to outdoor activities associated with parks and protected

areas in British Columbia, will only increase as a result of rising demand for area usage.

According to the “Crown Land Recreational Conflict Documentation for the Ft. St. James,

Vanderhoof, Prince George, and Robson Valley LRMP Areas” (CLRC, 2002), B.C. provincial

forests experienced 45 million visitor-days from residents alone in 1993, and out of province

recreationalists contributed an additional eight million visitor-days. According to B.C. Parks,

63,074 reservations for 3,592 campsites were received for 67 parks in 2005. In British Columbia

as of July 28, 2006, there were 852 Provincial parks and protected areas encompassing a total of

13.09 million hectares (roughly 13.8% of the provincial land base). A British Columbia

residents’ survey conducted by the Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection (MWLAP, 2002)

stated that 53% of residents visited and/or utilized a Provincial park in 2001. Factors that can

attribute to these trends include the corollary of outdoor activity with better health and quality of

life and the growth of urban centres creating a heightened demand for genuine wilderness

experiences.

Recreation conflict can be defined as goal interference (the obstruction of goal

attainment) created by another individual or group of individuals, a feeling(s) of intimidation by

an individual or group of individuals or for their property, or a strain on a visitors ability to cope

with the stress that arises from a conflict or confrontational situation; it can be a cumulative

versus simply a reactive response (Hammitt and Schneider, 2000). It has also been noted that

conflict may be a result of a direct or an indirect encounter (Confer, Thapa, and Mendelsohn,

2005). It has been an emerging issue for the last 20 years, resulting in negative interactions

which managerial bodies have strived to study, understand, and resolve (Schneider, 2004).

According to Hammitt and Schneider (2000), there have been four eras of recreation

conflict that have been identified by park and protected area managers since the 1950s: user

activity-space allocation, perception-cause, institution-public involvement, and coping-

resolution. User activity-space allocation took place during the 1950s and 1960s when

recreation activity was on the rise and more people were competing for usage of leisure areas.

Managers tried to identify any activity as well as any spatial and/or temporal incompatibilities

which could potentially result in conflict thus separating activities which could not coexist. The

perception-cause era occurred during the 1970s and recognized the significance of human


68

behavior and/or differences and psychological perceptions with respect to conflict. Management

attempted to focus on social characteristics and identify probable contributory factors such as

motivational differences and the range of demands as well as the experience of the users. The

establishment of the recreational opportunity spectrum (ROS) can be attributed to the perception-

cause era (1970s). ROS consists of models and educational programs for both visitors and

management staff aimed at conflict prevention targeting user behaviour (Hammitt and Schneider,

2000). The third era, the institutional-public involvement era, continued into the 1980s, initiating

public involvement in decision-making and planning processes by managing bodies. Value

differences held by recreation classes was examined and used to implement proactive planning

strategies in an attempt to open communication with the public and avert conflicts before they

had a chance to occur. Hammitt and Schneider (2000) identify the current coping-resolution era

as one involving the investigation of how visitors cope in response to conflict and how conflict

can be resolved. Management now recognizes the importance of public participation as a

collaborative process rather than merely an input in the decision-making process.

As participation in and popularity of outdoor recreation activities continues to escalate,

conflict between recreating groups is unavoidable and may subsequently increase in occurrence

(Confer et al., 2005). Improvements in technology coupled with accessibility to parks and

protected areas by more feasible and convenient means result in more people utilizing recreation

areas. The obligation for the management of conflict ensues due to limited outdoor recreation

and park supply.

According to the “Economic Benefits of British Columbia’s Provincial Parks” (MWLAP,

2001), provincial parks in B.C. bear economic significance provincially and nationally; more

than 90% of total expenditures on parks were from park visitors. The Canadian Parks and

Wilderness Society (CPAWS, 2006) claims since 1993, the budget for BC Parks has remained

constant while the number of parks in B.C. has doubled. More funding should be re-circulated

into BC Provincial Parks to help promote awareness by providing better management plans, for

example. One can obtain management plans for specific parks in British Columbia: however,

not all established parks have an official management plan.

According to the “Tourism British Columbia: Annual Report 2005/06” (TBC, 2006),

various strategies are proposed to double tourism in B.C. by 2015. In September of 2004,

Premier Gordon Campbell announced a budget increase to $50 million for Tourism BC (TBC,


69

2006). With the upcoming influence of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, the Province of B.C.

should expect a major influx of outdoor recreation participants in park and protected areas in the

near future.

2.0 Current State of Knowledge of Recreation Conflict

The following is a summary of various literature pertaining to the issue of recreation

conflict: what it is defined as, models developed, the various types and causes, and suggested

management strategies established as a result.

According to Vaske, Coruthers, Donnelly, and Baird (2000), when different user groups

use the same resource or recreation area, recreation conflict may occur. Recreation conflict can

also be defined as a “phenomenon (which) typically occurs when people engaged in traditional

activities (e.g. skiers) interact with those using newer technologies (e.g. snowboarders)” in the

same resource or resource area (Vaske et al., 2000, p. 297).

Recreation conflict was viewed in the past as the competition between users and/or user

groups over the same resources taking their incompatibilities into direct consideration (Confer et

al., 2005). Conflicts which can arise were a result of various factors such as noise and/or

physical presence as well as ensuing feelings of nuisance and/or stress. The intensity of the

conflicts may vary and appear in many ways causing detrimental effects on the recreationist(s).

According to Vitters, Chipeniuk, Skar, and Vistad (2004), recreational conflicts that do reach

fruition are commonly asymmetrical (i.e., perceived by a single group); for example, cross-

country skiers possess negative feelings towards snowmobilers, but not vice versa.

Recreation conflict can also take place as in-group (within the same recreational activity)

and out-group (outside the same recreational activity) categories. For example, Thapa and

Graefe (2003) discovered that skiers and snowboarders experienced both types of group conflict.

Skiers with less skill were subject to more in-group conflict than those with a higher skill level.

In general, more out-group conflict pressure was felt by skiers as a result of the behavior or

presence of snowboarders (Thapa and Graefe, 2003).

Recreation conflict can be a result of the inability of a visitor or group of visitors to

achieve a goal(s) associated with performing a specific activity. The goals, which may be social,

psychological, and/or physical, may hold great importance to a visitor and motivate an individual

to perform a particular activity: this concept is referred to as goal orientation (Gibbons and

Ruddell, 1995). The concept of goal orientation suggests that performing a particular activity


70

will aid in the attainment of the preferred goal. When the direct or indirect behaviour of another

individual hinders the experience and/or the goal attainment of goals of another individual

engrossed in an activity, conflict may be a result (Gibbons and Ruddell, 1995). Outdoor

recreation goal types can be separated into activity-based goals (experiencing the euphoria

associated with an activity) or setting-based backcountry goals (experiencing nature and

solitude). Crowding can also contribute to conflict due to the occurrence of goal interference

(Gibbons and Ruddell, 1995).

Confer, Thapa, and Mendelsohn (2005) suggest conflict occurs at differing levels: low

level (Type I) or visual contact conflict results from initial contact or seeing users, mid-level

(Type II) or encounters conflict is provoked by indirect or direct contact with other users, and

high level (Type III) or avoidance and impact conflict is dictated with outright evasion of other

users thus preventing any sort of association.

Outdoor recreational conflicts can range from generalized to situation-specific in context

and can exist concurrently or be integrated having negative synergistic effects. Although only

one variable need be present in order for conflict to occur, the existence of a number of different

variables may dictate whether or not recreation conflict comes to fruition or not in various

situations (Confer et al., 2005). A number of models have been suggested by various

individuals. These models have aided in the establishment of conflict types, their determinants,

and management strategies for conflict resolution. The following includes a brief description of

three of these models.

Various authors (e.g., Schneider and Hammitt, 1995; Vaske et al., 2000; Confer, Brijesh,

and Mendelsohn, 2005) have cited Jacob and Schreyer’s goal interference model. This model

identifies four factors which can contribute to conflict in a recreation setting. Activity style refers

to the significance the individual attaches to the activity including various experiences with the

activity, participation intensity, and skill level. Resource specificity identifies the meaning of the

resource area or specific resource being used to perform an activity including feelings of

possessiveness of or relationship with the resource or resource area and the range of experience.

The degree of focus on the environment whilst performing the activity held by the individual is

referred to as the mode of experience; this can either be focused (determined by details and

scenery) or unfocused (determined by preoccupation with physical movement). The final factor,


71

tolerance for lifestyle diversity, addresses the potential hesitation of an individual or group to

share the resource or resource area with others in different lifestyle groups.

The second model diagrams a single sphere of recreational activities: as the number of

recreational activities increases within the sphere and the sphere becomes full, the more conflict

is likely to occur. Lindsay (1980) provided an “advanced a spatial model of conflict” where

conflict was defined as “any physical, social or psychological obstruction arising with or

between participants and their recreational goals” (cited in Schneider and Hammitt, 1995, p.

224).

A third model of conflict put forth in Schneider and Hammitt’s (1995) article is that of

Bury, Holland, and McEwan (1983), which specifies the interrelatedness of the technology

dependence of a user activity and the environment. For example, a fisherman standing on the

bank of a river will have a low level of tolerance for a fisherman in a powerboat.

According to Thapa and Graefe (2003), in conflicts between skiers and snowboarders,

threats of safety, unacceptable behavior, skill level, and discriminatory factors such as age or sex

can also give rise to recreation conflict. Skiers often perceive snowboarders as being reckless

practicing unsafe jumps and speeds accompanied by lack of control and are thus perceived to

disregard others using the same resource area. Another major determinant of conflict may be

inter-group skill level differences involved in exclusive activities. Individual skill level is

influenced by the degree of expertise an individual possesses for a specific activity and conflict

may occur as in- or out-group. Individuals who are more qualified may consciously isolate

themselves from novice individuals or groups in order to attain the greatest recreational

experience. Age and/or sex are other factors which may influence recreation conflict. For

example, female skiers seemed to be more skeptical as to the compatibility of the two activities

and less tolerant of other snowboarders (Thapa and Graefe, 2003).

According to Schneider and Hammitt (1995), crowding is a significant contributor to

recreation conflict. Visitors will respond to crowding in three ways: product shift,

rationalization, and displacement. Product shift occurs when an individual is forced to change

the definition of their experience. Rationalization requires an individual to be as consciously

optimistic as possible with respect to the presence of crowding. The final response category to

crowding in a recreation area is displacement. In this case, the visitor actively segregates (or


72

displaces) themselves from the recreation area as a result of undesirable changes in recreation

area, social conditions, or management.

Another major factor which has been directly associated with (and even used

interchangeably) conflict is stress. It has commonly been a viewed as one way of a visitor

dealing with a direct or indirect confrontational situation (Schneider, 2004). Stress can be

defined as a reaction or a stimulus impinging on an individual (Schneider and Hammitt, 1995).

According to Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) model, stress is one of five elements associated with

recreation conflict; the others being person and situation factors, appraisals, the coping response,

and short and long term adaptational outcomes.

Coping helps an individual deal with the emotions brought about by a stressful situation.

According to Schneider and Hammitt (1995), “coping (with a conflict situation) manages both

the stressful encounter and the emotions (which may be) generated” (p.226). Schneider (2004)

identified two types of coping mechanisms: problem- and emotion-focused. Problem-focused

coping requires an individual to displace themselves spatially and/or temporally from the

recreation activity or the area. With emotion-focused coping, the individual consciously avoids

the recreation activity or area which in turn alters or lessens the emotional impact of the

stress(or). The Lazarus and Folkman (1984) model takes into account the environmental and

personal factors and illustrates influencing and appraisal factors as well as short-and long-term

outcomes. When a visitor retains negative feelings about management as a result of a diminished

experience it is classified as a short-term outcome. A long-term outcome may entail a visitor to

disapprove of management decisions based on an unpleasant recreation experience and in some

cases to discontinue using the area altogether (Schneider, 2004).

Attachment to a specific place can be related to goal orientation due to an activity

performed in that area. Place attachment refers to a feeling of well-being coupled with a bond

formed between a place and the individual performing an activity within this area. The incidence

of goal interference is more prominent in individuals attach more ‘value’ to a specific recreation

area than users who possess a lesser degree of place attachment.

The British Columbia Ministry of Forests (MoF) acknowledges the presence of winter

recreation conflict between different resource area user groups in mountainous areas (MoF,

2006). With the onset of the 1990s and a growth in popularity for backcountry winter activities

in the BC Purcell range, conflict flourished between snowmobilers, heli-skiers, and ski tourers.


73

As these visitor areas continued to overlap, an increase in negative interactions resulted in the

form of noise disturbances as well as threats to safety. The loss of the feeling of solitude

attributed to a lessened feeling of a genuine backcountry experience. In January of 1996, after

two years of meetings and negotiations between managers and stakeholders, designated

recreation areas were established to accommodate the three aforementioned activities. In two

specific resource use areas (Catamount Glacier and Upper Jumbo Creek), snowmobile use

became prohibited (as per the Forest Practices Code of BC Act).

The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management for the Omineca-Peace Region

instigated the “Crown Land Recreational Conflict Documentation for the Ft. St. James,

Vanderhoof, Prince George, and Robson Valley LRMP Areas”, completed in March of 2002 by

various organizations (CLRC, 2002). This report specifically outlines the conflict between

motorized and non-motorized recreationalists identifying issues of concern with respect to both

groups as well as progressive management strategies. Literature reviews, past research,

interviews with individuals of interest, as well as on-going planning processes have all

contributed to the information found within this report.

3.0 Research Approaches to Studying Recreation Conflict

According to Hammitt and Schneider (2000) and the CLRC document for the Omineca-

Peace Region (2002), one of the most significant trends in conflict management and resolution

has been the identification of different causal conflict relationships between visitors, managers,

government, and local officials and residents. Hammitt and Schneider (2000) identified nine

combinations of conflict that can transpire in outdoor recreation areas: visitor to visitor, visitor to

management, visitor to community, management to visitor, management to management,

management to community, community to visitor, community to management, and community

to community. Each ‘coupling’ implies a different conflict situation and thus the necessity for a

different strategy. Schneider (2004) adds that recreation conflict can be defined by a multitude

of interacting variables which need to be identified before resolution can be obtained. Not all

conflicts need managerial intervention and can be solved by individual or groups of visitors

using coping strategies indicating that proactive and post-conflict management is necessary.

An example of the research processes necessary to investigate recreation conflict in

British Columbia is provided in the CLRC document (2002). This investigation, though focused

on one general type of recreation conflict in the Omineca-Peace Region, is very thorough and


74

may be used to set precedence for future reports of this kind. The ‘Study Process and Methods’

section indicates the various means by which data was collected and analyzed. Information was

gathered from various public and private agencies (including recreation and tourism operators) as

well as pertinent legislation and policies. Interviews with individuals representing groups of

concern (Ministry staff, recreation area users, and stakeholders) were conducted in the form of

surveys to provide relevant data for the study. A section outlining which Ministries are

responsible for resolving recreation conflicts, the legislation utilized in the process, and the

mechanisms by which this is accomplished was also provided.


Recreation conflict is inevitable in any shared outdoor natural resource activity area. The

keys conflict prevention is communication between and education of all respected parties.

According to Schneider (2004), between five and 40% of outdoor users will encounter

conflict, which may hinder their recreation experience. Protected area managers and planners

need to investigate the motivators for participation as well as ways to remediate crowding and

conflict in order to maintain a pleasurable experience for all that choose to recreate in natural

outdoor areas (Confer et al., 2005). There is also an expressed need for management staff to be

able to recognize the existence of a conflict, to identify and understand key conflict indicators,

and to implement the appropriate resolution mechanisms (Hammitt and Schneider, 2000). It is

important to recognize that conflicts are usually situation-specific and need to be handled

accordingly (Schneider, 2004). Proactive recreation conflict management, versus simply

reactive management, involves recognizing sources of conflict as well as visitor stress and

coping mechanisms which aids in the effective resolution of conflicts (Schneider and Hammitt,

2000).

The provision of appropriate general activity and activity-specific information (via

pamphlets, websites, orientations) pertaining to park and protected areas may also help curb the

occurrence and the negative repercussions of confrontational situations (Schneider, 2004). The

ease at which this information can be obtained should be considered as well as the opportunity

for visitor feedback (e.g., concerns, recommendations, and/or commendations). Visitor input can

be obtained by unbiased direct surveys and/or interviews either on- or off-site (Schneider, 2004;

Schneider and Hammitt, 2000). Monitoring programs may also accentuate an existing recreation


75

management plan. This will help managers identify, reduce, and address pertinent and potential

conflict situations and plan accordingly.

The concept of visitor ‘freedom of choice’ can be promoted in a number of ways. The

ability for the public to participate in decision-making and planning processes with respect to

recreation in this case vital tool to adequately providing services, facilities, and information

portals reflect the needs of the users (Schneider and Hammitt (2000). Open communication and

provision of information may result in the visitor feeling they have a ‘freedom of choice’ due to

an increased sense of responsibility. Individuals who frequently visit recreation areas can be

useful sources of information and may provide valuable insight to the needs of visitors.

The CLRC report (2002) identifies twelve principles managers need to understand in

order to minimize and/or alleviate user conflicts:

1. Recognize conflict as goal interference.

2. Provide adequate trail opportunities. Conflict is partially related to the lack of supply

of areas and facilities.

3. Minimize the number of contacts in problem areas.

4. Involve users as early as possible. If a problem is recognized now, deal with it!

5. Understand user needs (e.g., what types of experiences are mountain bikers looking

for?).

6. Identify the actual sources of conflict. Is it environmental degradation? Is it social

conflict? Is it both? What activities are contributing to the sources of conflict?

7. Work with affected users and user groups (e.g., Sea to Sky Forum).

8. Promote trail etiquette through the use of information and education programs.

9. Encourage positive interaction among different users.

10. Favour light-handed management.

11. Plan and act locally (cater to local needs on an individual basis.

12. Monitor progress through a carrying capacity program.

Source: Moore (1994)

The report also outlines the three functions that must be addressed prior to the implementation of

a management strategy: user safety must be maintained, natural resources must be protected from

degradation, and a quality leisure experience for all user groups of interest must be obtainable.


76

As participation in outdoor activities in parks and protected areas increases, BC Parks

needs to focus on a variety of strategies to help reduce, prevent, and mitigate recreation conflict:

1. maintain open channels of communication between users and managers;

2. promote/develop alternative recreation opportunities;

3. redistribute users spatially and/or temporally;

4. establish a working code of ethics for outdoor recreation in protected areas;

5. more actively enforce proper behaviour in protected areas;

6. legally designate use areas by activity;

7. implement a carrying capacity process to minimize recreation conflict in high use

areas;

8. increase public participation in the decision-making process to ensure transparency in

different planning stages;

9. increase funding to ensure appropriate levels of management and staff; and

10. educate the public on the issue of recreation conflict.

The first eight conflict resolution practices, which are based on past research, are listed in the

CLRC (2002) report. Recommendations number 9 and 10 were derived from the “Radical

Changes Proposed to BC’s Park Act” (2006). Recommendation number 11 was obtained from

CPAWS (2006) and the final recommendation is a result of numerous literature sources found

throughout this document. The first five principles are the least intrusive to the visitor

experience and also the least costly to enforce. Principles six through eight however have a

higher impact on visitor freedom of choice; visitor satisfaction may be minimal if present and/or

asymmetrical.

A working provincial sample of a successful recreation conflict management plan is the

Sea to Sky Corridor in the Squamish Forest District. This area is popular for winter and summer

recreation and experiences large numbers of recreationalists (guided or unguided) all year round.

Commercial recreation organizations require a license of operation for lands utilized. An

example of a conflict management strategies include zoning specific areas designated for various

activities, conducting monthly meetings to ensure parties of interest are satisfied, and acquiring

public input.


77

5.0 Conclusion

There are many ways in which recreation conflicts between outdoor recreation users can

be averted. As participation in outdoor activities in resource areas escalate, an increase in

recreation conflict occurring between outdoor users is likely to transpire. A number of

managerial strategies can be investigated, implemented, and monitored to help enhance visitor

experiences. Recreation conflict management is very complex and managers need to plan

proactively to avert potential confrontations. Management and staff of recreational areas face

real challenges with respect to recreation conflict management planning. The key is to be able to

identify, understand, and resolve recreational conflict situations where it is possible. Managers

need to properly understand the processes involved in and brought about by conflict situations.

The sharing of natural resource areas is inevitable but the keys to the successful symbiosis of

outdoor leisure activities include patience, awareness, education, and consideration for one’s

fellow recreation area users.

References

Barlee G. (2006). Radical changes proposed to BC’s Park Act. Available at

http://media.wildernesscommittee.org/news/2006/-0/1728.php (Dec. 1, 2006)

B.C. Ministry of Forests (2006). Winter Recreation. Available at

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/drm/Recreation/WinterRecreation/WinterRecreation.htm

(Dec. 1, 2006).

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS, 2006). ParkWatch: Issues. Available at

http://www.cpawsbc.org/parkwatch/issues.php (Nov. 29, 2006).

Confer, J., Thapa, B., and Mendelsohn, J. (2005). Exploring typology of recreation conflict on

outdoor environments. World Leisure, 1, 12-22.

Gibbons, S. and Ruddell, E. (1995). Dependence on select goal interferences among winter

backcountry users. Leisure Sciences, 17(3), 171-184.

Hammitt, W. and Schneider, I.; Gartner, W.C. and Lime D.W. (ed.). (2000). Recreation conflict

management. In Trends in Outdoor Recreation, Leisure, and Tourism. (pp.347-356).

UK: CABI Publishing.

Lazarus, R. and Folkman, S. (1984). Stress appraisal and coping. New York: Springer Publishing

Co., Inc.


78

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Omineca-Peace Region (2002). Crown Land

Recreation Conflict Documentation for the Ft. St. James, Vanderhoof, Prince George,

and Robson Valley LRMP Areas: Conflict between Motorized and Non-motorized

Recreation Users. March 2002. Victoria: Author.

Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection (2002). BC Residents’ Views, April 2002. Victoria:

Author.

Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection (2001). Economic Benefits of British Columbia’s

Provincial Parks. Victoria: Author.

Schneider, I. (2004). Less stress: how you can respond and manage visitor conflict. Parks and

Recreation, 69-73.

Schneider, I. and Hammitt, W. (1995). Visitor response to outdoor recreation conflict: a

conceptual approach. Leisure Sciences, 17(3), 223-234.

Thapa, B. and Graefe, A. (2003). Level of skill and its relationship to recreation conflict and

tolerance among adult skiers and snowboarders. World Leisure, 1, 15-26.

Tourism British Columbia (2006). Tourism British Columbia: Annual Report 2005/06. Victoria:

Author.

Vaske, J., Carothers, P., Donnelly, M., and Baird, B. (2000). Recreation conflict amongst skiers

and snowboarders. Leisure Sciences, 22, 297-313.

Vitters, J., Chipeniuk, R., Skar, M., and Vistad, O.I. (2004). Recreational conflict is affective: the

case of cross-country skiers and snowmobiles. Leisure Sciences, 26, 227-243.


79

Mechanized Use in BC’s Protected Areas

James Kotai

Executive Summary

Mechanized use in parks has many social and ecological impacts. However, the

popularity of off-road vehicles (ORVs) and other forms of mechanized access has increased

dramatically since 1970; this puts pressure on park decision makers to include mechanized use in

park zoning.

There are many sensitive species in BC that would are affected by mechanized use;

research can be used to determine effects of all types of ORVs and modes of air and water travel.

The effects of ORVs should be weighted more heavily in BC parks; especially for sensitive

species such as mountain caribou and grizzly bears. Mountain caribou are declining in

population and becoming fragmented into smaller groups partly due to the increased access into

backcountry areas and mechanized use (Simpson and Terry, 2000). Heli-skiing and

snowmobiling push out and stress mountain caribou from their natural high alpine winter habitat

in winter (Simpson and Terry, 2000). More needs to be done to protect this species before they

become extinct.

Snowmobiling in BC parks, such as in Kakwa Provincial Park should be reconsidered or

further limitations and restrictions. BC Parks should also try to increase resource based tourism

in provincial parks that minimize mechanized use (Lawson and Burkhardt, 2005). Park planning

should revolve less around road travel and toward more rudimentary means as suggested by

Runte (1997). Recreation Access Management Plans (RAMPs) have been used in the Bulkley

Valley and in Golden BC. Recreation groups come together with management and discuss

strategies to help minimize recreation conflict and coordinate conservation efforts. BC Parks

should identify where recreation impact and conflict is high or sensitive species are at risk and

assess the viability and benefit of creating an RAMP for those areas in BC.

1.0 Overview and Scope

Most research on mechanized impacts started around the 1970s; this is in part due to the

environmental movement and because ATVs and snowmobiles were just starting to become


80

popular (Stokowski and Lapointe (2000). It is at this time that recreation conflict first became an

issue with mechanized use.

Virtually every park in BC has some form of mechanized use; access in to remote parks,

such as Spatsizi Provincial Park can be gained through float plane or helicopter. Snowmobile

use in Kakwa Provincial Park is allowed in many areas to access backcountry and cabins in the

winter. Helicopters are used to bring guests to Berg Lake in Mount Robson Provincial Park. In

Northern Rocky Mountains Provincial Park jet boats are used to access hunting camps. All these

example of mechanized use in parks have ecological and social impacts.

The issue of mechanized use in parks and protected areas is an important issue to BC

Parks but will become even more important in the future. Currently, 13.8% of BC’s land base is

protected; this is a great responsibility for BC parks to undertake (BC Parks, 2006). Pristine

landscapes are becoming scarcer as forestry, mining and gas exploration open up access to

wilderness areas. Technology advancements with respect to off-road vehicles allow humans to

get to places they could not access before. Impacts on the environment are constantly changing

and may become more significant.

The BC Parks mission statement is “to protect representative and special natural places

within the province's Protected Areas System for world-class conservation, outdoor recreation,

education and scientific study”. Some motorized use is required and important for front country

and remote parks. Boats, planes, all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, helicopters, passenger

vehicles and buses are many of the different motorized transportation types used to access and

recreate in parks. Parks staff, tourism and recreation, education and scientific study all require

some mode of transport and infrastructure; but what are the effects and how should motorized

use be managed to minimize impacts?

Balancing motorized use to conform to economic, political, special interest groups,

ecological, First Nations and local community pressures is a very difficult task. Understanding

and managing for any of these variables alone is cumbersome and challenging. Perhaps the most

difficult task is the understanding and attempt to keep areas ecologically intact. The vast amount

of research and knowledge to understand the relationships of all concepts involved in a healthy

and intact natural environment is seemingly endless. However, over time, the foundation of

knowledge is becoming more broad and inclusive and access to this information has become

easier.


81


2.1 Off-Road Vehicle Use

ATVs and snowmobiles create a significant amount of noise and pollution. According to

the USDA, ATV use in the United States has increased by seven times since 1972 (Gucinski,

Furniss, Ziemer, and Brookes, 2001).

ORV use has been shown to have direct negative impacts on wildlife. Accurate data on

wildlife responses to off-road use are not well document because until recently, visual

observation methods were used; now radio telemetry can accurately show responses of wildlife

to human disturbances (Preisler et al., 2006). In one study, elk were observed to react to ATVs

at distances up to 3000 meters; overall, effects started to level off at approximately 1 kilometer

(Preisler et al., 2006). These results raise questions as to how many animals are just as or more

sensitive to the sounds of off-road or even on-road vehicles. Interestingly, elk had increased

reactions to ATVs when there was an ATV trail nearby (Preisler et al., 2006). This suggests that

elk would learn where ATV activity was common and where they were traveling and would be

quick to move from the area. In cases where elk were not as responsive to noise (when there was

no trail) might suggest that elk could not determine the direction or the location of the sound. It

was also found that elk had a higher response when in the feeding pastures with high elk density

(Preisler et al., 2006). Based on these findings it appears that ORVs have significant impacts on

wildlife behavior. Effects of ORVs may create more significant behavioral responses in more

sensitive animals such as grizzly bears or caribou.

One study on snowmobile use in Yellowstone National Park described the air pollution

problem. About 700 snowmobiles use the park on any given winter day releasing 7 tons of

hydrocarbons and 19 tons of carbon monoxide; the 9200 passenger vehicles that enter the park

on the same day will release 3 tons of hydrocarbons and 18 tons of carbon monoxide (Daerr,

2000). These numbers suggest that the average snowmobile pollutes at least 30 times more than

an average passenger vehicle for hydrocarbons. For carbon monoxide, snowmobiles will pollute

14 times more than a passenger vehicle. Pollution from snowmobiles is not considered as much

as noise or wildlife disturbance but it certainly does raise questions as to where air contaminants

are distributed. Very little research has been complied to suggest the effects of ORVs on air

quality.


82

Another issue may be the random occurrence of oil and gas leaks or spills. Leaking oil

from snowmachines or small leaks and spills from fueling up could add up and create a point

source of contamination.

2.2 Endangered Mountain Caribou in BC

Mountain caribou have been significantly affected in BC from human disturbances; this

species is currently red listed (Simpson and Terry, 2000). Some important factors in the

disappearance of mountain caribou include loss of old growth habitat of greater than 140 years,

fragmented habitats, human disturbances and predation (Clayton and McLellan, 2006).

Mountain caribou were found to frequent places that contained old growth forests and were

remote from human presence with low road density and low motorized access (Clayton and

McLellan, 2006). Because mountain caribou are endangered, special care should be taken to

ensure that their habitat is not disturbed.

Winter is a tough time for mountain caribou to survive: they require high energy levels

for survival. Critical and rare winter ranges of mountain caribou are disturbed by mountain

recreation such as snowmobiles, back-country skiers and ice climbers. Caribou use these high

alpine areas for food and escape from predators in late winter (Simpson and Terry, 2000). It has

been found that snowmobiling has the highest perceived threat to mountain caribou for most

populations; winter range for mountain caribou is also favored ground for snowmobilers

(Simpson and Terry, 2000). Figure 1 (below) shows the range of perceived threats to mountain

caribou and the land space required for those activities. Today’s snowmachines can access high

alpine areas easier than in the past. This causes mountain caribou to retreat to steeper slopes that

are more susceptible to avalanches (Simpson and Terry, 2000). Furthermore, snowmobiles

create tracks in the snow that allow predators to travel to alpine areas where they could not when

snowmobiles were not around; snow is deeper up high ridges than on valley bottoms (Simpson

and Terry, 2000). Back-country skiers use helicopters and snowcats to also access these high

alpine bowls and ridges for fresh powder and virgin descents. Protected areas and parks should

not allow any sort of mechanized access in areas of critical mountain caribou habitat. Protection

of this species should be paramount to recreation. The amount of mountain caribou habitat in

parks is very small; everything and anything should be done to protect them.


83

Figure 1. Perceived Threat of Activities in Mountain Caribou Habitat

Source: Simpson and Terry, 2004

2.3 Effects of Roads

Roads will have benefits and negative impacts in parks; the degree of impact depends on

the type and location of road. Some of the benefits may include improving access and allowing

for more recreation opportunity. For example, a road into an upper river system would allow

kayakers, fishermen and canoeists to use this area. There are many downfalls, however; roads

and mechanized travel have serious impacts to the ecological integrity in parks, cause noise

pollution, decrease availability to wilderness user groups and minimize intact wildlife and

vegetative habitat (Gucinski et al., 2001). Roads have been shown to have an impact on wildlife

by providing access for humans into previously inaccessible areas and creating barriers to

wildlife (Craighead, no date). Habitat fragmentation is a considerable problem because it will

increase the amount of inbreeding and lead to smaller and more isolated populations (Craighead,

no date). It has been shown that large carnivores and ungulates can be significantly affected by

roads. Road avoidance behavior has been observed for large animals such as grizzly bears, elk,

bighorn sheep, wolf and caribou (Gucinski et al., 2001). Grizzly bears are very sensitive to

roads; grizzly deaths increase as roads and motorized use densities increase (Mace and Manley

1993). Some research has shown that road densities must be less than one per square mile to

minimize impacts and if road densities are more than two per square mile, grizzlies can be

displaced from this area completely (Mace and Manley 1993). Mattson et al. (1987) found that


84

most bears will be offset about 0.3 miles on either side of a road on average and even when roads

are closed, bears - especially females with cubs - may continue to avoid using roads completely.

There are many other variables that will be affected by introduction of roads to parks.

Roads will have significant effects on natural water drainage systems. Channel flow, flow

velocity, weathering, erosion, sedimentation, water temperature and pollution are all

considerable impacts caused by roads (Gucinski et al., 2001).

2.4 Tourism and Mechanized Use

Tourism is affected by motorized use in parks and roads. Most tourism involves

mechanized use to the park and often within the park. However, 10% of annual revenues in BC

are resource based tourism, the fastest growing sector in tourism according to the British

Columbia Wilderness Tourism Association (BCWTA, 2006). Resource based tourism is

considered to be sustainable and takes place in a wilderness setting; tourists pay top dollar, up to

twice the amount of road accessible tourism, to recreate in remote areas of BC (Lawson and

Burkhardt, 2005). Remoteness sells; visitors to parks should be given the opportunity to

experience solitude and wild settings. The kinds of recreation that would be non-disruptive

include hiking, canoeing, photography, wildlife viewing and cross-country skiing. The more

wilderness that is available the more this industry will appeal. BC is renowned for having wild

landscapes and parks provide some of the last supply of wild and pristine places. Motorized use

reduces the ecological and aesthetic value of parks significantly and affects the type of tourism

(Lawson and Burkhardt, 2005). One conflicting issue with resource based tourism is how to

bring in the tourists to remote areas while minimizing mechanized travel.

2.5 Recreation Conflicts

Recreation conflict is a widespread issue with motorized use in parks; increased access

into recreation areas often leads to recreation conflict (see the chapter by Dulay in this report).

Recreation conflict starts when goals are interfered with; individuals seeking fulfillment of

nature-oriented goals such as solitude can be compromised by thrill seekers or social oriented

goals (Gibbons and Ruddell, 1995). In conflict, frustration or threat is inevitable and is a major

source of psychological stress in human affairs (Schneider and Hammitt, 1995). Tourists that

experience recreation conflicts may not return to visit the same area.

To help mitigate the issue of recreation conflict, the Bulkley Valley and Golden BC both

created local Recreation Access Management Plans (RAMPS). User groups were brought


85

together to discuss conflict and ecological management issues. The outcome was agreement

between the groups that divided up recreation access opportunity. By doing this, recreation

conflict was minimized and ecological preservation values are respected. Caribou herds in both

regions are endangered and were an important factor. RAMPs promote volunteer recreation

closures and limitations.

In one article, cross-country skiers were tested to see how they would react to a

snowmobile encounter (Vitterso, Chipeniuk, Skar, Vistad, 2004). Two test groups were studied:

group 1 was a control group and did not encounter a snowmobile; group 2 encountered a

snowmobile while cross-country skiing. Group 2, those that encountered a snowmobile, had the

impression that snowmobiles had more negative effects than the control group (Vitterso et al.,

2002). According to Vitterso et al. (2002), an encounter such as this will not only create a

negative recreation experience but it will cause non-motorized users to feel more strongly about

the negative effects of motorized use.

3.0 Research Approaches to Studying Mechanized Use

The unique data sets obtained from using radio telemetry allowed Preisler et al. (2006) to

develop statistical methods called probalistic flight response for analysis of human disturbance to

wildlife. This new research approach will certainly have uses in many different regions. Theory

from this type of research can possibly be applied to other sensitive species.

The study by Vitterso et al. (2002) was a similar research method. They used a

snowmobile disturbance to study the effects on humans. The snowmobile appeared as a random

event; after the skiing session a questionnaire was filled out to determine how it affected the

skiers. The questions of interest were grouped with a series of other questions to disguise the

purpose. This type of research is much more effective than just asking park users outright about

how they feel about motorized use. If park users directly experience a disturbance they will be

much more likely to have a negative perception on mechanized use.

4.0 Recommendations to BC Parks

RAMPs have been used in some communities where potential of recreation conflict is

high. Golden and the Bulkley Valley, both in BC, have used RAMPs. The purpose of a RAMP

is to maximize economic opportunity while supporting the social and environmental values and

minimizing recreation conflicts; RAMPs deal with recreation exclusively according to the

Golden Backcountry Recreation Access Plan (GBRAP), 2002. All user groups come together


86

and discuss interests and tradeoffs so that a viable plan can be reached (GBRAP, 2002). The

GBRAP has set out what recreation groups can use what areas at specific times; for example,

snowmobiles and cross-country skiers will not be using the same area at the same time. In

another example, the Upper Wood River area was recognized as having high biodiversity and

important mountain caribou habitat (GBRAP, 2002). This area was designated as non-

mechanized use only; helicopter use is limited and only at specific landing areas for heli-skiing.

In the GBRAP, user groups volunteered to limit use or cease to recreate in certain areas for

management reasons. Cooperation was achieved perhaps due to fact that groups were brought

together and all were consulted. RAMPs could be useful in many more areas across the province

to help protect the environment and prevent recreation conflicts.

It has been suggested to decrease motorized access and use in parks and introduce more

rudimentary means of travel to and within parks. Runte (1997) would prefer to see people

walking or riding bikes so that people can enjoy parks for what they are meant to be; quiet,

natural areas for people to enjoy nature and relax. Trains are the common mode of travel in

European parks and are very effective in reducing mechanized use (Runte, 1997). Snowcoaches

and shuttles have been suggested as another means to move people around in parks as opposed to

personal mechanized travel (Daerr, 2000).

‘Remoteness’ is defined by Lawson and Burkhardt, (2005), as a resource that is not

accessible by road and is based on a remote wilderness experience where access is only gained

through air, water or rail. Based on this definition, BC has tremendous opportunity for remote

tourism. BC Parks should capitalize on this remote tourism and provide a unique experience that

is increasingly rare in the world.

Roads impacts are highly variable; the USDA suggests that a comprehensive framework

for determining the risks, dilemmas and tradeoffs could provide a very useful tool for land use

management (Gucinski et al., 2001). In order for this to happen, more research must be done in

different eco-zones and existing research be compiled to help decision makers better understand

these risks and tradeoffs of roads or the lack of roads.


87

5.0 Conclusion

Mechanized use in parks is a very important issue in BC. Ecological integrity and social

values become compromised with an increase in roads or motorized use in parks. Parks

management needs to determine the problems, risks and tradeoffs associated with mechanized

use in and around protected areas. Park planning should consider accommodating other means

of travel than cars to reduce mechanized travel and promote a more quiet and natural experience

in parks. RAMPs should be used in all areas in BC to promote cooperative and volunteer

recreation use. Ecological integrity and recreation conflict can be minimized through RAMPs.

Species at risk rely on the proper management of critical habitat. Mountain caribou are an

example of species that have been hurt by improper management; critical caribou habitat in parks

needs to be carefully managed to assist in the recovery of this species. BC still has vast expanses

of wild areas and opportunity to protect land; BC Parks can offer more unique and natural

experiences by not only discouraging mechanized use but promoting less disruptive modes of

travel to and within parks.

References

BC Parks (2006). BC Parks Facts and Figures (Available at

www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/facts/fact_fig.html (Dec. 3, 2006)

BC Wilderness Tourism Association (2006). BC Wilderness Tourism Association.

Available at www.wilderness-tourism.bc.ca (Dec. 1, 2006).

Clayton, D., McLellan, B. (2006). Factors influencing the dispersion and fragmentation

of endangered mountain caribou populations. Biological Conservation, 130, 84-97.

Craighead, F. (no date) Wildlife-related road impacts in the Yellowstone to Yukon

region. Available at http://www.y2y.net/science/roads_wildlife.pdf (Dec. 1, 2006)

Daerr, E. (2000). Park service to issue rules on off-road vehicles. National Parks, 74(5),

12-13.

Gibbons, S. and Ruddell, E. (1995). Dependence on select goal interferences among

winter backcountry users. Leisure Sciences, 17(3), 171-184.

Golden Backcountry Recreation Access Plan (2002). Available at

http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/ilmb/lup/srmp/southern/gbrap/pdf/GBRAP.pdf (Nov. 28,

2006)


88

Gucinski, H., Furniss, M.J., Ziemer, R.R. and Brookes, M.H. (2001). Forest roads: a

synthesis of scientific information. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-

509. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station.

Lawson, S., and Burkhardt, R. (2005). Remoteness sells: a report on resource based

tourism in northwestern Ontario. Toronto: Wildlands League.

Mace, R., Manley, T. (1993). South Fork Flathead River Grizzly Bear Project, Progress

report. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

Mattson, D., Knight, R., Blanchard, B. (1987). The effects of development and primary

roads on grizzly bear habitat use in Yellowstone National Park,Wyoming. International

Conference on Bear Research and Management, 7, 259-273.

Preisler, H., Ager, A., Wisdom, M. (2006). Statistical methods for analyzing responses of

wildlife to human disturbance. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43, 164-172.

Runte, A. (1997). Redefining Sacred Space. National Parks, 71(1), 39-40.

Schneider, I. and Hammitt, W. (1995). Visitor response to outdoor recreation conflict: a

conceptual approach. Leisure Sciences, 17(3), 223-234.

Simpson, K., Terry, E. (2000). Impacts of backcountry recreation activities on mountain

caribou. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Victoria BC.

Stokowski, P., Lapointe, C. (2000). Environmental and social effects of ATVs and

ORVs: An annotated bibliography and research assessment. Available at

http://www.americantrails.org/resources/wildlife/docs/ohvbibliogVT00.pdf (Dec. 1,

2006).

Vitterso, J., Chipeniuk, R., Skar, M., Vistad, O. (2004). Recreational conflict is affective:

the case of cross-country skiers and snowmobiles. Leisure Sciences, 26, 227-243.

Selected Issues Facing BC Parks: Report to the BC Protected Areas ...

Documents

Transcript of Selected Issues Facing BC Parks: Report to the BC Protected Areas ...