Page 87 - A bird’s-eye view of recreation - Rogier Pouwels

Effectiveness of scientific tools in decision making processes
5.3.1 Integrating the recreation tool and biodiversity tool
To be salient, the tools must clarify the recreation–biodiversity relationship in a way that opens up perspectives for action (Sutherland 2007). The integrated recreation– biodiversity tool enables managers to model the functional relationships between the attributes they can control in one domain and the outcomes they seek in the other domain. In the project, the recreation tools had to evaluate the impact of changes in the path network, parking lots, and recreation characteristics on recreation patterns and objectives. The biodiversity tool had to evaluate the impact of changes in the recreation patterns and vegetation structure on habitat quality for species and biodiversity objectives. In other words, the managers had to be able to make minor adjustments using the right “tuning knobs” (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Example of management tool containing scientific tools for recreation and for biodiversity (adapted 5 from Pouwels et al. 2008). The inputs are GIS maps containing landscape characteristics and attributes managers
can control. The outputs are indicators that can be linked to objectives. The black arrow between the recreation
tool and the biodiversity tool indicates the ecological footprint of recreation. The grey arrows indicate possible
interactions between biodiversity values and recreation that have not yet been integrated, like the added value of a singing Skylark (Alauda arvensis) for visitors.
Because the interaction between recreation and biodiversity is often the main source of conflict, the way this interaction is implemented in the tools has to be made transparent. Also, uncertainties, or disagreements, about resources, parameter setting, and management effects have to be made explicit (Williams et al. 2007, Itami et al. 2008). At present, the only examples available are of recreation tools and biodiversity tools that are partly integrated (e.g., Mallord et al. 2007, Coombes et al. 2008, Pouwels et al. 2008). As yet, no tool has been developed to dynamically and concurrently model the behavior of animals and of visitors (see also Skov-Petersen 2008).
85