Page 117 - A bird’s-eye view of recreation - Rogier Pouwels
P. 117

I propose that research should focus on extending the range of potential solutions to conserve bird species while providing visitors the opportunity to experience nature. For example, two alternative options mentioned in the literature are managing natural soundscapes (Francis et al. 2017) and raising awareness, for example by developing a code of conduct with stakeholders (Van der Molen et al. 2016). Managing natural soundscapes by reducing human induced sounds improves visitor experiences as well as conditions for bird species. Newman et al. (2018) showed that when visitors were asked to be silent as they enter a natural soundscape area, the noise levels were reduced by 15 dB. In the natural soundscape area bird abundance increased, but so did visitor satisfaction. Van der Molen et al. (2016) showed that developing a code of conduct for recreational boating in the Wadden Sea (Netherlands) promoted awareness and responsible behaviour among boat owners. Changing the management from restrictions in large parts of the area to use of the code of conduct was considered a success, as after four years no increase in disturbances were found.
Alternative solutions might be found in a joint design process with stakeholders. Design is based on values, helps to create alternative solutions (Swaffield 2013, Opdam et al. 2018) and enhances the salience and legitimacy of scientific knowledge through collaboration between scientists and practitioners (Nassauer and Opdam 2008). How current scientific knowledge and tools can be used in the design of site-specific solutions should be a subject of future research.
6.4.3Provide knowledge to reduce potential inequality between outdoor recreation and bird conservation in nature areas
In discussions with stakeholders and site managers I noticed that the positive impact
of outdoor recreation on nature conservation is often neglected. Discussions mostly 6 focus on the measures that are needed to conserve bird species. One reason might be
that in most nature areas there are no objectives for recreation and so conservationists
would tend to raise their concerns about every future recreational development,
while recreational benefits are ignored (Stenseke and Hansen 2014). The inequality
between functions undermines the legitimacy of the decision-making process with
stakeholders (Reed 2008, Redpath et al. 2013). I agree with Eagles et al. (2002) and
Stenseke and Hansen (2014) that assigning value to a nature area for both functions is
crucial for successful management. In the absence of recreational goals, site managers
and stakeholders can deliberate on one or several goals during the phase of setting
objectives. These goals might evolve during the other phases of decision making.
Synthesis
115
  


















































































   115   116   117   118   119