Protected Area Planning
Principles and Strategies
William T. Borrie, Stephen F.
McCool, and George H. Stankey
In Lindberg,
K., Wood, M.E., and Engeldrum, D. (Eds.) (1998).
Ecotourism : A guide for Planners and Managers. Volume 2, pp. 133-154.
(The Ecotourism Society, North
Introduction
Protected areas play an
important role in the evolving challenge of maintaining a sustainable world.
Not only do they provide refuges for biological diversity, but they play an
equally significant role in the changing economic and social basis of local
communities and nations. That protected areas are increasingly becoming a
source of tourist revenue is not surprising. In many cases, such as the
community baboon sanctuary in Belize or Kinabalu Park
in Malaysia, entrance fees and other revenues from visitors not only maintain
the cost of management but also provide the local community with additional
income that then provides incentive for continued protection. The income
derived from the protected area, and the attachments people form with the area,
often become an important component of the local community. However, the
cultural and economic effects of protected areas and their management may
disproportionately impact the local community, perhaps leading to resentment
toward the park. Actions affecting the protected area may be controversial
because of those effects. Conducting
consultation and achieving the support of local constituencies will be
essential to the success of any protected area planning effort.
These social, cultural, and
economic dimensions remind us that natural resource planning and management in
general, and protected area management in particular, occur
within highly politicized contexts. The objective of preserving natural areas
is frequently impacted by the desire to encourage recreational use,
particularly with respect to government goals for economic development and the
role of nature-based tourism or ecotourism within those programs. The two goals
of preservation and use are frequently in conflict, with disagreement about
which should receive priority. Protected areas represent a legitimate and
important source of income and stability, but the increasing recognition and
capacity of protected areas to generate revenue can lead to economic
dependency, which in turn increases pressures to maximize financial returns. In
the face of this pressure, protected area managers still must act as guardians
of the values for which the area was established, and as well as the
biophysical and social impacts of increased tourism. These are the kinds of contentious contexts
in which protected area managers increasingly, but inevitably, conduct and
implement planning processes. It is through planning that managers can provide
not only technical expertise, but also interact collaboratively with affected
publics to ensure support and implementation of actions to protect the natural
resource values of protected areas.
Designating and identifying
boundaries does not guarantee protection of the values for which the areas were
established. A significant literature has shown the myth of the non-consumptive
visitor, demonstrating that use of an area will impact many of the values for
which the area was established (Cole 1987, Hammitt
& Cole 1987; Hendee, Stankey & Lucas 1990;
Speight 1973; Wall and Wright 1977; Wilkes 1977). Understanding how to manage
the impacts that come with increased visitation is therefore an essential
component of any protected area's obligation to conserve its significant
resources. Various planning and
management frameworks have been developed to explicitly consider the issues of
visitation.
The concept of carrying
capacity is one such framework dealing with the issue of visitor impact (most
recently see
In this chapter, the
challenges of protected area planning are explored by addressing the latter
question. The chapter focuses on maintaining protected area values in face of
increasing recreational pressure, although these general concepts and
principles can be applied to other "threats" as well (Machlis and Tichnell 1985). First, the social and political contexts
within which such planning occurs are outlined. It is to these complex contexts
that an interactive, collaborative-learning based planning process would seem
most appropriate. Next, an overview of
eleven principles of visitor management is presented. These principles must be acknowledged and
incorporated in any protected area planning system. Following this section, the conditions needed
to implement a carrying capacity approach are reviewed; these requisite
conditions lead us to conclude that, despite a resurgence of interest, the
carrying capacity model does not adequately address the needs of protected area
management. The final section briefly outlines the Limits of Acceptable Change
planning system, an example of an approach that can
incorporate the eleven previously described principles and has a demonstrated
capacity to respond to the needs of protected area managers. The ideas in this chapter have been variously
presented in
Protected Area Planning in an
Era of Change
That protected area planning
has moved from a time of apparent stability to an era of social and political
change and turbulence should come as no surprise to protected area
managers. The growing diversity of communities
claiming interest in management of protected areas translates into new voices
articulating an ever widening range of visions and functions for protected
areas. These new voices are increasingly
apparent in a political system that not only allocates funds for protected area
management, but must also resolve complex management problems.
Cultural and spiritual
values that once were considered inconsistent with the protected area's mandate
for protection are now often accommodated. For example, areas which were
originally established to exclude many extractive uses now recognize
pre-existing and legitimate claims of indigenous peoples for subsistence. This
legitimization of prior uses and values has made the protected area manager's
job more complex and difficult. Managers
are now confronted with balancing these uses with the objective of preserving
biological diversity, ecological processes, and habitats for threatened and
endangered species.
Incorporation of a wider variety
of goals into protected area management creates a tension or conflict for which
traditional rational-comprehensive models of planning are ill-equipped. Such models are well-suited for identifying
the most technically-efficient path to a single goal which is founded upon
substantial social consensus. However,
when one confronts the wide array of goals currently attributed to protected
areas and the frequent lack of consensus over these competing goals, the appropriateness
and utility of such traditional planning models is questioned. Increasingly today, we see a shift in
conditions which planning models must respond to from one in which scientific
and technical expertise dominate to one where affected publics play an
increasingly significant role. In the latter context, quality scientific and
technical information remains essential, it can describe current conditions and
ecological processes; it can help provide understanding of causation, it can
identify consequences and implications, and it is essential to defining
alternative solutions. But, progress on implementation cannot begin until there
is agreement on goals, which are fundamentally social-political statements of
desired ends. The specification of goals is not a scientific or technical matter. Thus, while rational-comprehensive and
scientific methods of inquiry are necessary to the planning process, they are
not sufficient. In fact, it is not uncommon that traditional
rational-comprehensive approaches to planning (McCool, Ashor
and Stokes, 1986), conducted in a comprehensive and technically competent
manner, lead to more, not less, disagreement. At the root of this lie conflicting values among various interests.
In these situations, the
principal planning problem is not so much how to achieve a particular vision of
the future but rather which future to select.
Expert-driven models of planning do little to help resolve this
conflict, because the choice of a desired future is fundamentally political and
social, not technical. These
"wicked problems" are ones in which there are no right or wrong
answers, just more or less useful ones (Allen and Gould 1986). Technical approaches to planning require
managers to provide scientifically proven answers to justify decisions. "Wicked problems," conversely,
cannot be resolved solely through science.
Political conflicts are
resolved through a process of negotiation. This process incorporates learning,
representation of interests, and dialogue, and must ultimately lead to a
consensus (here defined as "grudging agreement") about a desired
future and appropriate pathways to it. However, while the tension created by
the presence of conflicting goals provides an excellent impetus for mutual
learning, such learning also requires acceptance of others, multiple types of
knowledge, and opportunities to test and evaluate ideas. Learning is an important objective because
our level of knowledge concerning management of recreation in protected areas
is limited. Actions undertaken to reduce
impacts are, by and large, experiments -- particularly at the larger spatial
scales and longer time frames. Learning
provides the feedback necessary to change actions when outcomes do not occur as
expected (Lee 1993). As the future of protected area management unfolds, it may
be that these outcomes were not as attractive as originally conceived.
Given this context,
approaches to protected area management must combine technical-scientific data
with social learning in order to develop plans that can be effective. While the following sections focus on the
more technical aspects of protected area management, it should be noted that
this discussion occurs only within the context of engaging affected publics in
dialogue about the area.
PRINCIPLES OF VISITOR
MANAGEMENT
We commence our discussion
of protected area planning with an examination of eleven guiding principles
which have emerged from research on visitor impacts and from the management of
protected areas to minimize those impacts.
These principles provide a sound basis for any systematic planning
system for natural area management. They
illustrate important concepts of planning, such as the need for an explicit
statement of management objectives that are even more applicable within an era
of change.
This chapter then goes on to
examine two visitor management approaches that aspire to protect the ecological
and social conditions of protected areas.
Whereas the Limits of Acceptable Change approach has proven to be a
highly adaptable and applicable framework, the carrying capacity approach,
while explicit and rational, can be seen as less useful. While intuitively attractive, the
implementation of a recreational carrying capacity too casually assumes
workable conditions for its application.
We describe some of the severe limitations of the carrying capacity
approach as an illustration of the implications of the eleven principles of
visitor management. The Limits of
Acceptable Change process is then presented as a more useful approach to
protected area management.
Principle 1. Appropriate management requires
explicitly stated objectives.
Explicitly stated objectives
are of utmost importance in natural area management. The need for such objectives has been a clear
and consistent theme throughout the literature on visitor management in
protected areas (Brown, et al. 1987; Schomaker
1984). Objectives provide definitive
statements of desired social and environmental conditions, recreational
opportunities, and benefits from managing the area (Stankey and McCool 1984). These objectives derive from legislative or
administrative policy direction, or from explicit
assertions in the management plan for the area.
Formally stated objectives will help identify the appropriateness of
various management actions and provide managers criteria by which to judge the
success of management actions they have been using to resolve protected area
issues and problems. Manning (1986, p.
44) argues that
Management objectives
provide an answer to the question of how much change is acceptable by deciding
what types of recreation experience a particular recreation area should
provide, the feel of naturalness of environmental conditions, the kind of
experience offered, and the intensity of management practices.
Good objectives are time-bound,
specific, quantifiable and attainable (Brown et al 1987). However, writing good objectives is not easy.
While people tend to agree about general values and concepts, specific and
explicit objectives are likely to evoke considerable disagreement about what it
is to be accomplished or produced at a protected area. It should be noted that
the process of establishing objectives is an intrinsically political one. Methods that include interaction with
affected parties will help the manager develop objectives upon which a
consensus can be developed and enhance the likelihood of their successful
implementation.
Principle 2. Diversity of resource, social, and
managerial conditions in and among protected areas is inevitable and may be
desirable.
Visitors to a particular
protected area often expect the area to satisfy a variety of recreation
activities, specific recreation experiences, and various beneficial outcomes
from their recreation. However, it is
unlikely that their demands for such a wide variety of recreation opportunities
can be met by a uniform set of conditions across the area. Further, it is unlikely that resource and
social conditions within any relatively large protected area will be uniform.
Bio-physical conditions, use impacts, use levels, and expectations of
appropriate conditions tend to vary (for example, see Martin and others 1989
concerning variability in acceptable campsite impact conditions in the
periphery vs. the center of a wilderness).
Visitor use is frequently unevenly distributed, and development focused
at particular sites. Topography,
vegetation and access influence use densities and level of impact.
The diversity of conditions
is inevitable, and can be desirable. The
availability of a variety of setting conditions provides visitors with a choice
and allows them to consider their requirements and expectations for a
site. Furthermore, providing a diversity
of opportunities influences future use and may provoke demands for a broader
array of recreation opportunities. It is
a means to protecting uniqueness and suitability in the management of protected
areas. For example, in large protected
areas it generally would not be desirable to have development spread evenly
across the area, leaving no place untouched. The interior areas of protected
areas often display fewer human-induced impacts than the periphery. Managers
can identify this diversity and then make decisions on its desirability, based
on such considerations as visitor preferences, environmental values, and relative
availability, thus separating technical decisions from judgmental ones. Finally, Haas and others (1987) argue that
managing for diversity through some type of explicit zoning is more likely to
lead to preservation of protected area values than existing implicit or de
facto zoning.
Principle 3. Management is directed at influencing
human-induced change.
Many protected areas were
established to protect unique and valuable natural features and conditions, and
natural processes. Rather than directly
managing these natural processes, protected area managers usually work to
minimize and manage human-induced impacts on these natural processes. Human-induced changes can lead to both
environmental and social conditions that visitors and/or managers find unacceptable
or inappropriate. In addition to helping
determine how much change is acceptable, managers should concern themselves
with actions that are effective in influencing the amount, type, time, and
location of these impacts.
Principle 4. Impacts on resource and social
conditions are inevitable consequences of human use.
A variety of research has
shown that relatively small amounts of use produce most of the biophysical
impact that occurs on any site (Cole 1987).
Any recreational use of a protected area has some environmental impact,
the severity of which depends on both the environment's ability to resist and
to recover from such impact. Typically,
the ability to resist and recover is rapidly outpaced by the frequency,
intensity, and nature of recreational use.
Thus, the decision to allow human use in a particular area is a de facto
decision to accept relatively high levels of visitor impact. The principal question that managers must
therefore ask is, "How much impact is acceptable in this area?" Once this question has been addressed,
managers must then deal with the appropriateness of various techniques or
actions to manage this level of impact.
In a similar way, social impacts often occur with relatively small amounts
of use. For example, a few people behaving in a rowdy manner can impact another
visitor's experience far more than many people being quiet.
Principle 5. Impacts can be temporally or spatially
discontinuous.
Impacts from visitor use or management
activities can occur off-site and/or might not be visible until a later
time. Displacing the management problem
temporally or spatially can create two problems. First, a management strategy eliminating
camping around a lake, for example, might simply displace impacts to other
areas, perhaps even more environmentally sensitive, thereby creating two sets
of impacts needing attention. Second,
impacts can have effects that only become evident long after recreationists leave the site. For example, soil and vegetation impacts can
have long-term implications such as increased soil erosion or reduced tree
vigor. Both temporal and spatial
displacement of impacts make understanding and managing impacts significantly
more difficult, demand substantial knowledge about use-impact relationships at
different scales, and require managers to carefully design appropriate
monitoring strategies.
Principle 6. Many variables influence the use/impact
relationship.
The relationship between
visitor use levels and degrees of impact is an exceedingly complex, non-linear
one. That is, managers cannot simply
assume that as use levels increase so too will impacts, or conversely, that
reductions in use levels lead to proportionate reductions in impact. A variety of other variables affect the
use/impact relationship. It has long
been observed that the behavior of recreationists
heavily influences the amount of impact they cause. For example, in marine settings, snorkelers treading water with flippers can stir up sand
which then impacts coral and other marine life.
Similarly, changes to the rules and regulations imposed upon visitors
will change the degree of impact. For
example, requiring or educating visitors to camp a certain distance away from
lakes and streams not only lowers the impacts at the immediate lake or
stream-side but also lowers the visual and social impacts upon other visitors,
human and animal. Other variables, such
as travel method, group size, season of use, length of stay, and a variety of
soil and vegetation characteristics will influence the use/impact relationship
as well. Furthermore, even under
simplified conditions, the use/impact curve has been found to be more
curvilinear than linear (Hammitt and Cole 1987). For instance, while per visitor impacts on
campsite condition might initially be very low, they can rapidly increase until
reaching a plateau at which most of the damage has already been done;
thereafter, per person impacts are incrementally small. This complexity of the
use/impact relationship suggests that attempts to control human-induced impacts
solely through use limits or carrying capacities have only a low probability of
success. Education and information
programs and rules and regulations aimed at changing visitor behavior might be
more effective. For instance,
encouraging use concentration on already impacted sites is one well-known
technique for limiting visitor impacts.
Principle 7. Many management problems are not use
density dependent.
There are only a few
management problems that do directly relate to the number of people using the
area. These issues, such as sewage,
water supply and parking problems, tend to have relatively simple technological
solutions. However, with respect to the
provision of social conditions, focusing on density of use might not be useful
in solving management problems. For
example, many visitors to backcountry areas of nationally protected areas may
not be seeking solitude (Stankey and McCool 1984). Thus, in this situation, controlling use
levels to optimize solitude would be inappropriate. This is further exacerbated by different
visitors having different perceptions of solitude, different expectations of
crowding, and different tolerances for privacy.
Principle 8. Limiting use is only one of many
management options.
Controlling use should not
necessarily be the first management tactic chosen to manage visitor
impacts. Other management actions that
should be considered include those that focus on improving visitor behavior,
redistributing or containing use to less sensitive locations, and enhancing
resource durability. Even if controlling
use levels is the primary concern, efforts should be made to discourage use
(e.g., through fees or more inconvenient access) rather enforcing outright
limits on use. Simply controlling the
input of visitors into a park system will not necessarily lead to the optimum
mix of outputs or the best achievement of the protected area’s objectives. The costs (social, economic, and ecological)
to implement use limits might be greater than the benefits gained. A use limit policy is one of the most
intrusive and disruptive approaches a manager can use.
The emphasis on controlling
use levels as a means to limiting impacts stems from the carrying capacity
approach, originally adopted from the range management literature (Stankey and
McCool 1991). Because carrying capacity
invokes the question, "How many is too many?,"
it tends to view imposition of use limits as an end in itself. Use limit
policies historically have carried with them a host of additional problems,
such as choosing appropriate allocation and rationing techniques. These
techniques have been among the most controversial actions protected area
managers in the United States have ever taken (McCool and Ashor
1984), in large part because they address distributional and equity questions
relative to who gets what.
Principle 9. Monitoring is essential to professional
management.
Monitoring, can be defined as the
periodic and systematic measurement of key indicators of biophysical and social
conditions. Historically, it has been an
important component of the protected area manager's job. However, monitoring generally has been
conducted informally, with little systematic planning and implementation.
Monitoring performs two major functions.
First, it allows managers to maintain a formal record of resource and
social conditions over time. In serving
this function, data points can inform managers of changes in these conditions
rather than relying solely on informal perceptions of changes that might have
occurred. This is particularly important in situations where managers
frequently move around to different areas or where effects are slow to
develop. Secondly, monitoring helps assess
the effectiveness of management actions, thus helping managers understand, in a
relatively objective way, if actions address the problem. (It should be noted that there may be factors
other than management actions that influence the changes in conditions that a
monitoring program might document).
However, despite its acknowledged importance, support for, and execution
of, monitoring programs is often poor.
Principle 10. The decision-making process should
separate technical decisions from value judgments.
Many decisions confronting
protected area managers are simply technical in nature, such as the number of
toilets needed in a campground, the ecologically preferred location of a trail,
or the design of a visitor center.
However, many other decisions reflect judgments about values -- such as
objectives for an area, optimal spacing between campsites, the
types of facilities or the kind of recreation opportunities to be
provided. It is important in
decision-making that these means-versus-ends decisions are not confused. Decision processes should separate questions
of "what is" from "what ought be."
For example, the task of identifying the range of diversity in resource or
social conditions that exists within
a protected area defines ‘what is’. Whereas, determining the preferred range of diversity chooses
‘what ought to be’. Existing conditions
may influence preferred conditions, but the two tasks should be kept
separate. Even those decisions that are
seen as largely technical are seldom value-neutral. Deciding ‘what ought to be’ should be an
explicit process, open to public examination and negotiation.
Principle 11. Consensus among affected groups about
proposed actions is needed for successful implementation of protected area
management strategies.
In many situations,
political polarization and conflict over natural resource management has
hindered progress in planning and management. Within the highly charged social
and political contexts that protected area manager frequently work, technical
planning processes often create more disagreement than agreement. Technical solutions may adversely affect
well-defined values expressed by a group within the public. The ensuing law suits, decision appeals,
protests and other disruptive activities can lead to increased stagnation and
uncertainty of outcomes. Successful
planning, therefore, needs to incorporate public participation as a fundamental
and on-going component. Moreover, the
citizenry expect to be involved and to be noticed. As the public grants the
authority for an agency to operate in a protected area, so, too, is the
political power ultimately held by the wider public. This necessitates their involvement in, and
commitment to agency planning processes and decisions. An inclusive and
collaborative approach builds understanding so that everyone can make progress.
The use of carrying capacity
for protected area management
One popular approach to
visitor management is carrying capacity.
Borrowed from the range and wildlife management professions, it was hoped
that a maximum number of visitors could be specified above which appropriate
ecological and social conditions could not be sustained. For a good number of reasons, determining
recreational carrying capacity is neither simple nor particularly useful (Hammit & Cole, 1987). Part of the problem is that
managers using a carrying capacity approach are mixing means with ends. Carrying capacity is viewed as a means of
protecting protected area resources.
Frequently, however, it becomes an end in itself. Limitations on visitor use are then
implemented as a means towards achieving the set carrying capacity. Whether these limitations are effective in
protecting ecological and social conditions in the park is overlooked or
forgotten.
The resurgent interest in
carrying capacity as a management framework has its roots in several factors:
(1) the increasing complexity of management, (2) accelerating demands on
natural resources to provide a wider diversity of goods and services, and (3)
the search for a defensible answer that can be implemented in a wide variety of
settings. For example,
Given the resurgence of
interest in carrying capacity, we now introduce some of the trade-offs which
must be made for successful application to protected area management. It is rare that all of these conditions for
implementation would be met. However, it
is important for managers to be aware of the limitations and assumptions they
are adopting by setting recreational carrying capacities. It will become obvious that many of the
previously presented principles are not well met by a carrying capacity
approach. Stankey and McCool (1992) and
Shelby and Heberlein (1986) describe the necessary
conditions for the application of carrying capacities and subsequent use limits
in recreational settings. These
conditions have been modified somewhat to make them more appropriate for the
variety of resources and social conditions found in national parks and
protected areas. The first five describe
conceptual conditions; the last four pertain to practical conditions. All nine not only point out the limitations
of the carrying capacity approach, but also expose the level of thought that
managers must bring to their planning efforts.
Condition 1.
There must be agreement on the type of desired social and resource
conditions, including the type of recreation opportunity.
Relevant stakeholders (e.g.,
managers, users) must agree on the types of opportunities to be provided. If, for example, one group feels that the
area should provide opportunities for motorized recreation on roads and another
argues for non-mechanized recreation without roads, no carrying capacity can be
established because of the immense differences in allowable use levels. Agreements on type of recreation or desired
conditions are essentially political decisions, in which science's role is
limited to understanding the consequences and range of alternative
choices. Following Principle 1, these
agreements on desired conditions should be explicitly stated at the outset.
Condition 2.
The recreation activities/experiences to be provided must be density
dependent.
As Alan Wagar’s
seminal report (1964) on recreational carrying capacity noted over 30 years
ago, and has been documented on numerous occasions since, many recreational
experiences are either independent of, or even positively associated with, use
level. For some opportunities, such as
sunbathing or beach going, use level might have no effect
whatsoever upon the experience. Indeed, if the beach goers are teen-agers, it
is likely “the more, the better.”
However, other opportunities, such as visiting wilderness to enjoy
solitude or watching wildlife in natural settings, might be very sensitive to
changes in use density.
Condition 3.
There must be agreement on the acceptable level of impact.
With any recreational use in
an area, some impact occurs. That is,
impacts cannot be eliminated or avoided, only managed. Thus, the key question is, "How much
impact is acceptable, given agreement on the type of recreation opportunity to
be provided?" For example, this
question might focus on the amount of vegetation loss permitted at campsites,
the level of diver-caused damage to coral, or how much development is
acceptable on an island or cay. Although
science can provide information on the consequences of vegetation loss or
development, acceptability is inherently a judgmental decision based on a
complex set of political, social and ecological trade-offs. It is likely that the various groups with an
interest in the protected area will have different perspectives on what would
be an acceptable level of impact.
Condition 4. A
clear, specific, and known relationship must exist between use levels and
social and resource conditions.
In order to answer the
question, "How many is too many?," the
relationship between use and impact (or use and conditions) must be known,
explicit and specific. That is, managers must develop explicit measures that
quantify the link between amount of recreational use and level of biophysical
or social impacts. Such measures would indicate increases or decreases in
impact given changes in amounts of recreational use. Simply assuming increasing impacts given
increasing use is insufficient. As
stated in Principle 6 & 7, the relationship between use levels and degrees
of impact upon the experience (and upon the environment) are rarely
linear. And in many cases, such a
relationship may not exist at all.
Condition 5.
Use level must be more important than visitor behavior in determining
the amount of impact.
For carrying capacity to work
well, the relationship between use and impact must be relatively simple, with a
minimum of other variables influencing impact levels. Unfortunately, the literature now documents
many situations where the relationship between use and impact is non-linear,
complex, variant and influenced more strongly by the
behavior of the individual or group rather than by the numbers of visitors
(Cole 1987, Graefe et al. 1987).
Condition 6.
The protected area management authority must control access in the area.
If conditions one through
five are fulfilled, the agency still must have control over access to the area
in order for a carrying capacity limit to be implemented. Without such control, the agency possesses
little capacity to influence entry into the protected area and the carrying
capacity figure represents little more than a number on paper. Although such control is found in many North
American protected areas, the extent to which it exists in many other locations
is questionable.
Condition 7.
The protected area management authority must have the resources
(personnel, financial, information, etc.) to administer the carrying capacity
limit.
Ultimately, a recreational
carrying capacity is implemented by imposition of a limit (of some type) on
recreational use. In
Condition 8.
There must be agreement on the objectives of a rationing system in
implementing carrying capacity.
In situations where the
demand exceeds capacity, use must be rationed through some management action
(Stankey and Baden 1977). Objectives for
this rationing system must be explicitly identified prior to design of the
system (
Condition 9. There must be agreement that the
carrying capacity limit represents either the maximum or the optimum number of
people visiting an area.
Although this condition
never has been explicitly addressed in settings in
The Limits of Acceptable Change
(LAC) Planning System
The Limits of Acceptable
Change (LAC) planning system was developed in response to an increasing
recognition in the
In the
As originally conceived (and
described in greater detail in Stankey and others (1985)), LAC consists of nine
steps designed to incorporate the idea of "acceptability" and
diversity in resource and social conditions.
While not an entirely new idea, LAC sought to improve wildland recreation management by defining and managing
towards more explicit, measurable objectives (Stankey and others 1985). LAC seems well placed to face the
complexities of protected area management, particularly in this era of social
and political change. The nine steps presented below demonstrate LAC to be a
planning system that is well suited to modification for current and specific
needs; it’s potential for contributing to improved management of areas managed
for nature-based tourism seems high.
Step 1.
Identify areas' special values, issues,
and concerns.
Citizens, managers, and
others with a vested interest in the area meet to identify what special
features or distinctive qualities within the protected area require attention, what
management problems or concerns have to be dealt with, what legal and
administrative constraints exist for the area, what issues the public considers
most important in the area's management, and what role the area plays in both a
regional and national context.
Scientists can help provide and compile information not readily
available to managers and the public. This step encourages a better mutual
understanding of the natural resource base (such as the sensitivity of
particular environments to recreation use and tourism development), a general
concept of how the resource could be managed, and a focus on principal
management issues. LAC is very much an issue-driven process. Issues identified in this step will need
addressing throughout the planning process.
Step 2.
Identify and describe recreation opportunity
classes.
Most protected areas contain
a diversity of biophysical features, as well as a range of human occupation and
use. As mentioned earlier, the type of management appropriate for these differing
features and areas likely will vary throughout the area.
The Recreation Opportunity
Spectrum specifies six classes ranging from the primitive (a fairly large area
characterized by an essentially unmodified, natural environment) to the urban
(an area characterized by urbanization and substantial modification). Each class describes a consistency between
the social, managerial, and environmental conditions. For example, high levels of visitation would
correspond to a highly visible management presence and to a more developed
recreation site. Managers seek to not
only describe the conditions within each class, but also the distribution of
these recreation opportunity classes across the protected area. As Principle 3 stated above, a diversity of
opportunities is an important objective of protected area management.
Step 3.
Select indicators of resource
and social conditions.
Indicators are specific
elements of the resource or social setting selected to represent (or be
"indicative of") the conditions deemed appropriate and acceptable in
each opportunity class. Because it is impossible to measure the condition of,
and change in, every resource or social feature within a protected area, a few
indicators are selected as measures of overall area health, just as blood
pressure is often monitored to gauge physical health. Indicators should be a direct measure of the
conditions specified by the opportunity classes and, therefore, reflect the
unique and important qualities of the visitor experience and environmental
resource. Indicators should be
dependable, reliable and repeatable; they should also be easily subject to
quantitative, nondestructive measurement; and adequately reflect and respond to
changes in recreational use. Indicators
are an essential part of the LAC framework because their state is taken to
reflect the overall condition found throughout an opportunity class area. An individual indicator might not adequately
depict the condition of the whole area. Rather, it is the bundle of indicators
that is used to monitor conditions, and assess the effectiveness of various
management practices.
Step 4.
Inventory existing resource and social conditions.
Inventories can be
time-consuming and expensive components of planning. In the LAC process, the inventory is guided
by the indicators selected in Step 3.
For example, level and type of development, use density, and
human-induced impacts on park resources might be measured. Other variables, such as location of
different features, facilities, and access points, can also be inventoried to
develop a better understanding of area constraints and opportunities. Inventory data are mapped so that the condition of indicators in different locations are known.
The inventory also helps provide a shared database of known conditions which
can help in the establishment of realistic and attainable standards.
Step 5.
Specify standards for resource
and social conditions in each opportunity class.
In this step, the specific,
measurable range of conditions for each indicator is identified. Defining those conditions in measurable and
specific terms provides the basis for establishing a distinctive and diverse
range of recreational settings.
Standards serve to define the "limits of acceptable change."
They represent the maximum level of impact judged acceptable in a specific
opportunity class; they are not necessarily objectives to be attained. While
the standards defining the range of acceptable conditions in each opportunity
class must be realistic, they must also do more than mimic existing (perhaps
unacceptable) conditions. They are not
to be seen as explicit standards of degradation; rather, if existing conditions
are minimally acceptable, they should be seen as an opportunity to improve
conditions through establishment of more stringent standards (Stankey and
others 1985).
Step 6.
Identify alternative
opportunity class allocations.
Most protected areas could
be managed in several different ways. Parks and protected areas often differ
significantly in the amount of development, human density (both residents and
visitors), and recreational opportunities available. In this step, different types of alternatives
are identified. Using information from Step
1 (area issues and concerns) and Step 4 (inventory of existing conditions),
managers and citizens begin to jointly explore how well different opportunity
class allocations address the various contending interests, concerns, and
values. That is, examining how well the
division of land into the different opportunity classes meets the demands and
needs of the various stakeholders.
Different combinations and permutations should be considered as a means
to making explicit the allocation prefences. This is a prescriptive step, establishing
what should be, and should therefore involve input from policy makers,
managers, and the public. The provision
of allocation alternatives will allow follow-up review, evaluation, and
selection.
Step 7.
Identify management actions
for each alternative.
The alternative allocations
proposed in Step 6 are only the first step in the process of developing a
preferred alternative. Both managers and
citizens need to know what management actions will be required to achieve or
maintain the desired conditions. In a
sense, Step 7 requires an analysis of the costs (broadly defined) that will be
imposed by each alternative. For
example, people might wish to protect a specific area from all development and
restore any impacts that might compromise the area’s pristine condition. However, this alternative might require such
a huge commitment of funds for acquisition and enforcement (e.g., virtual
closure to public use for an extended time) that the alternative might not seem
as attractive. Note that management
actions should be specific and consistent with the opportunity classes
previously identified and the conditions inventoried. Managers could choose to provide protection
in part of an opportunity class above and beyond the minimum standards
mentioned previously. As Stankey and
others (1985) suggest, "by maintaining conditions better than the standard
requires, further diversity" is achieved.
Cole and others (1987) provide a useful assessment of alternative
actions for managing wilderness recreation use.
Step 8. Evaluation and selection
of preferred alternative.
With the various costs and
benefits of the several alternatives before them, managers and citizens can
proceed to the evaluation stage. The
managing authority, based on guidance from the public, can then select a
preferred alternative. Evaluation must
take into account many factors, but examples would include the responsiveness
of each alternative to the issues identified in Step 1, management requirements
from Step 7, and public preferences. It
is important that the factors figuring into the evaluation process and their
relative weight be made explicit and available for public review. It is also essential to analyze the various
costs and benefits and to whom they would accrue.
Step 9.
Implement actions and monitor
conditions.
With an alternative finally
selected and articulated as policy by decision-makers, the necessary management
actions are put into effect and a monitoring program instituted. Often, an implementation plan, detailing
actions, costs, staffing, timetables, and responsibilities, will be needed to
ensure timely implementation. The
monitoring program focuses on the indicators selected in Step 3, and compares
their condition with those identified in the standards. This information can be used to evaluate the
success (or lack thereof) of actions, and provide systematic feedback regarding
performance of the management program.
If conditions are not improving, the intensity of the management effort
might need to be increased or new actions implemented. Cole (1989) and Marion (1991) provide methods
for monitoring wilderness campsite conditions.
The LAC process, in summary,
provides a framework for thinking about issues of recreation development and management. It is a framework that recognizes the
intrinsic complexity of development issues, yet provides a process to deal
competently with this complexity without being excessively reductionist. By combining the technical expertise of
planners and scientists with valuable personal knowledge held by the local
public, together with an explicit recognition of the importance of public
involvement in the decision making process, LAC can result in more defensible
decisions that have greater chances of implementation.
LAC has proven to be a
highly adaptable framework that has seen application in a variety of protected
areas. The procedure laid out in LAC was not meant to be mandated for every
situation. Rather, managers have found
it to be an appropriate statement of principles from which to develop their own
similar or derivative planning systems.
By wrestling with the conditions under which the planning approach must
operate, managers avoid being naive about the complexity and consequences of
the planning process. By grounding their
own planning process in the principles described in this chapter, managers can
still develop a process that fits the capacity and/or ability of their
organization and setting.
An example of a planning system that builds upon the
framework of LAC is the Tourism Optimization Management Model (TOMM) developed
in
TOMM, like LAC was designed to meld the technical
expertise of industry and government with community and conservation group
knowledge. “TOMM was
designed to serve a multitude of stakeholders with a multitude of interests” (Mandis Roberts Consultants, 1997, p. 9). TOMM also demonstrates the ability of a
planning process that follows the principles laid out in this chapter to
operate a regional level over a multitude of public and private land
tenures. Both TOMM and LAC move from
setting limits or carrying capacities to a focus on desired conditions and an
open and explicit process towards achieving and maintaining those conditions.
Conclusion
The Limits of Acceptable
Change planning process, and its derivative approaches like
TOMM, represent an effective evolution of problem conceptualization compared
to the recreational carrying capacity approach.
However, in and of itself, LAC provides only a
framework for identifying appropriate management actions. It does not determine what should be done, by
whom, or where. Managerial, public, and
scientific expertise is still required. LAC helps frame management questions
more effectively than in the past.
Understanding the principles upon which LAC is based, and the conditions
under which visitor management of protected areas must operate, will help lead
to planning systems more compatible with specific agency needs and capability,
and more suited to the complexities of protected area planning in this era of
social and political change.
References
Brown,
P.J., McCool, S.F., and M.J. Manfredo. 1987. Evolving
concepts and tools for recreation user management in wilderness: A
state-of-knowledge review. In R.C. Lucas, comp., Proceedings -- National Wilderness Research Conference
: Issues, states-of-knowledge, future directions; 1985 July 23-26, Fort
Collins, CO.
Butler, R. W. 1996. The concept of carrying capacity for
tourism destinations : Dead or merely buried ? Progress
in Tourism and Hospitality Research, vol. 2, pp. 283-293.
Cole, D.N. 1987.
Research on soil and vegetation in wilderness :
A state-of-knowledge review. In R.C. Lucas, comp., Proceedings -- National Wilderness Research Conference
: Issues, states-of-knowledge, future directions; 1985 July 23-26, Fort
Collins, CO.
Graefe, A.R., Donnelly, M.P., and J.J. Vaske. 1987. Crowding and specialization: A re-examination
of the crowding model. In R.C. Lucas, comp., Proceedings -- National Wilderness Research Conference
: Current Research; 1985 July 23-26, Fort Collins, CO.
Graefe, A.R., Kuss, F.R.
and J.J. Vaske. 1990.
Visitor Impact Management: The planning framework.
Graham, R. 1989. Visitor management and
Hammitt, W. E. and D.N. Cole. 1987. Wildland Recreation:
Ecology and Management.
Haas,
G.E., Driver, B.L., Brown, P.J., and R.C. Lucas. 1987. Wilderness management zoning. Journal of Forestry, vol. 85, no. 12,
pp. 17-21.
Hendee, J.C., Stankey, G.H., and R.C. Lucas. 1990. Wilderness
Management. Golden, CO : North American Press.
Lee, K. N. 1993. Compass
and Gyroscope : Integrating Science and Politics for
the Environment.
Lindberg,
K., McCool, S. F., and G.H. Stankey. 1997.
Rethinking carrying capacity. Annals of
Tourism Research, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 461-464.
Machlis, G.E. and D.L. Tichnell. 1985. The state of the world's parks: An international assessment for
resource management, policy, and research.
Mandis Roberts Consultants. 1997. Developing
a Tourism Optimisation Management Model (TOMM), a
model to monitor and manage tourism on
McCool, S.F. 1996. Limits of
Acceptable Change: A Framework for
Managing National Protected Areas:
Experiences from the
McCool,
S.F. and J.L. Ashor. 1984. Politics and rivers: Creating effective
citizen involvement in management decisions.
In J.S. Popadic,
D.I. Butterfield, D.H. Anderson, M.R. Popadic,
eds., National River Recreation Symposium
Proceedings; 1984 October 31 - November 3; Baton Rouge, LA.
McCool,
S.F., J.L. Ashor, and G.L. Stokes. 1986. An alternative to
rational-comprehensive planning. In R.C. Lucas, comp., Proceedings -- National Wilderness Research Conference
: Current Research; 1985 July 23-26, Fort Collins, CO.
McCool,
S.F., and G.H. Stankey. 1992. Managing for the sustainable use of protected
wildlands: The
Limits of Acceptable Change framework.
Paper presented at IV World Congress on National Parks and Protected
Areas,
Manning, R. E. 1986. Studies
in Outdoor Recreation : Search and research for
satisfaction.
Manning,
R.E., Lime, D.W.,
Martin,
S., McCool, S.F., and R.C. Lucas. 1989.
Wilderness user perceptions of campsite impacts. Environmental Management,
vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 623-629.
Schomaker, J. H. 1984.
Writing quantifiable river recreation management objectives. In J.S. Popadic, D.I.
Butterfield, D.H. Anderson, M.R. Popadic, eds., National River Recreation Symposium
Proceedings; 1984 October 31 - November 3; Baton Rouge, LA.
Shelby, B.
and T.A. Heberlein. 1986. Carrying
capacity in recreation settings.
Speight, M.C.D. 1973. Outdoor recreation and its ecological effects : A bibliography and review. Discussion paper in
conservation 4.
Stankey,
G.H. and J.Baden. 1977. Rationing wilderness use: Methods, Problems,
and Guidelines.
Stankey,
G.H., Cole, D.N., Lucas, R.C.,
Stankey,
G.H and S.F. McCool. 1984. Carrying capacity in
recreational settings: Evolution, appraisal, and application. Leisure Sciences, vol. 6, no. 4, pp.
453-473.
Stankey,
G.H. and S.F. McCool. 1989. Beyond
social carrying capacity. In E.L. Jackson and T.L. Burton, eds., Understanding Leisure and Recreation:
Mapping the Past Charting the Future.
Stankey,
G.H. and S.F. McCool. 1991. Recreational use limits:
The wildland manager’s continuuing
dilemma.
Stankey,
G.H. and S.F. McCool. 1992. Managing recreation use
of marine resources through the limits of acceptable change planning system. Unpublished paper.
Stankey,
G.H., and S.F. McCool. 1993. Managing tourism and recreation in protected habitats: Prerequisites for effective strategies. Paper presented at Second World Congress on
Tourism for the Environment, Porlamar,
Wagar, J. A. 1964. The
carrying capacity of wild lands for recreation.
Wall, G.
and C. Wright. 1977. The
environmental impact of outdoor recreation. Department of
Geography Publication Series No. 11.
Washburn,
R.F. and D.N. Cole. 1983. Problems and practices in wilderness management: A survey of managers.
Wilkes, B.
1977. The myth of the non-consumptive user. The Canadian Field Naturalist, vol. 91, no. 4, pp. 343-349.
. Email : 