Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
These sorts of locations should be inspected frequently, sometimes as
often as once or twice a month, depending on the potential impacts. Less
impact-prone areas can be inspected once a year, while the most remote areas
might be monitored once a year or every two years (Bristow, 1998). Regardless
of timeframe, physical monitoring is very important.
Many different trail monitoring tools and approaches have been devel-
oped over the years to assess human impacts on route and pathway environ-
ments with varying degrees of success (Potter & Manning, 1984; Wolfe et al. ,
2012). One of the earliest and most effective has been field visits for invento-
ries and point sampling. These involve checklists, calculators, surveying
devices and measuring instruments. On wilderness paths and hiking tracks
the most common activity undertaken during site visits is systematic point
sampling to quantify soil movement, trail width and vegetation changes
(Leonard & Whitney, 1977; Leung & Marion, 1999b). Inventories are needed
to measure spontaneous trail development occurring with unorganized tram-
pling. Inventories show levels of use and help managers evaluate the need for
vegetation recover, where repairs are needed and where new side-trails might
need to be built (Sievänen, 1991). Site visits can also involve first-hand obser-
vations of user activities and behaviors in relation to visitors' use of the trail
and its various elements (Keirle & Stephens, 2004; Wolfe et al. , 2012).
Photographs are a pivotal part of trail monitoring, both satellite/aerial
imagery and on-ground photos. Before and after photos of trails and campsites
are beneficial in evaluating use impacts and can aid in making carrying
capacity and access decisions (Settina & Kauffman, 2001). A study by Kim
et al. (2003) found that photo survey methods explained variation in accept-
able changes better than written survey methods did. Aerial photographs
and GIS are constructive tools for measuring the spatiality of human
impacts and natural deterioration (Leung & Marion, 1998). Even when these
images are used, onsite field visits are still important to corroborate the
photographic data.
Relatedly, visitor-employed photography has been used successfully in the
past to understand people's landscape experiences. In a study of forest walks
in Japan, visitors were given single-use cameras and asked to photograph what
they perceived to be positive landscapes (Oku & Fukamachi, 2003). The data
gleaned from this exercise were useful in determining walkers' appreciation
of the landscape and their connections to the natural environment while at
the same time providing information about what parts of a trail were accept-
able versus those which were not. A similar study was conducted in a Korean
national park, where participants were invited to rate the acceptability of
worn trail areas (areas of bare soil) shown in 10 photographs (Kim & Shelby,
2005). This exercise helped the researchers appreciate the largest percentage
of bare soil acceptable to recreational trail users.
User surveys are another way of getting information about visitors' activ-
ities and satisfaction (Settina & Kauffman, 2001; Wearing & Nelson, 2000).
Search WWH ::




Custom Search