Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
that northern Saskatchewan had been nominated to the Heritage Rivers
System but had yet not been officially designated. The application of the
model demonstrated no major recreational use problems along this section
of the river, but there was some indication of minor issues that were best
resolved to avoid larger problems in the future, namely canoe-jet boat con-
flicts, an issue not of level of use but rather type of use, excessive garbage and
the availability of campsites. These were all very practical problems which
managers could act upon by imposing limited use in near wilderness
settings, multiple uses in natural settings, or multiple uses in developed
settings. The utility of the model lies in that it provides managers with the
necessary data to make informed choices. The wider utility of the model is
clear within the Canadian Heritage Rivers System, but it can also be adapted
and applied to other rivers, routes and tourism corridors.
Acceptable limits
There is a level beyond which impacts are not acceptable, namely the
limits of acceptable change (LAC) (Stankey et al. , 1985). This concept
accepts that solutions to overuse would most likely be found and insti-
tuted by resource managers rather than other stakeholders, but where the
process would involve as many stakeholders as feasible to allow decisions
to be built rather than made (Payne & Graham, 1993). Application of the
LAC, similar to ROS, has been largely limited to national parks in a
number of countries (e.g. Canada, New Zealand and the USA), which
focus on using the procedure to administer an area's resources rather than
a linear space.
Other management tools have developed that focus on managing visitor
impacts (VIM). These are not much different than LACs, as they are staged
planning processes designed by the US National Park Service to focus on
limiting damage instead of preventing or repairing it. This planning process
was not designed for recreational corridors specifically, but it could apply to
lines as well as it does to areas. The same argument can be made for the
VERP model (visitor experience and resource protection), also designed for
the US National Park Service, as it combines opportunities with limits, and
was intended for use across a wide spectrum of natural environments that
could include tracks and trails within protected landscapes. Vaske et al.
(2000) noted that VERP stresses that managerial responsibility is not to
create experiences but create opportunities for experiences. Thus, the pres-
ence of nature trails and tracks, and even cultural routes, provides recre-
ational and tourism opportunities for the formation of visitor experiences.
Stakeholder management
Managing linear spaces involves a wide range of stakeholders, as
alluded to throughout this topic. Beyond managers are the recreationists
Search WWH ::




Custom Search