Part 3 - Australian Alps National Parks

(bare areas and weed cover) per km of this track type. Moreover, in the sample studied, this is similar tothe amount of bare areas and sorrel cover in the adjacent native vegetation and hence does not appear tobe a consequence of disturbance caused by the walking track.If the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service was to control the extensive weed coverassociated with tracks in the alpine area by rehabilitating the verges of the tracks, the cost would be$50,827 per km of paved track, $41,246 per km of narrow gravel track, and $32,078 per km for theSummit Road (using an estimate of $119 per sq. m for rehabilitation, Johnston 1998). There is no need forrehabilitation to control weeds for the raised steel mesh walkway. Clearly, if the cost of weed control(estimated as cost of revegetation) during use of the tracks is incorporated into their total cost then, eventhough the cost of construction of the raised steel mesh walkway is initially greater than that of gravel(Harrigan 2001), the total cost of this option is cheaper than that of other track types. In addition, it has farfewer negative impacts on the environment. This cost effectiveness becomes even more apparent ifestimates of future removal of any of the tracks are taken into consideration. The cost of justrehabilitating the area of disturbance associated with the surface of the gravel or concrete pavers tracks issubstantial. For the Summit Road it would be around $510,600 per km, while for a narrower gravel trackit would be around $153,900 per km. For the raised steel mesh walkway little or no rehabilitation wouldbe required, because the vegetation cover under and adjacent to the track is equivalent to the nativevegetation.What to do?Currently, much of the control of weeds in the Australian Alps is by herbicide spraying, which isexpensive, has limited success for some weeds, and may harm native vegetation (AALC undated; Formanand Alexander 1998; Sainty et al. 1998; Sanecki 1999). More recently, biological control programs havebeen introduced for weeds such as broom, St Johns Wort, Paterson’s Curse and blackberry (AALCundated). Also, parks agencies are encouraging resorts to use indigenous plantings rather than exoticplants, both on ski slopes and in the gardens (Pickering et al., In press). Active rehabilitation of previouslydisturbed areas is also critical for weed control (AALC undated; Parr-Smith and Polley 1998). While thistilts the ecological balance in favour of native vegetation, it can be expensive. In addition to thesemeasures, we feel that careful selection of tourism infrastructure options is crucial. This should be basedon a greater appreciation of the environmental and financial cost that can be incurred, in terms ofdisturbance to native vegetation and the introduction and establishment of weeds, when one form ofinfrastructure is chosen over another. .AcknowledgementsMuch of this research has been supported by the Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism.The support of the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service for the research of FrancesJohnston is also gratefully acknowledged.216Celebrating Mountains – An International Year of Mountains ConferenceJindabyne, New South Wales, Australia