Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Improving the Integration of Recreation Management with Management of Other Natural Resources by Applying Concepts of Scale from Ecology

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, we examine how issues of scale affect the integration of recreation management with the management of other natural resources on public lands. We present two theories used to address scale issues in ecology and explore how they can improve the two most widely applied recreation-planning frameworks. The theory of patch dynamics and hierarchy theory are applied to the recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) and the limits of acceptable change (LAC) recreation-planning frameworks. These frameworks have been widely adopted internationally, and improving their ability to integrate with other aspects of natural resource management has significant social and conservation implications. We propose that incorporating ecologic criteria and scale concepts into these recreation-planning frameworks will improve the foundation for integrated land management by resolving issues of incongruent boundaries, mismatched scales, and multiple-scale analysis. Specifically, we argue that whereas the spatially explicit process of the ROS facilitates integrated decision making, its lack of ecologic criteria, broad extent, and large patch size decrease its usefulness for integration at finer scales. The LAC provides explicit considerations for weighing competing values, but measurement of recreation disturbances within an LAC analysis is often done at too fine a grain and at too narrow an extent for integration with other recreation and resource concerns. We suggest that planners should perform analysis at multiple scales when making management decisions that involve trade-offs among competing values. The United States Forest Service is used as an example to discuss how resource-management agencies can improve this integration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen TFH, Hoekstra TW (1992) Toward a unified ecology. Columbia University Press, New York, NY, 384 pp

  • Baskent EZ, Keles S (2005) Spatial forest planning: a review. Ecological Modelling 188:145–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettinger P, Sessions J (2003) Spatial forest planning: to adopt or not to adopt? Journal of Forestry 101(2):24–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Brohman R, Bryant L (2005) Existing vegetation classification and mapping technical guide. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff. General Technical Report WO-67, Washington, DC

  • Brunckhorst DJ, Rollings NM (1999) Linking ecological and social functions of landscapes: 1. Influencing governance. Natural Areas Journal 19:57–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunson MW, Shelby B (1990) A hierarchy of campsite attributes in dispersed recreation settings. Leisure Sciences 12:197–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnley S (2006) The Northwest Forest Plan as a model for broad-scale ecosystem management: a social perspective. Conservation Biology 20:330–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark RN, Stankey GH (1979) The recreation opportunity spectrum: a framework for planning, management, and research. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PNW-98, Missoula, MT

  • Clark RN, Stankey GH (2006) Integrated research in natural resources: the key role of problem framing. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,General Technical Report PNW-678, Portland, OR

  • Cole DN, Landres PB (1996) Threats to wilderness ecosystems: impacts and research needs. Ecological Applications 6:168–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole DN, Monz CA (2004) Spatial patterns of recreation impact on experimental campsites. Journal of Environmental Management 70:73–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole DN, Stankey GH (1998) Historical development of limits of acceptable change: conceptual clarifications and possible extensions. In: McCool SF, Cole DN (eds) Proceedings limits of acceptable change and related planning processes: progress and future directions, 20–22 May 1997. Missoula, MT. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report, INT-371, Ogden, UT, pp 5–9

  • Comer P, Faber-Langendoen D, Evans R, Gawler S, Josse C, Kittel S, Menard S, Pyne M, Reid M, Schulz K et al (2003) Ecological systems of the United States: a working classification of U.S. terrestrial systems. Natureserve, Arlington, VA

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale V, Noon BR (2004) What is a landscape and how is one studied? United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-596, pp 11–14

  • Driver BL, Brown PJ (1978) The opportunity spectrum concept and behavioral information in outdoor recreation resource supply inventories: a rationale. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-55, Fort Collins, CO

  • Driver BL, Brown PJ, Stankey GH, Gregoire TG (1987) The ROS planning system: evolution, basic concepts, and research needed. Leisure Sciences 9:201–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eyre FH (1980) Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Garber-Yonts BE (2005) Conceptualizing and measuring demand for recreation on national forests: a review and synthesis. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-645, Portland, OR

  • Gibson CC, Ostrom E, Ahn TK (2000) The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: a survey. Ecological Economics 32:217–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grumbine RE (1994) What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8:27–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homer CG, Huang C, Yang L, Wylie B (2002) Development of a circa 2000 landcover database for the United States. American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Proceedings, April, Washington, DC

  • Heywood JL, Christensen JA, Stankey GH (1991) The relationship between biophysical and social setting factors in the recreation opportunity spectrum. Leisure Sciences 13:239–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Joao E (2002) How scale effects environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22:289–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaltenborn BP, Emmelin L (1993) Tourism in the high north: management challenges and recreation opportunity spectrum in Svalbard, Norway. Environmental Management 17:41–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruger L (2004) A social science perspective on the importance of scale. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-596, Portland, OR, pp 119–124

  • Lawson SR, Manning R (2002) Tradeoffs among social, resource, and management attributes of the Denali Wilderness experience: a contextual approach to normative research. Leisure Sciences 24:297–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung Y, Marion JL (1999) Spatial strategies for managing visitor impacts in national parks. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 17:20–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovett GM, Jones CG, Turner MG, Weathers KC (2005) Ecosystem function in heterogeneous landscapes. Springer, New York, NY, 489 pp

  • Marion JL, Farrell TA (2002) Management practices that concentrate visitor activities: camping impact managemet at Isle Royale National Park, USA. Journal of Environmental Management 66:201–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCool SF, Cole DN (2001) Thinking and acting regionally: toward better decisions about appropriate conditions, standards, and restrictions on recreation use. The George Wright Forum 18:85–98

    Google Scholar 

  • McCool SF, Clark RN, Stankey GH (2007) An assessment of frameworks useful for public land recreation planning. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-705

  • Meffe GK, Nielsen LA, Knight RL, Schenborn DA (2002) Ecosystem management: adaptive, community-based conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC, 336 pp

  • Mitchell JE, Force JE, Carroll MS, McLaughlin WJ (1993) Forest places of the heart: incorporating special spaces into public management. Journal of Forestry 91:32–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore RL, Driver BL (2005) Introduction to outdoor recreation: providing and managing resource based opportunities. Venture Publishing, State College, PA, 339 pp

  • More TA, Bulmer S, Henzel L, Mates AE (2003) Extending the recreation opportunity spectrum to nonfederal lands in the Northeast: an implementation guide. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, General Technical Report NE-309, Newtown Square, PA

  • Murray AT, Snyder S (2000) Spatial modeling in forest management and natural resource planning. Forest Science 446:153–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4:355–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill RV, King AW (1998) Homage to St. Michael; or, why are there so many books on scale? In: Peterson DL, Parker VT (eds) Ecological scale: theory and applications. Columbia University Press, New York, NY, pp 3–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson GD (2000) Scaling ecological dynamics: self-organization, hierarchical structure, and ecological resilience. Climatic Change 44:291–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson DL, Parker VT (1998) Ecological scale: theory and applications. Columbia University Press, New York, NY, p 615

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickett STA, White PS (1985) The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. Academic Press, Orlando, FL, 472 pp

  • Pickett STA, Wu J, Cadenasso ML (1999) Patch dynamics and the ecology of disturbed ground. In: Walker LR (ed) Ecosystems of disturbed ground ecosystems of the world. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 707–722

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierskalla CD, Lee ME, Stein TV, Anderson DH, Nickerson R (2004) Understanding relationships among recreation opportunities: a meta-analysis of nine studies. Leisure Sciences 26:162–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierskalla CD, Siniscalchi JM, Selin SW, Fosbender J (2007) Using events as a mapping concept that complement existing ROS methods. Leisure Sciences 29:71–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roman GSJ, Dearden P, Rollins R (2007) Application of zoning and “limits of acceptble change” to manage snorkelling tourism. Environmental Management 39:819–830

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafer CS, Inglis GJ (2000) Influence of social, biophysical, and managerial conditions on tourism experiences within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Environmental Management 26:73–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shindler B (2000) Landscape level management. Journal of Forestry 98:10–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Stankey GH (1998) The recreation opportunity spectrum and the limits of acceptable change planning systems: A review of experiences and lessons. In: Aley J, Burch WR, Conover B, Field D (eds) Ecosystem management: adaptive strategies for natural resources organizations in the twenty-first century. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, PA, pp 173–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Stankey GH, McCool SF (1984) Carrying capacity in recreational settings: evolution, appraisal, and application. Leisure Sciences 6:453–474

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice. Springer, New York, NY, 399 pp

  • United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (1982) ROS users guide. Washington, DC

  • United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (2006) Monongahela National Forest: land and resource management plan. Elkins, WV

  • Wu J, Loucks OL (1995) From balance of nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: a paradigm shift in ecology. The Quarterly Review of Biology 70:439–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding for this research was provided by the USFS Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA

    Wayde C. Morse

  2. Department of Conservation Social Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow , ID, USA

    Troy E. Hall

  3. Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Juneau, AK, USA

    Linda E. Kruger

Authors
  1. Wayde C. Morse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Troy E. Hall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Linda E. Kruger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wayde C. Morse.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morse, W.C., Hall, T.E. & Kruger, L.E. Improving the Integration of Recreation Management with Management of Other Natural Resources by Applying Concepts of Scale from Ecology. Environmental Management 43, 369–380 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9227-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9227-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation