Page 23 - A bird’s-eye view of recreation - Rogier Pouwels

Developing tools and rules of thumb for managers
2.1 Introduction
In many nature areas the dual mandate to protect natural values and accommodate
visitors is a source of potential conflicts (Reed and Merenlander 2008) because
recreation can have a negative impact on biodiversity values (Larson et al. 2016). On the
other hand, allowing recreation in protected areas is thought to be important to build 2 societal support for conservation in general and local nature management in particular
(Thompson 2015). Nature managers can take measures to mitigate undesired effects of recreation on nature values, but these measures might have consequences for societal support. Consequently, managers need to plan actions with care and involve stakeholders in their decision making (Sutherland et al. 2014, McCool 2016). They need adequate monitoring data on the temporal and spatial distribution of visitors to know where biodiversity values coincide with visitor use (Hadwen et al. 2007, Hammitt et al. 2015). However, such data are often lacking (Eagles 2014) as methods are time consuming and often expensive (Orsi and Geneletti 2013, Cessford and Muhar 2003). Besides information on the current situation, managers also need to know what options they have to change visitor densities and what impact their measures are likely to have on social or ecological disturbance thresholds (Sayan et al. 2013, Larson et al. 2018). They need to understand what features of the landscape and path network will determine the temporal and spatial distribution of visitors (Hammitt et al. 2015).
Visitor densities tend to be very heterogeneous in nature areas (Hammitt et al. 2015). Entrances and car parks act as gateways to an area (Beunen et al. 2008, Larson et al. 2018). From these gateways visitors disperse using the path network (Meijles et al. 2014). Their distribution reflects the choices they make during their visit (Wolf et al. 2015). Research shows that different features influence visitor choices: specific attraction points, weather, physical features of the landscape, features of the path network, visitor preferences, the time they have available, the motives they have for visiting the area, the composition of the group and other visitors and users of the area (Arnberger and Haider 2007, Beeco and Brown 2013, Böcker et al. 2013, Hallo et al. 2012, Shoval 2010, Maldonado et al. 2011, Taczanowska et al. 2014, Torbidoni 2011, Van Marwijk et al. 2009, Schamel and Job 2017). As all these features will interact during a visit, it is difficult to identify which features account most for differences in visitor densities (Shoval et al. 2010) and which management actions will be effective in altering visitor distribution.
21