Linking Culture and the Environment

Y.-F. Leung et al. 29
Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) framework adapted from the
LAC concept by the US National Park Service (NPS, 1997) are two common
planning and management decision-making frameworks based on this new
understanding of carrying capacity. Since their first application in the mid-
1980s, these frameworks have been applied to numerous protected areas in
the USA, and have recently been adapted and modified for use in sustainable
tourism and ecotourism contexts (e.g. Harroun and Boo, 1995; Borrie et al.,
1998; Farrell and Marion, 2002a; Newsome et al., 2002; Haider, 2006).
The LAC and VERP frameworks emphasize setting management goals, for
which resource and social condition indicators and standards (or acceptable limits)
are developed in consultation with professionals and the public representatives.
The primary assumptions and desired states help clarify where parks and
sites should be going, and further define success through indicators – this process
is impressive and helpful for managing agencies and decision makers who
often need both a means for making management decisions and a way of
defending them – including budget allocation decisions. Recreation ecology
studies contribute information about the types and magnitude of environmental
impacts that occur as a result of tourism visitation (Buckley, 2004), and in selecting
appropriate indicators of such impacts. This research has also produced
impact assessment and monitoring (IA&M) procedures that are an integral part
of these frameworks, providing baseline and monitoring data for evaluating
standards and the effectiveness of management strategies and actions.
Managers can make informed decisions when selecting effective visitor
impact management strategies and actions with recreation ecology knowledge.
For example, the merits of visitor containment versus visitor dispersal as an
impact management strategy constitute a perpetual debate in the recreation
and tourism management literature (Hammitt and Cole, 1998; Newsome et al.,
2002; Leung and Marion, 2004). As previously noted, the curvilinear use–impact
relationship (Fig. 2.2) identified in previous studies suggests that visitor containment
strategy is often more effective in minimizing impacts in high-use settings
(Cole, 1989; Leung and Marion, 1999). Recreation ecology knowledge can
also provide information about the relative importance of use-related, environmental
and managerial factors that improve understanding of impact processes
and how managers can limit impacts by selecting resistant locations for facilities,
trails and recreation sites (Hammitt and Cole, 1998; Newsome et al., 2002;
Buckley, 2004). Price (1983) provided an excellent example from Canada’s Banff
National Park where trail route planning decisions were enhanced by research
that documented substantial variations in the susceptibility of vegetation types
to hiker’s trampling impacts. Investing in planning and making decisions now
that can prevent problems later also yields cost savings.
Impact assessment and monitoring
Impact assessment and monitoring programmes can address the potential and
observed impacts related to tourism and ecotourism development and operations.
The concepts and procedures of environmental impact assessment (EIA)
are incorporated into tourism contexts for their predictive, assessment and
monitoring capabilities (Williams, 1994; Hunter and Green, 1995). Methods