Icons under threat: Why monitoring visitors and their ecological impacts in protected areas matters

Abstract

Visitation levels are on the rise in protected areas throughout the world. In response, many icon sites are showing signs of overuse and more protected-area managers report tourism and recreation as threats to sustainable management. Clearly, there is a growing need to assess (monitor) and manage visitors to mitigate their impacts. In this paper, we articulate why targeted visitor-impact monitoring matters and highlight how existing monitoring programmes fail to deliver the necessary information to protected-area managers. We suggest that the availability and quality of visitor data are currently insufficient to facilitate the development of proactive management strategies in most protected areas. We call for more scale-sensitive (time and space) collection of visitor load and environmental (response) data. Specifically, since icon sites (like waterfalls and mountain peaks) are the focus of visitor motivations and activities, we highlight the case for proactive assessment, management and reporting of condition at these sites. Ultimately, visitor trends will be influenced by visitor management. If visitor activities degrade the icon, the financial benefits of tourism and recreation to a protected area may not be sustainable. In addition, the conservation and protection objectives of the protected area will also not be met.

Analysing hiker movement patterns using GPS data: Implications for park management

“…Where data are available, these often do not deliver the information needed by managers (Hadwen et al, 2007) and there is relatively little guidance on the monitoring variables required (Wolf et al, 2012). This paper therefore combines user movement analysis with environmental and ecological factors for natural resource management.…”

“…An increase in the number of people using an area could mean its ecological carrying capacity is exceeded (e.g. Hadwen et al, 2007;Lyon et al, 2011;Wimpey & Marion, 2011). An area's recreational quality could be negatively influenced by conflicts in recreational behaviour (Ligtenberg et al, 2008;Orellana, 2012).…”

Monitoring for management of conservation and recreation in Australian protected areas

“…Typically, it reflects the particular taxonomic and geographic interests and expertise of the individuals concerned. This informal and internal knowledge base, therefore, whilst acknowledged and appreciated, does not alleviate the need for a comprehensive and formalised approach to inventory, monitoring and research on the status of and threats to biological diversity throughout Australia's protected area estate (Hadwen et al 2007(Hadwen et al , 2008Pickering and Hill 2007).…”

“…There were no programmes specifically to monitor responses by the ecosystems under threat. Theoretically, repeated monitoring of ecological status parameters could provide such data, but in practice few monitoring programs are designed or carried out in sufficient detail to test for changes over time (Hadwen et al 2007(Hadwen et al , 2008.…”

Spatial and environmental patterns of off-road vehicle recreation in a semi-arid woodland

“…Nevertheless, there is substantial need for continued research into the spatial distribution of recreation services and the environmental features that meet recreation goals. Although many protected areas monitor aggregate visitor numbers, less is known about the specific locations of recreational activities (Buckley, 2003(Buckley, , 2008Hadwen et al, 2007) or impacts (Cole, 2004;Ouren et al, 2007). Instead, spatial planning exercises typically rely on expert judgment to relate recreation values to environmental variables and map the distribution of recreation services (e.g., Chan et al, 2006;Lautenbach et al, 2011;Haines-Young et al, 2006;van Oudenhoven et al, 2012;Willemen et al, 2008).…”