Visitor monitoring in nature and landscape protection

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Under Visitors monitoring in nature and landscape protection is defined as the repeated systematic collection and analysis of key indicators concerning the outgoing of the visitors loads in conservation and recreation areas .

The monitoring program collects data on the activities, behavior and motives of the visitors. With the help of visitor monitoring, the local influences of visitors on nature can be identified and quantified. By documenting the long-term development, monitoring data provide information about the effectiveness of management measures and serve as a basis for decision-making for new measures in visitor management. In the context of visitor management in protected and recreational areas, monitoring of visitor activities, along with visitor communication, is of particular importance for ecologically and economically successful protected and recreational area tourism.

Visitor monitoring indicators

The key indicators include data on the state of the natural environment (e.g. vegetation, vegetation damage, erosion, etc.) as well as on the amount, activities, behavior and motives of visitors. As a rule, key indicators and possible threshold values ​​are already set when the target is formulated for a protected area as part of park management. The most precise possible knowledge of visitor frequencies and structures enables the development of efficient control and information measures, with which a reduction of the disturbances by the visitors is aimed at.

The indicators include the following aspects:

  1. Use: Collection of quantitative data on visitor numbers, stay in terms of space and time
  2. Visitor profiles: quantitative and qualitative information about demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the individual visitors, reasons for the visit, intentions and motivations, preferences, expectations and information needs
  3. Results of the visit: quantitative and qualitative information from the visitors regarding (dissatisfaction), suggestions and comments
  4. Impact of the visits: survey of damage to vegetation and infrastructure, waste generation, etc.

Monitoring program

The monitoring program describes the procedure for visitor monitoring . The detailed planning of the monitoring before the field surveys is necessary in order to use resources efficiently and to check the sensible and repeated application of the measures taken. Visitor monitoring follows the following steps:

  1. Define objectives: Identification of area and activity-specific problems or collection of basic data for park management
  2. Review existing approaches
  3. Develop a monitoring plan that
    • contains the planned measures and the reasons for their use,
    • lists the indicators (including specific usage characteristics that are to be measured),
    • Describes the monitoring process (frequency, time, location, choice of method),
    • concretizes the analysis and presentation of the data,
    • names those responsible for monitoring.
  4. Perform field work
  5. Develop analysis and reporting procedures
  6. Use monitoring data for management

Methods of visitor monitoring

The data is collected using direct and indirect methods (see figure). The direct methods are divided into manual and automatic counting methods. The latter has recently been given increasing importance due to new and improved technologies. The data recorded on the basis of signs of recreational use (indirect methods) must first be interpreted in order to be able to draw conclusions about the number and behavior of visitors, and in practice they play a subordinate role.

The choice of method depends, among other things, on the leisure activities and the area or network of paths to be examined. A combination of different methods is recommended for engaging in different activities. It is imperative that automatic counts be calibrated in order to eliminate systematic errors.

Direct methods

Surveys : Oral or written surveys provide qualitative information about the motivation and needs of those seeking relaxation, for example socio-demographic data of the visitors, their habits and activities, and the route they choose for their activities within the area.

Direct observations / counts : During the pure count, descriptive data can be recorded at the same time. It is important to count at fixed points. This method is aimed at short-term observation periods. For long-term observations as well as outside of zones with high visitor density and far away from main access routes, it is of little relevance for reasons of cost (personnel costs).

Indirect observations : Indirect observations are made using (time-lapse) cameras and aerial and satellite images. In addition to the count, descriptive data can be collected. The interpretation of the data causes high personnel costs depending on the recorded aspects (only counting or characteristics such as group size). Further costs are incurred for the maintenance of the technical equipment. The cameras must not be clearly visible in the area. Those seeking relaxation should be informed about the camera observation. The use of cameras must be questioned for reasons of data protection. The recording should take place on main paths, not in places of retreat for visitors (picnic areas, bathing areas).

Number of entries : In areas that can only be entered for an entry fee, the number of visitors can be determined using the number of tickets sold.

Automatic people counting systems : There are a number of ways to automatically record people or vehicles. The sensors mostly work by means of mechanical pressure or electromagnetic waves. Automatic survey methods require calibration. The calibration count at the location of the automatic data collection serves to eliminate the systematic errors of the automatic data collection. The manual count data serve as a reference with which the automatic counts are correlated.

Indirect methods

Methods of mapping usage traces play a subordinate role in visitor registration, as it is difficult to infer the number of visitors from visitor traces. Garbage gives an indication of visitor behavior. Vegetation damage is an indicator of overuse . The evaluation of footprints is used in areas with low visitor traffic. The tracks provide information about the direction of movement.

Calibration count

The calibration count at the location of the automatic data collection serves to eliminate the systematic errors of the automatic data collection. The manual count data serve as a reference with which the automatic counts are corrected.

Evaluation of the data collected

Depending on the data collected and the methods used, there are a large number of possible evaluations. In addition to the presentation of the visitor structure and characterization, the route utilization, peaks, temporal and spatial distribution of visitors and the type of use are often of interest. In addition to tables and diagrams, they can also be displayed as a map using GIS. In this way, the data can be put directly into spatial reference.

The visitor flow model is a possibility to dynamically simulate the utilization of visitor frequencies on route sections. The visitor flow model is based on the one hand on data from visitor monitoring and on the other hand on geo-referential information. The model can be used to identify highly frequented areas and it serves as a basis for decision-making for control measures.

Success factors of visitor monitoring

Visitor monitoring is a complex task, especially in large protected areas. Successful visitor monitoring is based on the following principles. Clear goals must be defined. This enables the relevant data to be collected. The indicators must be meaningful. The surveys must be repeatable in order to be able to detect changes. Information storage and retrieval must be well planned and implemented. A sampling strategy that provides inexpensive, stable data is selected for the survey. Quality assurance must be guaranteed. The management and responsibility for the design and implementation of the visitor monitoring program lies in the hands of experienced managers. The financing of the monitoring must be guaranteed.

Individual proof

  1. ^ A. Muhar, A. Arnberger, C. Brandendburg: Methods for Visitor Monitoring in Recreational and Protected Areas: An Overview. In: A. Arnberger, C. Brandenburg, A. Muhar (Eds.): Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas. Conference Proceedings, 1-7 2002.

literature

  • A. Arnberger, W. Haider, C. Brandenburg: Evaluating Visitor-Monitoring Techniques: A Comparison of Counting and Video Observation Data. In: Environmental Management. Volume 36, Number 2, 2005, pp. 317-327.
  • G. Cessford, A. Muhar: Monitoring options for visitor numbers in national parks and natural areas. In: Journal for Nature Conservation. Volume 11, 2003, pp. 240-250.
  • PF Eagles, SF McCool: Tourism in national parks and protected areas: 'planning and management'. CABI Publishing, Wallingford 2002.
  • PF Eagles, SF McCool, CD Haynes: Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Planning and Management. IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK 2002.
  • Kenneth E. Hornback, Paul FJ Eagles: GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC USE MEASUREMENT AND REPORTING AT PARKS AND PROTECTED AREAS. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK 1999.
  • S. Iten, D. Siegrist: Monitoring of Mountain Bikers in a Sensitive Bird Area around the Tanzboden, Switzerland. In: MMV3. 2006
  • R. Manning: Parks and Carrying Capacity - Commons Without Tragedy. Island Press , Washington / Covelo / London 2007.
  • A. Muhar, A. Arnberger, C. Brandenburg: Monitoring of visitor flows and visitor needs as a basis for protected area management. In: Hohe Tauern National Park: 3rd Symposium of the Hohe Tauern National Park for research in protected areas, September 15-17, 2005, Kaprun. 2005, pp. 153-157.