RECREATION MONITORING OF RESOURCE CONDITIONS IN THE KRONOTSKY STATE NATURAL BIOSPHERE PRESERVE (KAMCHATKA): AN INITIAL ASSESSMENT
https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2011-4-2-47-58
Abstract
The paper describes assessment and monitoring program which has been designed and initiated for monitoring recreational impacts in some wildernesses areas of Kamchatka. The framework of the recreational assessment was tested through its application in a case study conducted during the summer 2008 in the Kronotsky State Natural Biosphere Preserve (the Kamchatka peninsula, Russia). The overall objective of the case study was to assess the existing campsite and trail recreation impacts and to establish a network of key sites for the subsequent long-term impact monitoring. The detailed assessment of different components of natural complexes of the Kronotsky State Natural Preserve and the obtained maps of their ecological conditions showed that some sites had been highly disturbed. The results of these works have given rise to a concern that the intensive use of these areas would make an unacceptable impact on the nature. Findings of our initial work corroborate the importance of founding wilderness management programs on knowledge about the trail and campsite impacts and emphasize the necessity of adopting the recreational assessment and monitoring framework to the practice of decision-making.
About the Author
Anna ZavadskayaRussian Federation
Kronotsky State Natural Biosphere Preserve; 48-Ryabikova str., Yelizovo, Kamchatka region, Russia, 184000
References
1. Buckley, R., Robinson, J., Carmody, J., King, N. (2008) Monitoring for management of conservation
2. and recreation in Australian protected areas. Biodiversity and Conservation 17:
3. –3606.
4. Chizhova, V.P. (2002) Determination of carrying capacity of the tourist and excursion
5. routes (in Russian). In: Ecotourism on the way to Russia. Principles, recommendations,
6. Russian and foreign experience. Grif and Co, Tula, pp. 99–107.
7. Chizhova, V.P. (2007) Determination of carrying capacity (on example of the delta of the
8. Volga) (in Russian). Bulletin of Moscow University, Series 5, Geography 3: pp. 31–36.
9. Chizhova, V.P., Sevostianova, L.I. (2007) Ecotourism: geographical aspect (in Russian).
10. Mariy-El State Technical University, Ioshkar-Ola, 276 p.
11. Cole, D.N. (1982) Wilderness Campsite Impacts: Effect on the Amount of Use. USDA Forest
12. Service Research Paper, INT-284, 34 p.
13. Cole, D.N. (1983) Monitoring the condition of wilderness campsites. USDA Forest Service
14. Research Paper INT-302, 10 p.
15. Cole, D.N. (1989) Wilderness campsite monitoring methods: a sourcebook. Gen. Tech.
16. Rep. INT-259. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
17. Research Station, 57 p.
18. Cole, D.N. (1991) Changes on trails in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, Montana, 1978-89.
19. Research Paper, INT-450. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
20. Research Station, 5 p.
21. Cole, D.N., Foti, P., Brown M. (2008) Twenty Years of Change on Campsites in the Backcountry
22. of Grand Canyon National Park. Environmental Management 41: 959–970.
23. Cole, D.N., Stankey, G.H. (1998) Historical development of limits of acceptable change:
24. conceptual clarifications and possible extensions. In: McCool S.F., Cole D.N. (eds) Proceedings
25. limits of acceptable change and related planning processes: progress and future directions,
26. –22 May 1997. Missoula, MT. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service,
27. Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report, INT-371, Ogden, UT, pp. 5–9.
28. Eagles P.F.J., McCool S.F., Haynes C.D. (2002) Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas: Guidelines
29. for Planning and Management. U.S.: A UNEP/IUCN/WTO publication, 175 p.
30. Helgath, S.F. (1975) Trail deterioration in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Res. Note INT-
31. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
32. Station, 15 p.
33. Ivanov, A.N., Labutina I.A. (2006) Ecological and recreation zoning of the delta of the Volga
34. (in Russian). Bulletin of Moscow University, Series 5, Geography 4: 61–67.
35. Ivanov, A.N., Labutina I.A., Chizhova V.P. (2006) Ecological and recreation zoning of the
36. delta of the Volga as a tool for visitor management (in Russian). In: Changes in the naturalterritorial
37. complexes in the areas of anthropogenic impact. Moscow, pp. 189–200.
38. Kalikhman, A.D., Pedersen, A.D., Savenkova, T.P., Suknev, A.Y. (1999) The Limits of Acceptable
39. Changes methodology in Baikal, the World Heritage Site (in Russian). Ottisk, Irkutsk,
40. p.
41. Lucas, R.C. (1985) Visitor characteristics, attitudes, and use patterns in the Bob Marshall
42. Wilderness Complex, 1970-82. Research Paper INT-345. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
43. Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, 32 p.
44. Manning, R., Jacoby, C., Marion, J.L. (2006) Recreation monitoring at Acadia National Park.
45. George Wright Forum 23 (2): 59–72.
46. Marion, J.L. (1991) Developing a natural resource inventory and monitoring program
47. for visitor impacts on recreation sites: A procedural manual. USDI National Park Service,
48. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRVT/NRR-91/06, 59 p.
49. Marion, J.L. (1995) Capabilities and management utility of recreation impact monitoring
50. programs. Environmental Management 19 (5): 763–771.
51. Marion, J.L. (1998) Recreation ecology research findings: Implications for wilderness and
52. park managers. In: Proceedings of the National Outdoor Ethics Conference, April 18–21,
53. , St. Louis, MO. Gaithersburg, MD: Izaak Walton League of America, pp. 188–196.
54. Marion, J.L., Leung, Y.F., Nepal, S. (2006) Monitoring trail conditions: new methodological
55. considerations. George Wright Forum 23 (2): 36-49.
56. Monz, C.A. (1998) Monitoring recreation resource impacts in two coastal areas of western
57. North America: An Initial assessment. In: Watson, A.E., Alphet, G.H., Hendee, J.C. (comps.).
58. Personal, Societal and Ecological Values of Wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Congress
59. Proceedings on Research, Management and Allocation, Vol. 1. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest
60. Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, pp. 117–122.
61. Stankey, G., Manning, R. (1986) Carrying Capacity of Recreation Settings. A Literature
62. Review, the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors, pp. 47–58.
63. Stankey, G.H. (1998) The recreation opportunity spectrum and the limits of acceptable
64. change planning systems: A review of experiences and lessons. In: Aley, J., Burch, W.R.,
65. Conover, B., Field, D. (eds) Ecosystem management: adaptive strategies for natural resources
66. organizations in the twenty-first century. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 173–188.
67. Stankey, G.H., McCool, S.F. (1984) Carrying capacity in recreational settings: evolution,
68. appraisal, and application. Leisure Sciences 6: 453–474.
69. Stankey, G.H., McCool, S.F., Stokes, G.L. (1984) Limits of acceptable change: a new
70. framework for managing the Bob Marshall Wilderness complex. Western Wildlands 10 (3):
71. –37.
72. Tinsley, B.E., Fish, E.B. (1985) Evaluation of trail erosion in Guadalupe Mountains National
73. Park, Texas. Landscape Planning 12: 29–47.
74. Watson, A., Cole, D. (1992) LAC Indicators: An Evaluation of Progress and List of Proposed
75. Indicators. In: Merigliano, L.L Ideas for Limits of Acceptable Change Process: Book Two.
76. USDA Forest Service, pp. 65–84.
Review
For citations:
Zavadskaya A. RECREATION MONITORING OF RESOURCE CONDITIONS IN THE KRONOTSKY STATE NATURAL BIOSPHERE PRESERVE (KAMCHATKA): AN INITIAL ASSESSMENT. GEOGRAPHY, ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY. 2011;4(2):47-58. https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2011-4-2-47-58
Views:
851
Email this article 