Download Comparative Analysis of Protected Area Planning and Management: VAMP, ROS, LAC, VIM and more Study notes Literature in PDF only on Docsity!
In: McCool, Stephen F.; Cole, David N., comps. 1997. Proceedings—Limits of Acceptable Change and related planning processes: progress and future directions; 1997 May 20–22; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-371. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Per Nilsen is Head of Appropriate Activities and Risk Management, Parks Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage, 4th Floor, 25 Eddy St., Hull, QC, Canada, K1A 0M5. Grant Tayler is a Visitor Management Consultant and a recently retired coordinator of the Visitor Activity Planning Program, National Parks, Parks Canada, 7 Centrepark Drive, Gloucester, ON, Canada, K1B 3C2.
Abstract —A comparative analysis of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC), a Process for Visitor Impact Management (VIM), Visitor Experience and Re- source Protection (VERP), and the Management Process for Visitor Activities (known as VAMP) decision frameworks examines their origins; methodology; use of factors, indicators, and standards; appropriate application; and relationships. While many areas in the frameworks can be improved, the most pressing needs are integra- tion of principles among the frameworks and with other planning processes that emphasize ecosystem-based management and an evaluation of their effectiveness, particularly with the profound organizational changes taking place in all protected area agencies.
Since the mid 1970’s, a variety of planning and manage- ment frameworks have been developed for protected areas to address issues such as recreation carrying capacity; human use that causes stress for ecosystems; methods to determine appropriate types, levels, and conditions of use; and methods to inventory and manage an appropriate mix of visitor opportunities. These frameworks include the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) framework, the Process for Visitor Impact Management (VIM), the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) framework, and the Management Pro- cess for Visitor Activities (known as VAMP). While each framework or “pre-formed decisionmaking structure” (Meis
- has a unique origin, these frameworks also share many similarities. Considerable effort has been devoted to describing what the individual frameworks seek to accom- plish, the steps involved, and how they have been applied to individual sites. Until recently, few comparative analyses have been un- dertaken for these contemporary frameworks. Recent ex- amples include: a comparative analysis of the formula-based carrying capacity approaches, as well as of ROS and LAC (Graefe and others 1990); a comparative analysis of ROS,
A Comparative Analysis of Protected Area
Planning and Management Frameworks
Per Nilsen
Grant Tayler
LAC, VIM, and VAMP (Payne and Graham 1993); two workshops on visitor management (Graham and Lawrence 1990; Rickson and others 1995); and studies on the use of these frameworks (Giongo and others 1993; Schneider and others 1993). As part of a project to define a spectrum of appropriate National Park opportunities and in response to numerous staff inquiries about the various planning and management tools, a summary description of 11 approaches was pre- pared for Parks Canada (Tayler 1996). Five of these frame- works are described and compared here. After an extensive literature review, each of the five frameworks was described and analyzed in terms of origins; methodology; use of factors, indicators, and standards; appropriate applica- tions; and relationships (see table 1). These variables were chosen to create a practical snapshot of the selected frame- works for Parks Canada field staff. Field staff could then decide which approach would be appropriate to address the issues they were dealing with. The comparative analysis then led to the identification of a number of common themes, issues, and recommendations for future research.
Results of the Comparative
Analysis _______________________
Origins
The circumstances and the parties involved in developing each approach are unique and have been described in detail in the literature (Graham and Lawrence 1990; Rickson and others 1995). A comparison of their origins (Tayler 1996) revealed that each approach:
- Originated from a collaboration between researchers and Federal agency staff or between researchers and national nongovernmental organizations (VIM, for ex- ample, was developed in conjunction with the U.S. National Parks and Conservation Association).
- Benefited from advances in recreation research, par- ticularly in the late 1970’s with the work of Driver and Brown (1978), and Clark and Stankey (1979) on ROS, and in the mid-1980’s with the development of LAC (Stankey and others 1985) and VAMP (Parks Canada 1985).
- Was a response to both legislative and policy require- ments, as well as to increasing recreation demands, impacts, and conflicts.
- Recognizes the origins and deficiencies of the tradi- tional carrying capacity model for recreation manage- ment and strives to move beyond it.
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)
Developed by researchers working for the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management in response to concerns about growing recreational demands and increasing conflict over use of scarce resources, and a series of legislative directives that called for an integrated and comprehensive approach to natural resource planning. The process comprised six land classes to aid in understanding physical, biological, social and managerial relationships, and to set parameters and guidelines for management of recreation opportunities.
Steps of the Process
- Inventory and map the three setting perspectives that affect the experience of the recreationalist, namely the physical, social and managerial components.
- Complete analysis: a) identify setting inconsistencies; b) define recreation opportunity classes; c) integrate with forest management activities; and d) identify conflicts and recommend mitigation.
- Schedule.
- Design.
- Execute projects.
- Monitor. The end product is a definition of the opportunity for experience expected in each setting (six classes—primitive to urban), the indicators of the experience, and the parameters and guidelines for management.
Factors, Indicators and Standards : Seven setting indicators have been identified. They represent aspects of recreation settings that facilitate a range of experiences that can be influenced by managers.
- Access
- Remoteness
- Visual Characteristics
- Site Management
- Visitor Management
- Social Encounters
- Visitor Impacts Criteria have been developed by the U.S. Forest Service for each of the indicators and for each of the six land classes, e.g., distance guidelines, remoteness, user density in terms of capacity and frequency of contact, and degree of managerial regimentation required.
Applications Best Suited for This process can be employed in almost all landscape planning exercises. However, the nature of the spectrum, the indicators and their criteria depend on the purpose of the area, the mandate of the organization and the responsibilities of management.
Relationships This management matrix approach has been incorporated into the LAC system and can be used with VIM. It has been recognized within VAMP, but is hindered by the current use of zoning in Parks Canada.
Strengths : It is a practical process with principles that force managers to rationalize management from three perspectives:
- protection of the resource;
- opportunities for public use; and
- the organization’s ability to meet preset conditions. It links supply with demand and can be readily integrated with other processes. It ensures that a range of recreation opportunities are provided to the public. Weaknesses : The recreation opportunity spectrum, its setting indicators and their criteria must be accepted in total by managers before any options or decisions can be made. Disagreement will affect the rest of the planning program. ROS maps need to be related to the physical and biophysical characteristics of each area.
Process for Visitor Impact Management (VIM)
Developed by researchers working for the U.S. National Parks and Conservation Association for use by the U.S. National Park Service. The process addresses three basic issues relating to impact: problem conditions; potential causal factors; and potential management strategies. Steps of the Process
- Conduct pre-assessment database review.
- Review management objectives.
- Select key indicators.
- Select standards for key impact indicators.
- Compare standards and existing conditions.
- Identify probable causes of impacts.
- Identify management strategies.
- Implement. Factors, Indicators and Standards The list of possible indicators of impact includes: Physical impacts :
- soil density, pH, compaction, drainage, chemistry, productivity
- amount and depth of litter and dust
- area of barren core and of bare ground
- area of complete campsites
- number and size of fire rings
- number of social trails
- visible erosion Biological impacts :
- soil fauna and microfauna
- ground-cover density and loss of ground cover
- diversity and composition of plant species
- proportion of exotic plant species
- plant species height, vigour and diseases
- trees—mutilation, seeding regeneration, exposed roots
- wildlife species—diversity, abundance, sightings
- presence or absence of indicator species
- reproduction success Social Impacts :
- number of encounters
- by activity type with other individuals/day
- by size of group
- with other groups/day
- by mode of transport
- by location of encounter
- visitor perception of crowding
- visitor perception of impact on the environment
- visitor satisfaction
- visitor complaints
- visitor reports of undesirable behaviours Standards are established for each indicator based on the management objectives that specify acceptable limits or appropriate levels for the impact. Applications Best Suited for This is a flexible process parallel to LAC that can be applied in a wide variety of settings. It employs a similar methodology to assess and identify existing impacts and particularly the causes.
Relationships Like LAC, this process has been incorporated into the VERP system. Strengths : Process provides for a balanced use of scientific and judgemental considerations. It places heavy emphasis on understanding causal factors to identify management strategies. The process also provides a classification of management strategies and a matrix for evaluating them.
Weaknesses : The process does not make use of ROS, although it could. It is written to address current conditions of impact, rather than to assess potential impacts.
Table 1 —Comparative Analysis of Planning and Management Framework.
(con.)
Steps of the Process
All of the frameworks follow the steps of standard rational planning: terms of reference, database develop- ment, situation analysis, synthesis, objectives, alternatives, final plan, and implementation. Each approach, therefore, recognizes, in varying degrees, a hierarchy of decisions that need to be made, ranging from inventory and analysis to development of a management concept (strategic decisions), and, subsequently, implementation and operations (tactical decisions). ROS, VIM, and VAMP are rational-comprehensive plan- ning approaches (Payne and Graham 1993). The recently developed VERP (Hof 1993) can be added to this list. LAC was originally developed as a rational-comprehensive or synoptic planning process, but has been applied using the theory of transactive planning to produce plans for areas such as the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex (McCool 1990).
Factors, Indicators, and Standards
Stankey and McCool (1990) make a distinction between factors, indicators, and standards. Factors are “broad cat- egories of issues or concerns” (such as trail conditions), from which one or more indicators can be identified that reflect the overall condition of the factor. “Indicators are specific variables” (such as soil compaction) “that singly, or in com- bination, are taken as indicative of the conditions of the overall opportunity class” or “factor.” “Standards are meas- urable aspects of indicators” that “provide a base against which a particular condition can be judged as acceptable or not” (Stankey and McCool 1990: 225-26). The five approaches vary considerably in the language they use and the degree of emphasis they place on factors, indicators, and standards. These differences reflect varia- tions in the questions being asked, the type of research and analysis that follows, and the decisions that are being made. VAMP and VERP share the greatest similarities, with their emphasis on a broad range of factors at the strategic level of planning and management. With these strategic decisions in place, there is a basis for developing indicators and standards. Each approach addresses the issue of in- dicators and standards differently. In VERP, both resource and social indicators are described; however, all the social indicators relate to levels of crowding (USDI 1995). VAMP emphasizes social indicators and standards (levels of ser- vice) from a visitor’s perspective and is complemented by a natural resource management and an environmental im- pact assessment process that address resource factors, indi- cators, and standards. The results of applying these pro- cesses are integrated during management planning. LAC and VIM identify issues and concerns (factors) at the outset of the process, then define management objec- tives. The issues and management objectives guide the selection of indicators and standards. This issue-driven approach leads to a narrow range of factors being considered and more emphasis on choosing appropriate indicators and standards, followed by monitoring. Graefe and others (1990:
- note that “VIM includes an explicit step aimed at identifying probable causes of impact conditions, while LAC places greater emphasis on defining opportunity classes and developing alternative class allocations.”
Management Process for Visitor Activities (VAMP)
Created by Parks Canada as a companion process to the Natural Resources Management Process within the Parks Canada Management Planning System. The process provides guidance for planning and management of new parks, developing parks and established parks. Steps of the Process The process uses a model based on a hierarchy of decisions within the management program. Management plan decisions relate to the selection and creation of opportunities for visitors to experience the park’s heritage settings through appropriate educational and recreational activities. Decisions about managing and delivering support services for each activity are reflected in the service plan. The basic principles of VAMP are within three Parks Canada documents:
- Guiding Principles and Operational Policies;
- Management Planning Manual; and
- Visitor Activity Concept Manual. General steps of the management plan process are:
- Produce a project terms of reference.
- Confirm existing park purpose and objectives statements.
- Organize a database describing park ecosystems and settings, potential visitor educational and recreational opportunities, existing visitor activities and services, and the regional context.
- Analyse the existing situation to identify heritage themes, resource capability and suitability, appropriate visitor activities, the park’s role in the region and the role of the private sector.
- Produce alternative visitor activity concepts for these settings, experiences to be supported, visitor market segments, levels of service guidelines, and roles of the region and the private sector.
- Create a park management plan, including the park’s purpose and role, management objectives and guidelines, regional relationships, and the role of the private sector.
- Implementation—set priorities for park conservation and park service planning. Factors, Indicators and Standards Factors that are considered in developing indicators and standards include:
- visitor activity profiles
- kind
- quantity, diversity, location
- experiences/benefits sought
- support services and facilities required at all stages of trip cycle
- stakeholder profiles
- interpretation theme presentation
- resource values, constraints and sensitivities
- existing legislation, policy, management direction, plans
- current offer of services and facilities at all stages of trip cycle
- regional activity/service offer
- satisfaction with service offer Applications Best Suited for The detailed process is specific to the planning program of Parks Canada and is parallelled by the Natural Resources Management Process. The basic VAMP concept incorporates the principles of ROS. The framework will benefit from and can easily incorporate the principles of VIM, LAC and VERP. The focus is assessment of opportunity, while the more precise impact question is left to the Natural Resources Management Process. Relationships The overall process provides a comprehensive framework for the creation and management of opportunities for visitors within the Parks Canada Management Planning Program. Strengths : Comprehensive decision-making process based on a hierarchy. It benefits from the structured thinking required to analyse both opportunity and impact. It combines social science principles with those of marketing to focus on visitor opportunities. Weaknesses : Although well-developed at the service planning level, VAMP does not yet have the clout it should have at the management planning level, mainly because the “opportunities for experience” definition has not been built into management plans or into the zoning.
Table 1 (Con.)
Figure 1 —Evolution of the frameworks.
ROS seems to fall between the two subgroups. ROS does consider physical (resource), social, and managerial factors that contribute to strategic decisions about the supply of recreation opportunities; however, indicators are used dif- ferently than in the other frameworks. ROS has seven groups of setting indicators and standards that inventory the supply and demand of recreation opportunities, assist in monitoring over time, identify impacts, and determine the effectiveness of management actions (USDA 1981, 1990). Once the ROS class designations are agreed on during the planning process, they can be used to guide tactical decisions related to day-to-day operations.
Appropriate Applications
The appropriate application of each framework depends on which questions are being asked, and in which contexts or settings. ROS, VERP, and VAMP are more comprehen- sive and holistic. They are particularly useful for establish- ing a broad direction for the management of human use in protected areas. VIM and LAC are primarily issue-driven and narrower in focus. ROS, VERP, and VAMP also address the issue of interpreting natural and cultural resources directly, whereas LAC and VIM require a conscious mana- gerial decision to consider interpretation (Pugh 1990). ROS is for macro or regional planning in a variety of different settings (Driver 1990). It is designed to integrate information about the supply and demand for outdoor recreation opportunities into other forms of planning (such as land and resource planning in the U.S. Forest Service). ROS can also be used to estimate the effects of management decisions on the provision of recreation opportunities. Its underlying concepts and principles can be applied to almost all landscape planning exercises. VIM is reactive and best suited to more site-specific problems. It was derived from an extensive review of the recreation carrying capacity literature (Kuss and others
1990). For the impact of recreation on the environment and the quality of the visitor experience, VIM addresses three basic issues: problem conditions, potential causal factors, and potential management strategies. VIM emphasizes identifying probable causes of impact conditions given the scientific evidence that exists to date about the nature of recreation impacts. LAC is “an extension of the ROS concept applied specifi- cally to wilderness area management,” but “could be applied to any natural areas used for recreation purposes” (Graefe and others 1990: 93). The “LAC concept provides a frame- work within which the appropriate amount and extent of change can be identified. It also can alert managers to the need for action when changes exceed standards” (Stankey and McCool 1990: 220). LAC is a good vehicle for addressing specific factors in a transactive planning approach, to define the limits of acceptable change. It relies on the use of indicators, standards, and monitoring to identify unaccept- able impacts. VERP builds on the experience of VAMP and the other previously mentioned frameworks, and to date has been applied to some U.S. National Parks. It was first applied at Arches National Park in response to the General Manage- ment Plan (USDI 1989), “to help National Park planners and managers address visitor carrying capacity and make sound decisions about visitor use” (USDI 1995: 3). Although VAMP is designed to complement Parks Canada’s existing planning frameworks, its associated prin- ciples can be readily applied in a variety of management contexts, from large protected areas to specific facilities. It combines a marketing approach to management of public opportunities with the constraints of managing heritage resources, focusing on the visitor requirements for enjoyable experiences through appropriate activities. VAMP is par- ticularly useful for making strategic and operational deci- sions about target markets, market position, appropriate educational and recreation activities in selected heritage settings, and the kind, quantity, and quality of supporting services and facilities (Parks Canada 1985, 1988, 1991).
as determined by threat characteristics (intensity, areal extent, frequency, timing, predictability and others) and the vulnerability (resistance, resilience) of the affected at- tribute” (1996: 170), when evaluating the significance of an impact.
Emphasis on Indicators and Standards
LAC, VERP, and VIM place considerable emphasis on identifying factors, indicators, and standards, and on sub- sequent monitoring. Such a threat-specific approach pro- vides a mechanism for detecting early signals of problems, but does not necessarily pinpoint the root causes of the problems. Like a doctor working on a patient with multiple wounds, the current approaches emphasize understanding the size, shape, and significance of each wound, without understanding the cause, alternative ways of healing the injury, or ways to prevent it from recurring. Likewise, the key indicators of the health of the whole patient (in this case, the ecosystem) may be not be monitored along with the site-specific problems. Additional research is required to understand the rela- tionship between factors, indicators, and standards. Graefe and others (1990) suggest that additional work is also required to understand the probable causes of impacts and how these causes can be influenced. Similarly, the “inte- grated monitoring” of a wide range of key ecosystem indica- tors at the appropriate level is required in conjunction with threat-specific monitoring to ensure that the health of the overall ecosystem is considered as part of the planning exercise (Woodley 1996).
Data and Information Requirements
The frameworks’ varying degrees of emphasis on factors, indicators, and standards, combined with a lack of questions about the appropriate scope and scale of analysis, create a confusing picture of which approaches should be used for what purpose. This diversity of emphasis directly influences decisions about what type of data collection, analysis, and information is required. Inappropriate data may be collected if strategic questions and a hierarchy of decisions were not considered at the outset. There is a continued need for better-defined baseline data and information needs at the appropriate levels of management; more timely informa- tion, provided at the right point in the decisionmaking process; and an understanding of the authority and limita- tions of available data (Machlis 1993, 1996).
Definitions and Descriptions
Each of the frameworks calls for the definition and de- scription of opportunity objectives, classes, or zones. These are determined through an analysis of resources, social and managerial conditions, and the availability, capability, fea- sibility and suitability of settings for outdoor recreation. While each framework uses similar principles and concepts, the language used to describe them is often imprecise and vague. Additional work is required to articulate the at- tributes that define opportunity objectives, classes, or zones. This effort would establish a common vocabulary, as well as agreed-on standards, that can be more readily monitored, managed, and maintained.
Changing Environments, Organizations,
and Staff Capabilities
The reinvention of government in the early 1990’s, com- bined with fiscal restraint, brought considerable changes to organizational structures, priorities, and the availability of financial and human resources in all protected area agen- cies. Staff capabilities and training are eroding or dis- appearing, yet the mandates for protection or multiple use, and the provision of education and recreation opportunities remain. Lack of training, knowledge, and the time needed to understand different approaches have led to misapplica- tions of some of the frameworks. Elsewhere, staff are re- inventing approaches to visitor management based on their limited understanding of previous research, thereby wast- ing scarce human and financial resources. In parks, pro- tected areas, and educational institutions, there is a need to understand the basics of each planning and management framework as summarized in table 1.
Alternative Management Strategies
Each of the planning and management frameworks re- quires an array of direct and indirect management strate- gies. VIM goes a step further and suggests a matrix to evaluate these strategies. Little research, however, has been completed to determine the effectiveness of any of these strategies. This problem is further described by McCool and Christensen (1996), who confirm that there is plenty of experience in applying these strategies but that knowledge about their effectiveness is largely anecdotal. “This experi- ence is invaluable and should be documented, synthesized and archived” (McCool and Christensen 1996: 81). Further- more, there is little documentation of the costs of alterna- tive strategies or public preferences for direct versus indi- rect approaches in front-country and urban environments. The U.S. Forest Service report entitled “Managing Wilder- ness Recreation Use: Common Problems and Potential Solu- tions” (Cole and others 1987) is a notable exception. In addition to evaluating the effectiveness of the man- agement strategies recommended by the various plan- ning frameworks, Schneider and others (1993: 1) note that “although researchers have devoted great effort to develop- ing recreation management innovations, there have been few evaluations of these innovations or studies of their diffusion and implementation.” Some progress has been made through workshops at Waterloo in 1989 (Graham and Lawrence 1990) and Wisconsin in 1992 (Rickson and others 1995), and through other studies (Giongo and others 1993; Schneider and others 1993). Managers and practitioners, however, would benefit from further evaluations of imple- mentation of the frameworks, and, more important, their effectiveness in maintaining the integrity of ecosystems while providing opportunities for education and outdoor recreation in protected areas.
References _____________________
Clark, R. N.; Stankey, G. 1979. The recreation opportunity spec- trum: a framework for planning, management and research. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-PNW-98. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest Experi- ment Station. 32 p.
Clark, R. N.; Stankey, S. 1990. The recreation opportunity spec- trum: a framework for planning, management and research. In: Graham, R.; Lawrence, R., eds. Towards serving visitors and managing our resources—proceedings of a North American workshop on visitor management in parks and protected areas. Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo: 127-156. Cole, David N.; Landres, Peter B. 1996. Threats to wilderness ecosystems: impacts and research needs. Ecological Applications. 6(1): 168-184. Cole, David N.; Petersen, M. E.; Lucas, Robert C. 1987. Managing Wilderness Recreation Use: Common Problems and Potential Solutions. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-230. Ogden, UT: U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 60 p. Driver, B. 1990. Recreation opportunity spectrum: basic concepts and use in land management planning. In: Graham, R.; Lawrence, R., eds. Towards serving visitors and managing our resources—proceedings of a North American workshop on visi- tor management in parks and protected areas. Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo: 159-183. Driver, B.; Brown, P. 1978. The opportunity spectrum and be- havioural information in outdoor recreation resource supply in- ventories: a rationale. In: Gyde, H. Lund and others, tech. coords. Integrated inventories and renewable natural resources: pro- ceedings of the workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-55. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 24-31. Giongo, Francesca; Bosco-Nizeye, J.; Wallace, G. N. 1993. A study of visitor management in the world’s national parks and pro- tected areas. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, College of Natural Resources. 138 p. Graefe, A. 1990. Visitor impact management. In: Graham, R.; Lawrence, R., eds. Towards serving visitors and managing our resources—proceedings of a North American workshop on visi- tor management in parks and protected areas. Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo: 213-234. Graefe, A.; Kuss, F. R.; Vaske, J. J. 1990. Visitor impact manage- ment: the planning framework. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association. 105 p. Graham, R.; Lawrence, R., eds. 1990. Towards serving visitors and managing our resources—proceedings of a North American workshop on visitor management in parks and protected areas. Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo. 520 p. Hof, M. 1993. VERP: A process for addressing visitor carrying capacity in the national park system (working draft). Denver, CO: National Park Service, Denver Service Center. Kuss, F. R.; Graefe, A. R.; Vaske, J. J. 1990. Visitor impact manage- ment: a review of research. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association. 256 p. Machlis, G. 1993. Social science and protected area management: the principles of partnership. The George Wright FORUM. 10(1): 9-20. Machlis, G. 1996. Usable knowledge: a plan for furthering social science and the national parks. Washington, DC: National Park Service. 72 p. McCool, Stephen F. 1990. Limits of acceptable change: evolution and future. In: Graham, R.; Lawrence, R., eds. Towards serving visitors and managing our resources—proceedings of a North American workshop on visitor management in parks and pro- tected areas. Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo: 186-193. McCool, Stephen F.; Christensen, N. A. 1996. Alleviating congestion in parks and recreation areas through direct management of visitor behavior. In: Lime, David W., ed. Congestion and crowd- ing in the National Park System. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station: 67-83. Meis, S. 1990. Visitor management issues: monitoring and evalua- tion. In: Graham, R.; Lawrence, R., eds. Towards serving visitors and managing our resources—proceedings of a North American workshop on visitor management in parks and protected areas. Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo: 337-347. Parks Canada. 1985. Management process for visitor activities. Ottawa, ON: National Parks Directorate, Visitor Activities Branch. 76 p. Parks Canada. 1988. Getting started: a guide to park service planning. Ottawa, ON: Parks Canada, National Parks Director- ate, Visitor Activities Branch. 128 p.
Parks Canada. 1991. Visitor activity concept. Ottawa, ON: Parks Canada, Program Headquarters, VAMP Technical Group. 16 p. Payne, R. J.; Graham, R. 1993. Visitor planning and management in parks and protected areas. In: Deardon, P.; Rollins, R., eds. Parks and protected areas in Canada: planning and manage- ment. Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press: 185-210. Pugh, D. 1990. Decision frameworks and interpretation. In: Graham, R.; Lawrence, R., eds. Towards serving visitors and managing our resources—proceedings of a North American workshop on visitor management in parks and protected areas. Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo: 355-356. Rickson, R. E.; Field, D. R.; Nilsen, P., eds. 1995. For the record: presentations at the second Canada/U.S. workshop on visitor management in parks forests and protected areas. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin - Madison. 259 p. Schneider, Ingrid; Anderson, Dorothy; Jakes, Pamela. 1993. Inno- vations in recreation management: importance, diffusion, and implementation. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 12 p. Stankey, G.; Cole, David N.; Lucas, Robert C.; Peterson, Margaret E.; Frissell, Sidney S. 1985. The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) system of wilderness planning. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-176. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 37 p. Stankey, G.; McCool, S. 1990. Managing for appropriate wilderness conditions: the carrying capacity issue. In: Hendee, J. C.; Stankey, G. H.; Lucas, R. C. Wilderness Management (2d ed.) Golden, CO: Fulcrum Press: 215-239. Tayler, G. 1996. Spectrum of national park opportunities. Unpub- lished report prepared for the Parks Canada, National Parks, Natural Resources Branch. 20 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1981. ROS user’s guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 37 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990. ROS primer and field guide. U.S. Government Printing Office. 794-499. 10 p. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1989. General management plan, development concept plan, environ- mental assessment: Arches National Park. Moab, UT: National Park Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Denver Service Centre. 1995. Visitor experience and resource protection implementation plan: Arches Utah National Park. Denver, CO: National Park Service, Denver Service Centre. 72 p. Woodley, S. 1996. A scheme for ecological monitoring in national parks and protected areas. Environments. 23(3): 50-74.
Other Works Consulted __________
Cole, David N; McCool, Stephen F. 1997. Limits of acceptable change and related planning frameworks: critical issues. Back- ground paper for the limits of acceptable change workshop. Missoula, MT: May 20-22. 23 p. Driver, B. 1970. Elements of outdoor recreation planning. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. 316 p. Graefe, A.; Vaske, J. J.; Kuss, F. R. 1984. Social carrying capacity: an integration and synthesis of twenty years of research. Leisure Sciences. 6(4): 395-431. Graham, R. 1990. Visitor activity management and Canada’s na- tional parks. In: Graham, R.; Lawrence, R., eds. Towards serving visitors and managing our resources—proceedings of a North American workshop on visitor management in parks and pro- tected areas. Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo: 271-296. Lime, David W., ed. 1996. Congestion and crowding in the national park system. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. 144 p. Manfredo, Michael J., ed. 1992. Influencing human behaviour: theory and applications in recreation, tourism and natural re- sources management. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing Co., Inc. 371 p. Manning, R. E. 1986. Studies in outdoor recreation. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 166 p.
