Assessing visitor impacts on backcountry trails in parks:
Comparing techniques applied in two World Heritage sites
Sanjay K. Nepal
Associate Professor
Dept. of Geography & Environmental Management
University of Waterloo
Email: [email protected]
Impact Assessment Techniques
Descriptive Surveys
Estimates or measurements taken
on recreation sites to assess
current resource conditions
Comparison of Disturbed
and Undisturbed sites
Measurements taken on disturbed
sites and nearby undisturbed sites,
and compared to infer amount of
impact
Mt. Everest National Park
Mt. Robson Provincial Park
Trail assessment in
Mt. Everest National Park
12 indicators
Continuous survey
Assessment of problem
areas (condition class)
Remote sensing, GPS
and GIS application
Advanced statistical
tests
1. Continuous survey
Cross section view
2. Permanent sample plots
Planar view
Vegetation
450m
interval
3. Comparisons with past photographs
Trail assessment in Mt. Robson
Provincial Park
Indicators
Impact indicators
Maximum incision, width,
cross section, soil
penetration resistance
Vegetation cover and
species (exotics)
Problem areas (continuous
survey) wet/muddy,
unofficial trails
Management features
(continuous survey),
culverts ditching etc.
Ecological / Locational
Variables
Topography – landscape
slope, trail grade, alignment
Vegetation type/ cover
Soil texture and moisture
Nepal in South
Asia
Mt. Everest National Park
Mt. Everest National Park
Trail erosion – examples from Everest
Condition Class
Class I
Class II
Class III
Class IV
Damage Category
Slightly damaged
Moderately damaged
Highly damaged
Severely damaged
No. of Segments
69
58
16
65
Total (miles)
6.8
6.5
2.5
6.1
Condition Class system
Results – Mt. Everest National Park
Mapping trail degradation in Mt. Everest Park
Factors influencing trail conditions – Mt. Everest
More frequent occurrences of degradation on higher
altitudes, on steeper slopes, in open grasslands, in areas
where natural hazard potential exists
Level of degradation high in high traffic areas, and in
areas with high concentration of tourist lodges
Source: BC Parks, 2001
Two Backcountry Trails:
23 km Berg Lake Trail
(High-use destination)
More than 4000 visitor
nights/year
14 km Mt Fitzwilliam Trail
(Low-use destination)
Less than 500 visitor nights/yr
Berg Lake
Mt. Fitzwilliam
Mt. Robson Provincial Park
Mt. Robson Park – Resource Impact Indicators
Berg Lake Mt. Fitzwilliam
TS Ctrl TS CTRL
Species Richness 6.1 ±4.4 3.2 ±1.1 8.9 ±3.7 8.3 ±3.4
Vegetation Cover 391 551 832 872
Exposed Soil 141* 21 * 61 * 0.51 *
Exposed Rock 4 1 39 30
Coarse woody
debris
0.8 2 0.4 1
Floristic
Dissimilarity
54 ± 30 52 ± 25
1 differences @ 0.95 confidence interval using a one-way ANOVA and
Bonferoni post-hoc analysis.
* differences @ 0.95 confidence interval.
Factors influencing trail degradation – Mt. Robson
•Soil compaction values, tread width, and frequency of
exposed rocks and roots increased with increase in use
level
•Floristic dissimilarity index, amount of vegetation
cover, difference in species richness did not correlate
with use
Some conclusions
Mt. Everest National Park
Condition class assessment useful where park management and does not have the resource and manpower to conduct a more detailed assessment
Useful if the park management’s objective is to have a general idea of resource conditions
Trail impact studies are less prioritized due to other pressing environmental problems
Problem separating visitor use from other local use – this will continue to be a problem in parks with human settlements in it.
Some conclusions
Mt. Robson Provincial Park
Detailed onsite and off-site comparison is useful from a
research point of view; however, the level of detail is not
appreciated by park managers, specially given the current
budget cuts and limited hiring of maintenance staff
Continuity of research is a problem
Need to increase research capacity of individual parks
Some conclusions
Both parks
Growing interest in recreation resource impacts
Individual park units appreciate the value of research on
trail impacts, but at a higher level backcountry impacts
research gets low priority
Research capacity of park management is an important
consideration in selecting the techniques
Taking recreation ecology research to the next level
(comparing actual vs. perceptual impacts)
•Nepal, S. K. and Way, P. 2007. Characterizing and comparing backcountry trail
conditions in Mt. Robson Provincial Park. Ambio 36 (5): 394-400.
•Nepal, S.K. and Way, P. 2007. Comparison of vegetation conditions along two
backcountry trails in Mount Robson Provincial Park (Canada). J. of Environmental
Management, 82 (2): 240-49.
•Marion, J.L., Leung, Y.F and Nepal, S.K. 2006. Monitoring trail conditions: New
methodological considerations. The George Wright Forum 23: 36-49.
•Arocena, J., Nepal, S.K., and Rutherford, M. 2006. Visitor-induced changes in the
chemical composition of soils in backcountry areas of Mt. Robson Provincial Park,
British Columbia, Canada. J. of Environmental Management 79 (1): 10-19.
Nepal, S.K. and Nepal, S.A. 2004. Visitor impacts on trails in the Sagarmatha (Mt.
Everest) National Park, Nepal. Ambio 33 (6): 334-40.
Nepal, S.K. 2003. Trail impacts in the Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park,
Nepal: A logistic regression analysis. Environmental Management 32 (3) 312-21.
Relevant Papers [email protected]
