Page 79 - A bird’s-eye view of recreation - Rogier Pouwels

Effectiveness of scientific tools in decision making processes
5.1 Introduction
To sustainably manage land for the prevention of resources being lost to future
generations, land managers need to minimize negative trade-offs between landscape
functions. They may decide to reallocate noncompatible functions by modifying the
physical patterns of landscapes on which these functions depend. In doing so, managers
often affect values attributed to these functions by groups of users, which may lead
to conflicts (Young et al. 2005). In this paper we consider the relationship between
biodiversity conservation and recreation activities such as walking, cycling, and horse
riding in nature areas in Europe. European Union legislation, in particular the Habitats
and Birds Directives, is intended to achieve better protection of valuable species and
habitats. At the same time, however, health programs are urging the general public
to go out into nature areas the EU legislation has been designed to protect. Together
with economic developments and demographic trends this has resulted in an increase
of recreational use of nature areas (Kerbiriou et al. 2009), and in an increase in the
variety of types of outdoor recreation such as hiking, climbing, and canoeing (Naylor
et al. 2009). However, there is evidence that stimulating biodiversity conservation and
recreation functions of landscapes simultaneously may be incompatible (Young et al.
2005). Recreation activity has been shown to affect vegetation (Liddle 1991) and the
population trends of species (Hill et al. 1997, Blanc et al. 2006), especially of birds, e.g.,
Golden Plover (Pluvialis apricaria; Yalden and Yalden 1990) and Black-tailed Godwit 5 (Limosa limosa; Holm and Laursen 2009). Hence, nature managers find themselves
confronted with a potential land use conflict between conservation and recreation activities.
Various options are available to solve this conflict. The managers of nature reserves are statutorily required to create conditions conducive for target species. To achieve this aim they may close parts of the area to visitors, improve habitats to increase the carrying capacity for target species, or construct new parking facilities to redistribute visitor pressure. However, current legislation on biodiversity conservation may restrict such options (Stankey et al. 2005, Williams et al. 2007). In addition, certain options risk alienating visitors; for example, physical adaptations to improve the habitat of species like cutting trees and raising groundwater levels may be perceived as negative by visitors (Van Marwijk 2008), and most people engaging in outdoor activities are not aware of their impact on wildlife (Blanc et al. 2006) and are unwilling to accept trail closures.
77