Page 103 - A bird’s-eye view of recreation - Rogier Pouwels

6.1 Achievements
Natural areas are essential not only for species conservation but also for outdoor recreation (Balmford et al. 2015, Gray et al. 2016, Siikamäki et al. 2015). However, conflicts may arise when the conservation and recreational values that need to be protected are interrelated and under threat (Young et al. 2005). Finding the balance between the conservation and recreational functions is complicated because site managers of nature areas have to deal with stakeholders who hold differing and opposing views about which values are important (Mace 2014, McCool 2016). Managers are under increasing pressure to promote recreation because health policies advocate physical contact with nature (Maller et al. 2006; Bell et al. 2007), but at the same time they are being asked to regulate or even restrict visitor access by conservation policies that aim to halt biodiversity loss (Balmford et al. 2015). Moreover, it is crucial they get support from stakeholders for their actions in order to meet the growing demand for accountability (McCool 2016).
In this complex governance arena, there is a need to revisit the role of information
about the interrelations between nature and recreation. Site managers need
information to be able to predict the outcomes of their actions, such as changing
access to the area for visitors or improving habitats for protected species (Pullin et
al. 2004). However, in Chapter 1 I argued that current scientific knowledge and tools
lack salience and legitimacy to be effective in decision-making processes involving
both site managers and stakeholders. In this thesis I address three problems that
limit the practical use of scientific knowledge about the relationship between outdoor
recreation and bird conservation. First, current scientific knowledge is only able to
predict the impact of actions that regulate recreation on a local level, while species 6 conservation often requires coordinated action on a regional scale. Hence, there is a
mismatch between knowledge about impacts and the scale at which managers need to take action for effective conservation. Second, most scientific knowledge about the impact of visitors on birds relates to short-term behavioural impacts at the individual level, while managers are increasingly expected to ensure the viability of populations. Therefore, current scientific knowledge about the relationship between biodiversity and recreation often fails to connect with conservation targets. Third, current scientific information and tools are not effective in facilitating societal debates about the interaction between outdoor recreation and bird conservation.
Synthesis
101