Assessing visitor impacts on backcountry trails in parks:
Comparing techniques applied in two World Heritage sites
Sanjay K. Nepal
Associate Professor
Dept. of Geography & Environmental Management
University of Waterloo
Email: [email protected]
Impact Assessment Techniques
Mt. Everest National Park
Descriptive Surveys
Estimates or measurements taken
on recreation sites to assess
current resource conditions
Mt. Robson Provincial Park
Comparison of Disturbed
and Undisturbed sites
Measurements taken on disturbed
sites and nearby undisturbed sites,
and compared to infer amount of
impact
Trail assessment in
Mt. Everest National Park
12 indicators
Continuous survey
Assessment of problem
areas (condition class)
Remote sensing, GPS
and GIS application
Advanced statistical
tests
Trail assessment in Mt. Robson
Provincial Park
1. Continuous survey
2. Permanent sample plots
Vegetation
Cross section view
Planar view
450m
interval
3. Comparisons with past photographs
Indicators
Impact indicators
Ecological / Locational
 Maximum incision, width, Variables
cross section, soil
Topography – landscape
penetration resistance
slope, trail grade, alignment
 Vegetation cover and
Vegetation type/ cover
species (exotics)
Soil texture and moisture
 Problem areas (continuous
survey) wet/muddy,
unofficial trails
 Management features
(continuous survey),
culverts ditching etc.
Mt. Everest National Park
Nepal in South
Asia
Mt. Everest National Park
Trail erosion – examples from Everest
Results – Mt. Everest National Park
Condition Class system
Condition Class
Damage Category
No. of Segments
Total (miles)
Class I
Slightly damaged
69
6.8
Class II
Moderately damaged
58
6.5
Class III
Highly damaged
16
2.5
Class IV
Severely damaged
65
6.1
Mapping trail degradation in Mt. Everest Park
Factors influencing trail conditions – Mt. Everest

More frequent occurrences of degradation on higher
altitudes, on steeper slopes, in open grasslands, in areas
where natural hazard potential exists

Level of degradation high in high traffic areas, and in
areas with high concentration of tourist lodges
Mt. Robson Provincial Park
Two Backcountry Trails:
23 km Berg Lake Trail
(High-use destination)
Berg Lake
More than 4000 visitor
nights/year
Mt. Fitzwilliam
Source: BC Parks, 2001
14 km Mt Fitzwilliam Trail
(Low-use destination)
Less than 500 visitor nights/yr
Mt. Robson Park – Resource Impact Indicators
Berg Lake
Mt. Fitzwilliam
TS
Ctrl
TS
CTRL
Species Richness
6.1 ±4.4
3.2 ±1.1
8.9 ±3.7
8.3 ±3.4
Vegetation Cover
391
551
832
872
Exposed Soil
141*
21 *
61 *
0.51 *
Exposed Rock
4
1
39
30
Coarse woody
debris
0.8
2
0.4
1
Floristic
Dissimilarity
1
54 ± 30
52 ± 25
differences @ 0.95 confidence interval using a one-way ANOVA and
Bonferoni post-hoc analysis.
* differences @ 0.95 confidence interval.
Factors influencing trail degradation – Mt. Robson
•Soil compaction values, tread width, and frequency of
exposed rocks and roots increased with increase in use
level
•Floristic dissimilarity index, amount of vegetation
cover, difference in species richness did not correlate
with use
Some conclusions
Mt. Everest National Park
 Condition class assessment useful where park management
and does not have the resource and manpower to conduct
a more detailed assessment
 Useful if the park management’s objective is to have a
general idea of resource conditions
 Trail impact studies are less prioritized due to other
pressing environmental problems
 Problem separating visitor use from other local use – this
will continue to be a problem in parks with human
settlements in it.
Some conclusions
Mt. Robson Provincial Park



Detailed onsite and off-site comparison is useful from a
research point of view; however, the level of detail is not
appreciated by park managers, specially given the current
budget cuts and limited hiring of maintenance staff
Continuity of research is a problem
Need to increase research capacity of individual parks
Some conclusions
Both parks




Growing interest in recreation resource impacts
Individual park units appreciate the value of research on
trail impacts, but at a higher level backcountry impacts
research gets low priority
Research capacity of park management is an important
consideration in selecting the techniques
Taking recreation ecology research to the next level
(comparing actual vs. perceptual impacts)
Relevant Papers
[email protected]
•Nepal, S. K. and Way, P. 2007. Characterizing and comparing backcountry trail
conditions in Mt. Robson Provincial Park. Ambio 36 (5): 394-400.
•Nepal, S.K. and Way, P. 2007. Comparison of vegetation conditions along two
backcountry trails in Mount Robson Provincial Park (Canada). J. of Environmental
Management, 82 (2): 240-49.
•Marion, J.L., Leung, Y.F and Nepal, S.K. 2006. Monitoring trail conditions: New
methodological considerations. The George Wright Forum 23: 36-49.
•Arocena, J., Nepal, S.K., and Rutherford, M. 2006. Visitor-induced changes in the
chemical composition of soils in backcountry areas of Mt. Robson Provincial Park,
British Columbia, Canada. J. of Environmental Management 79 (1): 10-19.
Nepal, S.K. and Nepal, S.A. 2004. Visitor impacts on trails in the Sagarmatha (Mt.
Everest) National Park, Nepal. Ambio 33 (6): 334-40.
Nepal, S.K. 2003. Trail impacts in the Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park,
Nepal: A logistic regression analysis. Environmental Management 32 (3) 312-21.