THE

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT OF BACKCOUNTRY RECREATION

IN

KEJIMKUJIK NATIONAL PARK

FINAL REPORT

by

R.J. Payne, Ph.D.

Professor

School of Outdoor Recreation, Parks & Tourism

Lakehead University

Thunder Bay, Ontario

P7B 5E1

rjpayne@flash.lakeheadu.ca

August, 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements	ii

List of Figures	iii

List of Tables	iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	v

A.	Introduction	1

B.	Literature Review	3

C.	Methodology	13

D.	The Ecological Impact of Backcountry Recreation in Kejimkujik

National Park	15

E.	Discussion and Recommendations	27

F.	References	33

Acknowledgements

Special thanks go to Steve Kingston, research associate on the human ecology project, for sampling design, data collection and analysis.

Angus Carr, Geospatial Inc., Thunder Bay, also deserves special thanks for his work in developing the topological network describing backcountry use.

Thanks also to Nancy Parish who assisted Steve with data collection during the 1999-2000 field season.

List of Figures

Figure 1:	The Logistic S-Curve	4

Figure 2:	Number of Visitors and Area of Obvious Impact on Campsites	16

Figure 3:	Number of Parties and Area of Obvious Impact on Campsites	17

Figure 4:	Maximum Party Size and Area of Obvious Impact on Campsites	17

Figure 5:	Number of Visitors and Area of Obvious Impact on Trail Segments	18

Figure 6:	Number of Visitors and Area of Obvious Impact on Trail Segments	19

Without TP 8 & 10

Figure 7:	Number of Parties and Area of Obvious Impact on Trail Segments	20

Without TP 8 & 10

Figure 8:	Maximum Party Size and Area of Obvious Impact on Trail Segments	20

Without TP 8 & 10

Figure 9:	Plot Sampling Design	30

Figure 10:	Station Sampling Design	31

Figure 11:	Arm Sampling Design	32

List of Tables

Table 1: Univariate Tests, Depth of Material on the Soil with all plots (MATDEP)

and with Campsites and Trail Segments (MATDEP*IMPACT)	21

Table 2: Repeated Measures Analysis, Depth of Material on the Soil

(MATDEP)	22

Table 3: Univariate Tests, Basal Area of Trees Within all Plots (TREES)and

with Campsite and Trail Segment Plots (TREES*IMPACT)	23

Table 4: Univariate Analysis, Diversity (DIVERSIT) with all plots and with

Campsite and Trail Segment Plots (DIVERSIT*IMPACT)	23

Table 5: Repeated Measures Analysis, Diversity	24

Table 6: Univariate Analysis, Plant Density with all Plots (DENSITY)

and with Campsite and Trail Segment Plots (DENSITY*IMPACT)	25

Table 7: Repeated Measures Analysis, Plant Density	25

Table 8: Univariate Analysis, Species Richness with all plots (SP RICH)

and with Campsite and Trail Segment Plots (SP RICH*IMPACT)	26

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report constitutes the results of a research project to examine the ecological impacts of backcountry recreation in Kejimkujik National Park. Measuring ecological impact focused on vegetation and obvious physical effects such as "disturbed area" at campsites and along trail segments. Variability in human use was measured by means of the national park's backcountry permitting system, using the 1995 season.

During the first field season (1998), the research team established a vegetation sampling protocol that allowed subsequent analysis by "repeated measures" procedures. Twenty plots, 10 adjacent to campsites and 10 along trail segments, were placed in Kejimkujik's backcountry areas using this sampling protocol.

In the second field season (1999), measurements of vegetation on the 20 plots established in Year 1, were completed, data were stored in computer files and preliminary analysis was begun.

More detailed analyses, including the development of a topology of visitation nodes and connecting arcs and the computation of indices of species richness and diversity, set the stage for the repeated measures analysis. The final level of analysis sounght to answer two research questions:

•	what are the relationships between backcountry travel and camping and (terrestrial) ecological impacts in Kejimkujik National Park?, and,

•	has the backcountry recreation management strategy developed by the national park staff been successful?

The repeated measures analysis revealed that human use variables (number of visitors, number of parties and maximum party size) are correlated fairly strongly with the area of obvious impact on campsites and trail segments. The number of visitors seems a particularly robust causal factor in determining the area of obvious impact, especially on campsites, but also along trail segments.

The effects of distance from campsites and trail segments were noticeable on several of the ecological variables. The variables, depth of material on the soil, plant diversity and plant density, were statistically different immediately adjacent to campsites than farther away in the plots. These distance effects did not arise along trail segments.

Adding human use variables, especially the number of visitors to campsites or using trail segments, did not yield significant statistical results, suggesting that the intensity of visitor use does not affect plant communities adjacent to the campsites and trail segments.

The report concludes that the backcountry recreation management strategy has been generally successful in focusing vegetation impacts on campsites and trails and in protecting ecological integrity in Kejimkujik National Park.

A.	Introduction

This project addresses a perennial issue in national parks - maintaining ecological integrity and biodiversity while encouraging visitor use. That this issue continues to bedevil park managers in Canadian national parks is readily apparent. Consider, for example, the most recent State of the Parks Report (Parks Canada, 1995a), in which a cause and effect link is made between facilities for visitors and threats to ecological integrity. More recently, the Banff-Bow Valley Task Force (1996) detailed in explicit fashion the relationships between heavy visitor use and reductions in biodiversity in the Bow Valley corridor of Banff National Park. Another source of critical comment is the federal Auditor-General who, in his 1996 annual report, subjected Parks Canada's operations to scrutiny (Office of the Auditor-General, 1996). Chief among the Auditor-General's concerns was the inability of Parks Canada to manage biodiversity in national parks in a satisfactory way. More recently, a subsequent State of the Parks report (Parks Canada, 1997) ranked national parks on how well each maintained ecological integrity within its boundaries; Kejimkujik National Park rated 3, indicative of a moderate decline in ecological integrity. The Report of the Panel on Ecological Integrity in Canada's National Parks (Parks Canada, 2000) represents the most recent assessment of how well the agency meets its mandate of maintaining ecological integrity. The EI Panel was critical of Parks Canada's efforts in three ways important to this report, maintaining that:

Parks Canada lacked a "culture of conservation";

Parks Canada lacked scientific capacity; and,

Parks Canada's management of human use was weak.

These criticisms cannot be allowed to overshadow progress made by Parks Canada in managing to maintain ecological integrity. Woodley (1991) and Welch (1995) both illustrate the advances made in defining ecological integrity in operational terms and the efforts to develop baseline data to anchor monitoring. In Kejimkujik National Park, ecological database development is well-advanced (Drysdale, 1995); furthermore, the recent Park Management Plan for Kejimkujik National Park (1995b) commits park managers to protecting biodiversity. These commitments are given more specific direction in the park's draft (1998) Ecosystem Conservation Plan where coming to grips with "human ecology" is accorded high priority status under the terrestrial ecological integrity category.

However, information about park visitors does not match that which exists for species or ecosystems in national parks (Payne, 1997), a fact which represents a serious impediment to ecosystem management. The combination of natural science and social science information has become a repeated, although problematic, requirement in ecosystem management (U.S. Forest Service, 1994). One purpose of this project was to bring attention to the ecological implications of visitor use of park environments. Specifically, this research project seeks to provide an answer to the following question of carrying capacity:

What are the relationships between backcountry travel and camping and (terrestrial) ecological impacts in Kejimkujik National Park?
Staff at Kejimkujik National Park have long appreciated that recreationists might well be producing negative and long-lasting ecological impacts in the park's backcountry. Some such impacts, such as disturbed areas around popular campsites, the cutting of tree limbs for firewood and widespread "catholes" around camping sites, were obvious. Others, such as vegetative change, are less so, but staff in the national park were concerned that the more obvious impacts made the likelihood of vegetative change much higher. The observations and anecdotal evidence of user impacts led the staff to formulate a backcountry management strategy designed to minimize the impacts of backcountry camping. The strategy was composed of the following parts:

•	identification of backcountry campsites;

•	control of those sites through a permitting system;

•	establishment of tent pads and fire pits on each campsite;

•	development of a "pit privy" on each site; and,

•	supply of firewood at each designated campsite.

The intent of the strategy is clear: require people to camp at designated sites and ensure that those designated sites contained amenities that eliminate particular user behaviours that impact upon the natural environment. There would still be impacts, but those impacts would be on the designated campsites only. This research also serves to test whether the backcountry recreation management strategy developed by the staff has been successful.

B.	Literature Review

"Carrying capacity" is an attractive idea. It possesses an intuitive appeal which has lead many people to place it at the very centre of theories and prescriptions that focus on the human use of natural environments. For environmental managers especially, it promises scientific justification for difficult decisions that inevitably involve competing human interests as well as incomplete knowledge of the natural environment. U.S. researchers recently polled National Park Service managers who were responsible for backcountry management in national parks (Manning, et al., 1996). Among the problems managers reported was the deterioration of campsites and trails. The researchers went on to identify three trends:

backcountry impacts were primarily related to recreational use;

negative visitor experiences and crowding were becoming issues; and,

carrying capacity was "... a pervasive but unresolved issue" (Manning et al., 1996, pp. 144-145).

Carrying capacity within a Canadian national park context is at the heart of this document. National parks in Canada are distinctive in that while they are established to protect representative and significant natural areas of national importance, they also are expected to offer visitors opportunities to understand, appreciate and enjoy natural and cultural heritage. Managing this contradiction between protection and use is the chief enterprise of national park managers. It is in this context that carrying capacity has been considered as a management tool. A discussion and a critique of carrying capacity form the focus of this literature review.

B.1	The Idea of Carrying Capacity

Carrying capacity is an venerable idea. Modern definitions reflect the most important dimensions of the concept:

"An environment's carrying capacity is its maximum persistently supportable load" (Catton, 1986 cited in Rees, 1998); and,

"... carrying capacity ... assumes that there are a finite number of people who can be supported without degrading the natural environment and social, economic and cultural systems and, as such, 'is an indirect measure of the maximum level of stress that an ecosystem can maintain' (Barbier, Burgess and Folke, 1994)." (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 1995).

Daniel Botkin (1990, p.20), however, points out that in 1849 a Belgian scientist, Pierre-François Verhulst, first discussed the S-shaped logistic growth curve (Figure 1) that describes how a population grows to its limits. All other things being equal, those limits set the carrying capacity for

(Adapted from: Botkin, 1990, p. 20, Figure 2)

that population in that environment. The definitions cited above contain the essential kernels of Verhulst's S-curve. Each also offers other elements which have come to be accepted as part of the meaning of carrying capacity. "Load" might be numbers of people as in the second definition, but it might also be cattle, voles or sewage effluent. Going beyond an environment's carrying capacity produces a response: in the second definition, the response is the degradation of that environment. The second definition also mentions "stress" and, in doing so, introduces the causal relationship of "stress-response", a direct and traceable cause and effect link, which forms a main theme in ecological science. Lastly, the second definition provides the significant observation that natural and social systems are interrelated: overshooting carrying capacity causes a response in the ecosystem which, in turn, affects elements of the social system.

The carrying capacity idea is implicit in a well-known writing that has become required reading in environmental science. Garrett Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons" (Hardin, 1968), focused attention on the apparently inevitable abuse and resultant degradation of common property resources. Hardin's scenario contains aspects of the definitions offered earlier and also provides opportunities to learn more about the meaning of carrying capacity.

Although Hardin's original paper focused upon a single pasture, he has also applied the argument at a larger, global scale (Hardin, 1998). The question then arises: can carrying capacity be a useful framework at every scale, from a pasture to the Earth itself? Environmental scientists are comfortable working at different scales, but they recognize that shifting down the scale, from biome to eco-site, is accompanied by changes in key factors and in applicable processes (Forman and Godrun, 1986; Peck, 1998). An environmental scientist would appreciate the importance of global circulation systems in determining climatic and vegetative regimes on a continent-wide basis. However, (s)he would recognize that such globally significant factors would be of little use in understanding the variation in vegetation and moisture on a local hillside. At what scale(s) can carrying capacity be most effectively employed?

Another element of carrying capacity revealed in these two sources is the implicit understanding that what is being considered is the carrying capacity of the pasture or of the earth for some purpose. Thus, Hardin's concern is that the pasture will be ruined, that it will no longer provide good grazing for people's cattle. If it is possible to tie carrying capacity to implicit purposes or goals, then it is logical to assume that other purposes may well be associated with different carrying capacities. In other words, there may be many different versions of carrying capacity. At the very least, it is reasonable to say that a particular expression of carrying capacity must be firmly associated with a specific purpose. To discuss carrying capacity without discussing its purpose, then, would be misleading and inappropriate.

In summary, the following may be said of carrying capacity:

it can be defined as "an environment's maximum persistently supportable load";

it may be employed at a variety of scales; and,

it is always associated with a purpose or goal.

B.2	The Myths of Carrying Capacity

Attempts to measure the carrying capacity of an environment have been largely unsuccessful. Why has it been so difficult to measure carrying capacity? There are three myths or misconceptions about carrying capacity that interfere with its measurement: carrying capacity as a concept; closed versus open systems in nature; and, carrying capacity's association with purpose.

B.2.1 Carrying Capacity as a Concept

It is commonplace to find researchers writing about the carrying capacity "concept". According to Lawrence Neuman (1997, p. 39), a concept "... is an idea expressed as a symbol or in words." Neuman goes on to discuss "height", a concept which can be defined and, more importantly, measured.

Using Neuman's definition of concept, consider "ecological integrity", a concept particularly relevant to national park management. Ecological integrity is a useful concept to examine here because discussions are currently under way within Parks Canada to determine how to measure it. A recent definition1 is the following:

Ecological integrity is the condition of an ecosystem where 1) the structure and function of the ecosystem are unimpaired by stresses induced by human activity, and, 2) the ecosystem's biological diversity and supporting processes are likely to persist (Parks Canada, 1998a).

Several aspects of this definition are noteworthy. First, ecological integrity is defined as "the condition of an ecosystem"; moreover, direction is offered as to how that condition might be measured, namely through the ecosystem's structure and function. Furthermore, a focus on "persistence" enables an ecological scientist to consider the likelihood of change in the ecosystem. Each of these aspects are measurable, regardless of whether the national park is large or small, in northern or southern Canada. Agreement on the definition of ecological integrity and the means of measuring it provide researchers with a means of comparing ecological integrity from national park to national park or from zone to zone within one national park. While there may be other ways of defining and measuring ecological integrity in the literature (e.g., Anderson, 1991), they differ primarily in how ecological integrity is measured.

If park scientists have successfully defined and measured ecological integrity, why is defining and measuring carrying capacity such a difficult proposition? The answer lies in the definition of carrying capacity offered earlier: "... carrying capacity ... assumes that there are a finite number of people who can be supported without degrading the natural environment ...". This definition is qualitatively different from that offered for ecological integrity because it paints carrying capacity as a relationship between use and environmental effects. Note that the definition for ecological integrity indicates not only what it is but also how it may be measured; it does not suggest a relationship in any way.

Carrying capacity is not a concept, but rather a generalization, perhaps even a theory (Burch, 1984).

B.2.2 Open versus Closed Systems in Nature

Hardin described a simple system, consisting of two components - a common pasture and a group of herdsmen. While such simplicity might be valuable in highlighting the abuse of common property resources, it does not represent reality very well where evidence shows that social systems, both simple and complex, do seem to be able to manage common property problems. Reality is more complex than heuristic models; working in the field makes impossible that which is normally performed in the laboratory.

Reality (e.g., the boreal vegetative zone) features more relevant variables. Ecosystems are more open than Hardin's depiction of the common pasture. What's more, even the common pasture scenario seems more open to outside influences than Hardin is willing to credit, giving even such a simple system a degree of adaptability which may prevent its collapse. Managers in national parks know only too well that their efforts are conducted in an environment influenced by a welter of factors over which they have little control. They strive to manage ecosystems (and, indeed, social systems such as tourism) which are open, not closed. Determining how these various factors interact requires a level of scientific sophistication seldom achieved or afforded. Furthermore, managers would be quick to point out that non-ecological factors such as budget cuts have significant though indirect impacts on the natural environments in national parks.

B.2.3 Carrying Capacity and Purpose

Earlier it was established that for carrying capacity to be meaningful, it is necessary to identify the purpose with which it is associated. Thus, Hardin's concern was for the carrying capacity of a common pasture for cattle. Introducing other purposes or goals (maintaining biodiversity, for example) would further complicate Hardin's analysis. However, doing so would have begun to approach the sort of complexity that characterizes the relationship that humans have with the natural world.

Management directions in national parks typically specify more than one purpose or goal. Managers in Canadian national parks attempt to maintain or restore ecological integrity, but also seek to provide visitors with opportunities to understand, appreciate and enjoy natural and cultural heritage. Such goals reflect both legislation and policy for national parks in Canada. Any attempt to utilize carrying capacity in Canadian national parks must recognize the legitimacy of these contradictory goals.

B.3	Carrying Capacity and Protected Areas

Carrying capacity was introduced into the parks, recreation and tourism literature by Wagar (1964)2. Three variations of carrying capacity might be applied in national park settings. One, design (or physical) carrying capacity, is an architectural/engineering adaptation which specifies particular levels of use in or for facilities. In national park settings, it might be utilized to manage roads in frontcountry areas. For example, if roads were designed for light automobile traffic but were being used by many more cars than expected or by many large recreational vehicles, it would be reasonable to say that the carrying capacity of those roads had been exceeded, with the consequent problems of maintenance and public safety. In another example, a visitor centre, the numbers of visitors at one time may be such that fire safety becomes an issue because the building was not designed with the number of exits necessary for the larger-than-expected number of visitors at one time. In "mid-
country" or even backcountry areas, design carrying capacity may assist managers in meeting ecological integrity goals and satisfying visitor expectations. In Point Pelee National Park, for instance, a boardwalk gives many visitors access to areas of the marsh they would otherwise not see and does so in a manner that minimizes their effects upon marsh ecology. In Pacific Rim National Park, boardwalks and ladders help visitors to experience the backcountry qualities of the West Coast Trail while serving to minimize the environmental impacts of their visits. Especially in frontcountry settings, design carrying capacity offers managers of parks and protected areas alternatives to actions which limit human use3. Design carrying capacity also illustrates clearly the importance of the purpose of an area in determining a threshold beyond which degradation occurs or problems arise.

A second variant, ecological carrying capacity, is more familiar. In national parks, ecological carrying capacity refers to the capability of the natural environment to withstand human use. Ecological carrying capacity, therefore, represents an early form of environmental impact assessment. When proposing to develop a visitor opportunity in a national park, Parks Canada is required to investigate whether the development will have environmental effects and, if so, take steps to mitigate them. While environmental impact assessment may appear straightforward, there are thorny scientific and management issues which require attention.

A third form, social carrying capacity, has received a good deal of attention in the parks literature and in management practice. Social carrying capacity is the designation given to the observation that visitors respond to the social, as well as the natural, environment in parks. It focuses on the experiences which visitors have in the park. For some visitors, too many other people, people who are too different in their interests or people who are too different in their behaviours constitute negative influences. Such negative influences disturb their own enjoyment. Managing social carrying capacity requires that managers not only appreciate the interactions of visitors in national parks, but also, that they have ideas about what those interactions should be.

The present research focuses upon ecological carrying capacity.

B.3.1 Ecological Carrying Capacity

Although ecological carrying capacity is the variant which most obviously applies in park settings, it has been employed much less than its cousin social carrying capacity. To appreciate why this is the case, one must understand that determining ecological carrying capacity involves finding answers to not one but three questions. Answers are needed to the following:

what is the ecological impact of human use in a particular ecosystem?

does the impact change the character of the ecosystem?

is the change, if any, an acceptable change?

The first of these questions may be answered by scientific research, assuming that it is possible to develop a causal relationship between human use and ecological impact.

The second question, however, requires more data and information. What was the condition of the ecosystem before it was disturbed by human use? Was that previous condition a "natural" state or was it also caused by some human interference? Is the cause of the disturbance something that national park managers may influence through their actions? Nelson (1968) raised several of these questions in relation to Banff National Park three decades ago. The recent Banff-Bow Valley Study (Page, Bayley, Cook, Green and Ritchie, 1996) has served only to sharpen them.

The third question requires something completely different if it is to be answered. It is not a scientific question; rather it is a "values" question (Becker, Jubenville, Burnett and Graefe, 1984). An "acceptable change" implies that national park managers have established a range of desired conditions and can then judge the change, determining if it is "good" or "bad". While Parks Canada has produced management plans for national parks for a number of years, it is evident from the Banff-Bow Valley experience that Parks Canada has not been prepared until recently to judge whether the changes to park ecosystems have been desirable or undesirable.

The trails in the Lake O'Hara area in Yoho National Park have been the focus of monitoring efforts since 1983 (Yoho National Park, 1997). The area is a popular one with backcountry travellers. Managers hoped to be able to utilize baseline data in order to direct maintenance and rehabilitation efforts on the trails. It is recognized that human use is responsible for trail degradation. Human use data or information is currently collected through the backcountry permitting system. However, no analysis has been conducted which might pinpoint the threshold at which human use begins to produce negative environmental effects. Thus, it is not the case that all three of the ecological carrying capacity questions in the Lake O'Hara area are being answered by the monitoring program.

Kachi and Walker (1999) have surveyed work being conducted in Canadian national parks on human use management. Their results indicate that a focus on ecological carrying capacity is common. For example, in Gwaii Haanas National Park (1999), staff examined visitor impacts on backcountry campsites in a subjective manner, determining that 52 of 75 sites required management intervention. A part of that intervention includes setting standards, which when exceeded, demand remedial actions by managers. It is questionable, however, whether monitoring by itself will point to the causes of degradation. Without those causes, it would seem difficult for managers to determine what actions to take in response.

Drysdale (1995) outlines the data management and monitoring work which has been underway for some time in Kejimkujik National Park. While this initiative is not focused upon ecological carrying capacity directly, the resulting databases provide the park's management team with opportunities to undertake analyses to provide answers to specific (research) questions.

Dalman (pers. comm., 1999) points out that in Banff National Park, managers organize their efforts by means of carnivore management units. These landscape units provide a spatial focus, for issue identification, remedial action and planning.

Parks Canada and many other parks agencies generally have been unable to answer questions two and three. Ecological carrying capacity therefore has not been seriously applied in parks and protected areas. There are signs, however, (e.g., the Kejimkujik data management initiative; the Lake O'Hara Trail Monitoring Program) that Parks Canada is prepared to identify acceptable levels of ecological integrity (through ecological integrity statements) and to manage national parks in ways to maintain or to attain them over the long term.

B.4	A Role for Carrying Capacity

Carrying capacity is not only a venerable idea; it is also a popular one, with the public and protected area managers alike. Now that it has been examined, the questions remains: does carrying capacity have a role in national park management?

Some writers, including Wagar himself (1974), have suggested that perhaps the focus should be on conditions in the environment (i.e., a qualitative approach) rather than on the level of stress (i.e., a quantitative approach) being applied to the environment (Washburne, 1982; Vaske, 1994; Rees, 1997). Such a shift of focus would change carrying capacity, but might also render it more useful to park managers. Others are not in agreement, continuing to advocate a "traditional" carrying capacity approach to managing human use of natural environments for recreation and tourism (e.g., Butler, Fennell and Boyd, 1993; Williams and Gill, 1991; Heberlein, Alfano. and Vaske, 1986).

Shelby and Heberlein (1984) long ago suggested an approach to carrying capacity which still is worthy of attention. They defined carrying capacity as:

... the level of use beyond which impacts exceed acceptable levels specified by evaluative standards (p. 441).

Their approach (p. 434) required managers to take three actions:

specify management parameters (i.e., something that managers could manipulate) for an area;

specify impact parameters relevant to an area; and

collect data at regular intervals to describe the existing situation.

Shelby and Heberlein maintained that only within this context is it reasonable to employ the idea of carrying capacity. Note that they did not differentiate between ecological and social carrying capacity. Rather, they felt the approach was as useful for one as the other. More than that, they offered two other realizations: that carrying capacity is tied to particular sites or landscapes; and, that social and ecological expressions of carrying capacity may be closely related.

Elsewhere, the recognition of the multi-purpose nature of park management has lead the U.S. National Park Service to define carrying capacity in the following manner:

... carrying capacity is the type and level of visitor use that can be accommodated while sustaining the desired resource and social conditions that complement the purpose of a park unit and its management objectives (National Park Service, 1997, p. 30).

The link between carrying capacity and management purpose has seldom been more overtly stated. Such a definition still contains the kernels of carrying capacity identified earlier. It also pays attention to management purposes, facilitating results-based management and accountability. Moreover, the definition hints at responses to carrying capacity issues as being more than limiting human use. Cole, Petersen and Lucas (1987) present several other responses which may be either more appropriate or more acceptable in the circumstances. These other actions include changing the timing of the use, changing the activity, changing the behaviour(s) which cause the problem, hardening the site where the problem is occurring and restoring site conditions. If carrying capacity to be useful in national park management in Canada, these definitions must guide its implementation.

At Kejimkujik National Park, it is evident that managers' concern over deteriorating conditions in the backcountry areas of the park lead directly to a strategy designed to control impacts by limiting them to specific sites. In the managers' judgement, conditions had deteriorated beyond an unstated level of acceptability.

C.	Methodology

C.1	Data

Kejimkujik National Park requires that permits be obtained for backcountry camping and travel. As a consequence, the national park possesses a comprehensive database of people and their activities in the backcountry over a number of years. After being converted to electronic format, permit data for the 1995 operating season were used to measure visitation at campsites and along trail segments.

Ecological impacts caused by backcountry use might be found along a number of dimensions: vegetation, wildlife, physical features. Data collection for the purposes of measuring ecological impact focused on the following vegetation and physical variables: species presence (by name); species numbers; mat depth; basal area of trees sampled; and, the area of obvious impact on campsites and trails. These raw data allowed the research team to compute measures of species diversity and species richness for each station. In addition, any exotic species were identified and their location(s) fixed. Trees and shrubs also were noted.4

After identifying 10 campsites and 10 trail segments where sampling would occur, data collection occurred during the 1999 field season. The sampling protocol ( see Appendix 1, Figures 2, 3 and 4) was altered somewhat as a result of consultations with Parks Canada staff (especially during the October, 1998 meeting at Kejimkujik National Park) and as a result of preliminary measurements of several plots using the protocol during the first field season. Plot size was maintained at 15 metres (width) by 30 metres (depth), with stations established at 5 metre intervals. Although stations had been established along each of the three columns, sampling occurred along only two columns, thereby reducing the sampling stations to 12 from 18. At each station, four cardinal arms were selected based upon a random compass hearing from the station stake. Each arm was composed of two lines; nine samples were drawn along each of these lines. Samples, then, totalled 72 per station and 864 per plot. Each plot was also described in qualitative terms and sketched.

C2.	Analysis

Data analysis comprised four stages. In the first stage, raw data were converted into forms more amenable to the final two analytical stages, using the repeated measures analysis. For human use data, this stage constituted converting backcountry permit data to electronic format and then, using graph theory (Complexity International paper) to identify use intensity at nodes (campsites) and along connections among them (trail segments). This topology of backcountry recreation use (according to the 1995 permit data) allowed the researchers to contribute a human use variable for eventual inclusion in the repeated measures analysis. Indices for plant species diversity and richness were computed using the raw vegetative data.

In the second stage, regression analysis was used to examine cause and effect relationships between human use (the independent variables) and areas of obvious impacts on campsites and trail segments (the dependent).

The third and fourth stages brought repeated measures analysis into play. Repeated measures analysis has been widely used in both social science and natural science to examine change in variables of interest, over time or over space (Nemec, 1996; Minke, 1997). Variables of internest in this study were those describing vegetation, depth of material on the soil and trees. Measures of these variables were repeated at the distances established in the plot design, the hypothesis being that any ecological effects of human use would diminish with distance away from the impacted area (i.e., the campsite or trail segment). Repeated measures uses anaylsis of variance (ANOVA ) to compare the same measures (of vegetation) at different distances. The strength of the resulting F statistic is used to indicate significant differences at conventional levels of probability (P = .05 or .01).

D.	The Ecological Impact of Backcountry Recreation in Kejimkujik National Park

The results of the analyses presented here focus on three significant aspects of the human ecology of the national park:

•	relationships between human use variables and the area of obvious impact on campsites and trail segments;

•	relationships between distance from areas of impact on campsite and trails and ecological variables; and,

•	the relationship between human use variables and ecological variables.

D.1 Areas of Obvious Impacts

This analysis relates the measured area of obvious impact on campsites and trail segments having plots to:

•	the total number of visitors using the campsites or trail segments;

•	the total number of parties using the campsites or trail segments; and,

•	the maximum party size using the campsites or trail segments.

It was hypothesized that the total number of visitors using a campsite over a season would be positively correlated with the size of the area of obvious impact on the site. Furthermore, this relationship was thought to be causal, with the size of the impacted area dependent upon the number

of visitors. Figure 2 confirms both the positive relationship between these two variables as well as

its direction. With an R2 of .7775, these two variables are closely related. This relationship is a statistically significant one, despite the apparent small sample size, with an F value of 27.959, significant at the P = .001 level. The intensity of visitor use of these backcountry campsites clearly has a direct impact upon the area occupied by the campsites.

Another human use variable, the number of parties, may be related to the area of obvious impact. Figure 3 shows the relationship. However, with an F value 3.462, the relationship is not statistically significant.

A third human use variable, maximum party size, was also related to area of obvious impact on campsite, with the result shown in Figure 4. The relationship between these two variables is positive, but not particularly strong. The F statistic, at 3.650, is not statistically significant.

These same human use variables can be associated with the area of obvious impact along trail segments. Figure 5 illustrates the relationship between impact area (width) and the number of visitors. With an R2 of .5973, the relationship between these two variables is not as strong as it was between the number of visitors and the area of obvious impact for campsites. However, the F statistic, with a value of 11.868, is statistically significant at the .009 level of probability. Note the two outlying trail segments (Trail plots 8 and 10), one noticeably above the line of best fit, the other below. Both are anomalous. If removed from the analysis, the result is Figure 6.

It is clear that removing Trail Plots 8 and 10 results in a much higher R2 value, at .9591. The F statistic, with a value of 140.783 is highly significant, beyond the .001 level of probability.

The second human use variable, number of groups, is related to the area of obvious impact along trail segments. Leaving Trail Plots 8 and 10 out of the analysis again, the relationship between the number of groups and the area of obvious impact along trail segments is represented by Figure 7. Once more, a high R2 of .9554, indicative of a close positive relationship, is found. The F statistic for this regression is 128.478, significant beyond the .001 level of probability.

Finally, the maximum party size was paired with the area of obvious impact along trail segments. The result is presented as Figure 8. The two variables show a moderate level of correlation, with an R2 of .5308. The F statistic of 6.787 is significant at the .04 level of probability.

In summary, the areas of obvious impact on backcountry campsites and along trail segments is highly dependent on three human use variables. For both campsites and trail segments, the area of obvious impact grows as the number of visitors grow. Knowing the number of visitors is sufficient to understand and to predict the area of obvious impact on campsites and along trail segments.

D.2 Distance Away From Impacted Campsites and Trail Segments

This section reports on the influence of distance away from impacted campsites and trail segments on specific ecological variables (depth of material on the soil, basal area of trees sampled, species richness, species diversity and plant density) created from the raw data collected from the plots during the summer, 1999. As a general hypothesis, it was anticipated that the ecological impact associated with campsites and trail segments would lessen and disappear as the distance over those campsites and trail segments increased.

Looking first to the depth of material on the soil, Table 1 shows that the depth of material on the soil within all the plots is significantly different over the plot distance. There are, however, no significant interaction effects when campsite and trail segment plots are considered separately.

Table 1: Univariate Tests, Depth of Material on the Soil with all plots (MATDEP) and with Campsites and Trail Segments (MATDEP*IMPACT)

Source	Type III Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
MATDEP	Sphericity Assumed	324.151	5	64.830	2.881	.019
Greenhouse-Geisser	324.151	3.166	102.389	2.881	.041
Huynh-Feldt	324.151	4.134	78.419	2.881	.027
Lower-bound	324.151	1.000	324.151	2.881	.107
MATDEP * IMPACT	Sphericity Assumed	221.531	5	44.306	1.969	.091
Greenhouse-Geisser	221.531	3.166	69.975	1.969	.126
Huynh-Feldt	221.531	4.134	53.593	1.969	.106
Lower-bound	221.531	1.000	221.531	1.969	.178
Error(MATDE
P)	Sphericity Assumed	2025.541	90	22.506
Greenhouse-Geisser	2025.541	56.986	35.545
Huynh-Feldt	2025.541	74.404	27.223
Lower-bound	2025.541	18.000	112.530

However, Table 2 indicates that the hypothesis of reduced impact away from campsites and trail segments holds true.

Table 2: Repeated Measures Analysis, Depth of Material on the Soil (MATDEP)

Source	MATDEP	Type III Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
MATDEP	Level 1 vs. Later	287.377	1	287.377	7.207	.015
Level 2 vs. Later	9.998	1	9.998	.434	.519
Level 3 vs. Later	.307	1	.307	.011	.919
Level 4 vs. Later	67.070	1	67.070	2.839	.109
Level 5 vs. Level 6	63.457	1	63.457	1.363	.258
MATDEP * IMPACT	Level 1 vs. Later	43.697	1	43.697	1.096	.309
Level 2 vs. Later	2.639	1	2.639	.114	.739
Level 3 vs. Later	72.121	1	72.121	2.479	.133
Level 4 vs. Later	29.403	1	29.403	1.245	.279
Level 5 vs. Level 6	218.626	1	218.626	4.695	.044
Error(MATDE
P)	Level 1 vs. Later	717.720	18	39.873
Level 2 vs. Later	415.076	18	23.060
Level 3 vs. Later	523.711	18	29.095
Level 4 vs. Later	425.246	18	23.625
Level 5 vs. Level 6	838.198	18	46.567

In the first half of this table, only the first level of the 30 metre plot depth shows a relatively high F value (7.207), with a significance level of .015. The depth of material on the soil adjacent to campsites and trail segments is affected by proximity to those sites and segments, but only in the parts of the plots immediately adjacent.

The second part of Table 1, MATDEP*IMPACT, considers whether the depth of material on the soil differs from campsite to trail segment over the same distance. Only one statistically significant differ exists, between distance 5 and 6, and that attributable to campsites.

The second ecological variable considered was the basal area of trees in the sample (Table 3). Univariate analysis revealed that there were no effects due to distance for all plots or from campsites and trail segment plots separately.

Table 3: Univariate Tests, Basal Area of Trees Within all Plots (TREES)and with Campsite and Trail Segment Plots (TREES*IMPACT)

Source	Type III Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
TREES	Sphericity Assumed	1792.166	5	358.433	.879	.499
Greenhouse-Geisser	1792.166	4.357	411.329	.879	.488
Huynh-Feldt	1792.166	5.000	358.433	.879	.499
Lower-bound	1792.166	1.000	1792.166	.879	.361
TREES * IMPACT	Sphericity Assumed	2748.843	5	549.769	1.348	.252
Greenhouse-Geisser	2748.843	4.357	630.900	1.348	.257
Huynh-Feldt	2748.843	5.000	549.769	1.348	.252
Lower-bound	2748.843	1.000	2748.843	1.348	.261
Error(TREES)	Sphericity Assumed	36703.153	90	407.813
Greenhouse-Geisser	36703.153	78.426	467.995
Huynh-Feldt	36703.153	90.000	407.813
Lower-bound	36703.153	18.000	2039.064

Plant diversity was the third ecological variable to be examined over the distance of the plot depth (Table 4). No significant variation due to distance was determined when all the plots were taken together, but campsite and trail segment plots were shown to vary differently over the plot distance.

Table 4: Univariate Analysis, Diversity (DIVERSIT) with all plots and with Campsite and Trail Segment Plots (DIVERSIT*IMPACT)

Source	Type III Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
DIVERSIT	Sphericity Assumed	4.196E-03	5	8.393E-04	.967	.443
Greenhouse-Geisser	4.196E-03	2.655	1.581E-03	.967	.408
Huynh-Feldt	4.196E-03	3.330	1.260E-03	.967	.421
Lower-bound	4.196E-03	1.000	4.196E-03	.967	.339
DIVERSIT * IMPACT	Sphericity Assumed	1.239E-02	5	2.478E-03	2.854	.019
Greenhouse-Geisser	1.239E-02	2.655	4.667E-03	2.854	.053
Huynh-Feldt	1.239E-02	3.330	3.721E-03	2.854	.040
Lower-bound	1.239E-02	1.000	1.239E-02	2.854	.108
Error(DIVERS
IT)	Sphericity Assumed	7.814E-02	90	8.682E-04
Greenhouse-Geisser	7.814E-02	47.784	1.635E-03
Huynh-Feldt	7.814E-02	59.932	1.304E-03
Lower-bound	7.814E-02	18.000	4.341E-03

Diversity is significantly different between campsites and trail segments (DIVERST*IMPACT), with diversity in the area immediately adjacent to the campsites lower than on trail segments (Table 5).

Table 5: Repeated Measures Analysis, Diversity

Source	DIVERSIT	Type III Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
DIVERSIT	Level 1 vs. Later	2.655E-03	1	2.655E-03	1.131	.302
Level 2 vs. Later	5.375E-04	1	5.375E-04	.597	.450
Level 3 vs. Later	1.110E-04	1	1.110E-04	.279	.604
Level 4 vs. Later	1.311E-03	1	1.311E-03	.901	.355

Level 5 vs. Level 6	1.194E-03	1	1.194E-03	1.508	.235
DIVERSIT * IMPACT	Level 1 vs. Later	1.383E-02	1	1.383E-02	5.893	.026
Level 2 vs. Later	1.518E-04	1	1.518E-04	.169	.686
Level 3 vs. Later	3.618E-05	1	3.618E-05	.091	.767
Level 4 vs. Later	4.714E-04	1	4.714E-04	.324	.576
Level 5 vs. Level 6	7.934E-04	1	7.934E-04	1.002	.330
Error(DIVERS
IT)	Level 1 vs. Later	4.225E-02	18	2.347E-03
Level 2 vs. Later	1.620E-02	18	9.002E-04
Level 3 vs. Later	7.171E-03	18	3.984E-04
Level 4 vs. Later	2.619E-02	18	1.455E-03
Level 5 vs. Level 6	1.425E-02	18	7.916E-04

The next ecological variable to be explored with distance was plant density. Table 6 shows that there is no effect of distance on plant density when all plots are considered at once, but there is a strong difference between campsite plots and trail segment plots in relation to plant density when they are considered separately.

Table 6: Univariate Analysis, Plant Density with all Plots (DENSITY) and with Campsite and Trail Segment Plots (DENSITY*IMPACT)

Source	Type III Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
DENSITY	Sphericity Assumed	4745.819	5	949.164	.859	.512
Greenhouse-Geisser	4745.819	2.968	1599.079	.859	.467
Huynh-Feldt	4745.819	3.816	1243.789	.859	.489
Lower-bound	4745.819	1.000	4745.819	.859	.366
DENSITY * IMPACT	Sphericity Assumed	31742.219	5	6348.444	5.744	.000
Greenhouse-Geisser	31742.219	2.968	10695.377	5.744	.002
Huynh-Feldt	31742.219	3.816	8319.034	5.744	.001
Lower-bound	31742.219	1.000	31742.219	5.744	.028
Error(DENSIT
Y)	Sphericity Assumed	99463.837	90	1105.154
Greenhouse-Geisser	99463.837	53.421	1861.879
Huynh-Feldt	99463.837	68.681	1448.199
Lower-bound	99463.837	18.000	5525.769

That pattern carries through into the repeated measures analysis, where no effects of distance are visible overall.

Table 7: Repeated Measures Analysis, Plant Density

Source	DENSITY	Type III Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
DENSITY	Level 1 vs. Later	529.421	1	529.421	.280	.603
Level 2 vs. Later	1369.513	1	1369.513	.681	.420
Level 3 vs. Later	164.356	1	164.356	.278	.604
Level 4 vs. Later	4628.403	1	4628.403	2.626	.123
Level 5 vs. Level 6	.313	1	.313	.000	.988
DENSITY * IMPACT	Level 1 vs. Later	21523.361	1	21523.361	11.389	.003
Level 2 vs. Later	2040.200	1	2040.200	1.014	.327
Level 3 vs. Later	4681.800	1	4681.800	7.927	.011
Level 4 vs. Later	12890.503	1	12890.503	7.314	.015
Level 5 vs. Level 6	137.813	1	137.813	.095	.761
Error(DENSIT
Y)	Level 1 vs. Later	34016.109	18	1889.784
Level 2 vs. Later	36216.131	18	2012.007
Level 3 vs. Later	10630.678	18	590.593
Level 4 vs. Later	31725.906	18	1762.550
Level 5 vs. Level 6	26041.125	18	1446.729

However, when campsites and trail segments were differentiated in the analysis (DENSITY*IMPACT), significant effects were found. Areas adjacent to campsites exhibited lower plant density, with the area immediately adjacent showing the greatest difference.

Plant species richness was the next variable to be considered in Table 5. However, no effect of distance from the campsites and/or trail segments was noted.

Table 8: Univariate Analysis, Species Richness with all plots (SP RICH) and with Campsite and Trail Segment Plots (SP RICH*IMPACT)

Source	Type III Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
SP_RICH	Sphericity Assumed	8.767	5	1.753	.658	.656
Greenhouse-Geisser	8.767	3.579	2.450	.658	.607
Huynh-Feldt	8.767	4.824	1.817	.658	.651
Lower-bound	8.767	1.000	8.767	.658	.428
SP_RICH * IMPACT	Sphericity Assumed	10.142	5	2.028	.761	.580
Greenhouse-Geisser	10.142	3.579	2.834	.761	.541
Huynh-Feldt	10.142	4.824	2.102	.761	.576
Lower-bound	10.142	1.000	10.142	.761	.394
Error(SP_RIC
H)	Sphericity Assumed	239.842	90	2.665
Greenhouse-Geisser	239.842	64.416	3.723
Huynh-Feldt	239.842	86.839	2.762
Lower-bound	239.842	18.000	13.325

In summary, the impact zones of sampled campsites and trail segments differ, with campsites showing significantly more impact on depth of material on the soil, diversity and plant density in areas immediately adjacent. These findings, although interesting in themselves, need to be considered in the context of human use in order to appreciate their implications for backcountry managers.

D.3 The Influence of Human Use Variables

A primary hypothesis of this research is that the intensity of human use of campsites and trail segments will cause changes in ecological variables which describe adjacent plant communities. However, when the numbers of visitors, elsewhere in this report shown to be the strongest of the human use variables, was run as a co-variate in repeated measures analyses, no effects on the depth of material on the soil, on diversity, on species richness, on plant density or on basal area of trees in the sample were found.

E. Discussion and Recommendations

E.1	Discussion and Conclusions

Human use variables (number of visitors, number of parties and maximum party size) are correlated fairly strongly with the area of obvious impact on campsites and trail segments. The number of visitors seems a particularly robust causal factor in determining the area of obvious impact, especially on campsites, but also along trail segments. In this, research confirms the concerns of park staff: more people on a site or trail segment means obvious physical and ecological deterioration there. However, the research contributes little of substance to answering the (management) question of how much deterioration is acceptable. It does suggest that the question needs attention, perhaps at a spatial scale different than that applicable to discussions of ecological integrity and perhaps with reference to the views of backcountry users.

The effects of distance from campsites and trail segments were noticeable on several of the ecological variables. The variables, depth of material on the soil, plant diversity and plant density, were statistically different immediately adjacent to campsites than farther away in the plots. These distance effects did not arise along trail segments. These findings are intuitively satisfying: visitor presence along trail segments is temporary and linear, whereas the duration and variety of visitor activities on campsites is much higher. Moreover, the finding that ecological impacts on vegetation do not extend beyond the first row of sampling stations in the plots adjacent to campsites suggests that, in terms of vegetation, ecological integrity is not being compromised by backcountry recreation activities.

Adding human use variables to the repeated measures analysis, especially the number of visitors to campsites or using trail segments, in hopes of determining a direct cause and effect relationship, did not yield significant statistical results, suggesting that the intensity of visitor use either does not affect, or has not yet affected, plant communities adjacent to the campsites and trail segments. Therefore, the expectation at the outset of this research that one might model the effects of human use on vegetation can not be met.

This research project set out to find answers to two research questions:

•	what are the relationships between backcountry travel and camping and (terrestrial) ecological impacts in Kejimkujik National Park?, and,

•	has the backcountry recreation management strategy developed by the national park staff been successful?

The research findings suggest that, under the existing backcountry recreation management strategy, backcountry travel and camping are having little effect on vegetation adjacent to campsites and to trail segments. At the scale at which it makes sense to talk about ecological integrity, it is clear that backcountry use has not reached a threshold where ecological integrity is at risk. However, there is a strong and direct relationship between the number of backcountry users and the area of obvious impact on campsites. At a lower, more site-specific scale, however, it is evident that a high of visitation is increasing the size of areas denuded of vegetation.

What then of the backcountry recreation management strategy? Has it succeeded in what managers expected of it? For ecological integrity and for vegetation, the answer must be yes. Vegetative and physical impacts do not extend far from campsites; moreover, the minor impacts found seem unrelated to the intensity to which campsites are used. However, on a site-specific level, the area of obvious impact on both trails and campsites is highly related to visitation and use. At this level, the strategy has been less successful in managing the impactsof human use.

This study has pointed out the strengths and weaknesses of a carrying capacity approach to managing human use in parks and protected areas.

E.2	Recommendations

Recommendations based upon the research findings are offered here for use in human use management in backcountry areas of Kejimkujik National Park.

It is evident that the existing backcountry recreation management strategy is working effectively in protecting ecological integrity while allowing human use. Consequently,

•	the backcountry recreation management strategy should be continued.

Visitation is having negative physical and ecological effects at the site level however. Indeed, it was park managers' concerns about these effects that provided the original impetus for this research. For managers, these effects have clearly gone beyond what they are prepared to accept. What is needed is a systematic study of what levels of disturbance on campsites in the backcountry are acceptable. Such a study might involve backcountry users as well as park staff and should lead to a standard for the size of backcountry campsites. Management actions, direct (closing sites on a rotational basis, imposing quotas on users at existing heavily impacted sites) or indirect (identifying routings for travel in the backcountry to spread the effects of visitation) can then be developed to achieve or to maintain the acceptable standard. The recommendation here is:

•	to conduct a Visitor Impact Management study, involving both staff and visitors, to determine standards for areas of obvious impacts on backcountry campsites.

Two corollaries to this recommendation are:

•	to work with staff and visitors to determine the most appropriate direct and indirect management actions to achieve that standard, and

•	to monitor achievement of the standard regularly as part of ecological integrity reporting.

As outputs of this research, the 20 plots established in Kejimkujik National Park offer opportunities for further research and monitoring. Consequently, it is recommended that:

•	physical and vegetative data be collected from the plots every 5 years for the purpose of conducting analyses to determine if visitation is having ecological impacts beyond trails and campsites.

Furthermore, it is recommended that:

•	the plots be made available to other researchers who might utilize them in studies pertaining to ecological integrity in the national park.

Another output from this research is a topology of visitor movements and concentrations in the backcountry for 1995. This topology affords many human use management applications. Consequently, it is recommended that:

•	the topology of backcountry users be updated, regularly.

APPENDIX 1

Figure 9: Plot Sampling Design

Figure 10: Station Sampling Design

Figure 11: Arm Sampling Design

F.	References

Complexity International paper

Agee, James K. and Johnson, Darryll R., 1988. Ecosystem Management for Parks and Wilderness, Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Anderson, Jay E., 1991. A conceptual framework for evaluating and quantifying naturalness.
Conservation Biology, 5(3), pp. 347-352.

Banff-Bow Valley Task Force, 1996. Banff-Bow Valley: At the Crossroads. Prepared for the Honourable Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage, Ottawa.

Botkin, Daniel B., 1990. Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-first Century, New York: Oxford University Press.

Burch, W.R. (Jr.), 1984. Much ado about nothing: some reflections on the wider and wilder implications of social carrying capacity. Leisure Sciences, 6(4), pp. 487-496.

Butler, R., Fennell, D. A., Boyd, S. W. (1993). Canadian Heritage Rivers System recreational carrying capacity study. Ottawa: Canadian Parks Service.

Canestrelli, E and Costa, P., 1991. Tourist carrying capacity: a fuzzy approach. Annals of Tourism
Research. 18(2)295-311.

Chilman, Kenneth, Foster, David and Everson, Alan, 1990. Updating the recreational carrying capacity process: recent refinements. In Lime, David W. (editor), Managing America's Enduring Wilderness Resource, St. Paul, Minnesota: University of Minnesota, pp. 234-238.

Cole, David N., Petersen, Margaret E. and Lucas, Robert C., 1987. Managing Wilderness Recreation Use: Common Problems and Potential Solutions, Ogden, Utah: Intermountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-230.

Drysdale, Clifford, MacDonald, Bruce and O'Grady, Sally, 1998. Kejimkujik National Park: Ecosystem Conservation Plan (Working Draft), Maitland Bridge, N.S.: Kejimkujik National Park (January).

Drysdale, Clifford, 1995. Coordinated ecological research and monitoring systems: the Kejimkujik model. In Herman, Tom B., Bondrup-Nielsen, Soren, Willison, J.H. Martin, and Munro, Neil W.P. (Eds.) Ecosystem Monitoring and Protected Areas, Halifax: Science and the Management of Protected Areas Association, pp. 180-187.

Forman, Richard T.T. and Godron, Michael, 1986. Landscape Ecology, Toronto: John Wiley and Sons.

Graefe, Alan R., 1990. Visitor impact management. In Graham, R. and Lawrence, R., (editors),
Towards Serving Visitors and Managing Our Resources, Waterloo, Ontario: Tourism Research and Education Centre, University of Waterloo and Canadian Parks Service, Environment Canada, pp. 213-234.

Graefe, Alan R., 1988. Social psychological carrying capacity. In Watson, Alan H., (Compiler),
Outdoor Recreation Benchmark 1988: Proceedings of the National Outdoor Recreation Forum, Asheville, N.C.: Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report SE-52, pp. 451-454.

Graefe, A.R., Vaske, J.J. and Kuss, F.R., 1984. Social carrying capacity: an integration and synthesis of twenty years of research. Leisure Sciences, 6(4). pp. 395-431.

Graefe, Alan R., Kuss, Fred R. and Vaske, Jerry J., 1990a. Visitor Impact Management: A Review
of Research, Washington, D.C.: National Parks and Conservation Association, Volume 1.

Graefe, Alan R., Kuss, Fred R. and Vaske, Jerry J., 1990b. Visitor Impact Management: The Planning
Framework, Washington, D.C.: National Parks and Conservation Association,Volume 2.

Hardin, Garrett, 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, pp. 1243-1248.

Heberlein, Thomas A., Alfano, G.E. and Vaske, J.J., 1986. Using a social carrying capacity model to estimate the effects of marina development at the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. Leisure Sciences, 8(3), pp. 257-274.

Kachi, Nanao and Walker, Kristina. 1999. Status of Human Use Initiatives in Parks Canada. Hull,

Qc.: Parks Canada (Ecosystems Branch).

Kingston, Stephen. 1999. Field Notes: Kejimkujik National Park, 1998-99.

Lime, David W., McCool, Stephen F. and Galvin, Denis P, 1995. Trends in congestion and crowding at recreation sites. In Thompson, Jerrilyn, Lime, David W., Gartner, Bill and Sames, Wayne M. (Compilers), Proceedings of the Fourth International Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Trends Symposium and the 1995 National Recreation Resources Planning Conference, St. Paul, Minnesota: University of Minnesota, pp. 87-96.

Manning, Robert E., Lime, David W. and Hof, M., 1996. Social carrying capacity of natural areas: theory and application in the U.S. national parks. Natural Areas Journal, 16(2), pp. 118-127.

Minke, A., 1997. Conducting Repeated Measures Analyses: Experimental Design Considerations.

(WWW document) URL: http//www.ericae.net/ft/tamu/Rm.HTM.

Nelson, J.G., 1968. Man and landscape change in Banff National Park: a national park problem in perspective. In Nelson, J.G. (editor), Canadian Parks in Perspective, Montreal: Harvest House, pp. 63-96.

Nepstad, Elaine and Nilsen, Per, 1993. Towards a Better Understanding of Human/Environment
Relationships in Canadian National Parks, Ottawa: Supply and Service Canada, National Parks Occasional Paper No. 5.

Nilsen, Per and Tayler, Grant, 1998. A comparative analysis of human use planning and management frameworks. In Munro, Neil W.P. and Willison, J.H. Martin (editors), Linking Protected Areas with Working Landscapes Conserving Biodiversity, Wolfville, N.S.: Science and the Management of Protected Areas Association, pp. 861-874.

Parks Canada, 1995a. Kejimkujik National Park: Management Plan (Final Draft).

Parks Canada, 1994b. A Proposed Framework for Assessing the Appropriateness of Recreation

Activities in Protected Heritage Areas, Ottawa: Department of Canadian Heritage.

Parks Canada, 1995. State of the Parks: 1994 Report, Ottawa: Department of Canadian Heritage.

Parks Canada, 1997. Guidelines for the Preparation of Ecological Integrity Statements. Hull, Qc.: Natural Resources Branch.

Parks Canada, 1998a. Panel on Ecological Integrity in Canada's National Parks, [WWW Document], available at: http://parkscanada.pch.gc.ca/ecol/main_e.htm.

Parks Canada, 1998b. Parks Canada Visitor Risk Management Handbook, [WWW Document], available at: http://parkscanada.pch.gc.ca/library/risk/english/tdmvrme.html.

Parks Canada, 1998c. State of the Parks: 1997 Report, Ottawa: Department of Canadian Heritage.

Parks Canada, 1999. Ecosystem Management, [WWW Document] available at: http://parkscanada.pch.gc.ca/natress/ENV_CON/ECO_MAN/ECO_MANE.HTM

Office of the Auditor-General of Canada, 1996. Report of the Auditor-General, 1996. (WWW document) URL: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/oag-bvg/rep96/1996e/html/9631e/ch9631e.html.

Parks Canada, 1995a. State of the Parks: 1994 Report. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada.

Parks Canada, 1995b. Kejimkujik National Park: Management Plan, Ottawa: Department of Canadian Heritage.

Parks Canada, 2000a. Unimpaired for Future Generations? Protecting Ecological Integrity with

Canada's National Parks. Ottawa: Report of the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's

National Parks.

Payne, R.J. 1997. Visitor Information Management in Canada's National Parks. Hull, QC.: Natural

Resources Branch, Parks Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage.

Payne, R.J. 1999. The Human Ecology of Kejimkujik National Park: Year One (1998-1999) Report.

Thunder Bay, ON: Lakehead University.

Payne, R.J. 2000. Managing Human Use in Parks and Protected Areas: From Carrying Capacity to

Ecosystem Management. Paper prepared for Ecological Integrity Branch, Parks Canada and

Kejimkujik National Park, March.

Payne, R.J. and Graham, R., 1993. Visitor planning and management in parks and protected areas.

In Philip Dearden and Rick Rollins (eds.) Parks and Protected Areas in Canada: Planning

and Management. Toronto: Oxford University Press, pp. 185-210.

Peck, Sheila, 1998. Planning for Biodiversity, Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Petersen, Derek, 1998. Allocation of land resources between competing species - humans and grizzly bears in the Lake O'Hara area of Yoho National Park. In Munro, Neil W.P. and Willison, J.H. Martin (editors), Linking Protected Areas with Working Landscapes Conserving Biodiversity, Wolfville, N.S: Science and the Management of Protected Areas Association, pp. 478-491.

Rees, William E., 1998. Revisiting Carrying Capacity: Area-Based Indicators of Sustainability, [WWW Document], available at: http://dieoff.org/page110.htm.

Shelby, B. and Heberlein, T.A., 1984. A conceptual framework for carrying capacity determination.
Leisure Sciences, 6(4), pp. 433-451.

U.S. Forest Service. 1994. Human Dimensions in Ecosystem Management: A Concept Paper.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Human Dimensions of

Ecosystem Management Task Team.

Vaske, J. J. (1994). Social carrying capacity at the Columbia Icefield : applying the visitor impact management framework. [Ottawa: Parks Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage].

Wagar, J.S., 1964. The Carrying Capacity of Wild Lands for Recreation, Washington, D.C.: Society of America Foresters, Forest Science Monograph 7.

Wagar, J.S., 1974. Recreational carrying capacity reconsidered. Journal of Forestry, 72, pp. 274-278. Wallace, Mary G., Cortner, Hanna J., Burke, Sabrina and Moote, Margaret A., 1996. The role of social science in ecosystem management: addressing issues of institutional change and policy paradox. Paper presented at the Sixth International Symposium on Society and Natural Resources, Pennsylvania State University.

Washburne, R.F., 1982. Wilderness recreational carrying capacity: are numbers necessary? Journal
of Forestry, 80(11), pp. 726-728.

Welch, David M., 1995. Monitoring in Canada's national parks: present and future. In Herman, Tom

B., Bondrup-Nielsen, Soren, Willison, J.H. Martin, and Munro, Neil W.P. (Eds.) Ecosystem

Monitoring and Protected Areas, Halifax: Science and the Management of Protected Areas

Association, pp. 130-140.

Williams, Peter W. and Gill, Alison, 1991. Carrying Capacity Management in Tourism Settings: A Tourism Growth Management Process, Edmonton, Alberta: Tourism Development Agency, Alberta Economic Development, [WWW Document], available at: http://www.gov.ab.ca/edt/tda/capmgment.htm.

Woodley, Stephen W., 1991. Monitoring for Ecological Integrity in Canadian National Parks.

Waterloo, Ontario: Heritage Resources Centre, University of Waterloo.

Wright, Pamela A. and Clarkson, Peter, 1995. Recreation impacts on river ecosystems: assessing the impacts of river use on the biophysical and social environment. In Herman, Tom, Bondrup-Neilsen, Soren, Willison, J.H. Martin and Munro, Neil W.P. (editors), Ecosystem Monitoring and Protected Areas, Wolfville, N.S.: Science and the Management of Protected Areas Association, pp. 299-303.

Yoho National Park, 1997. Lake O'Hara Trail Monitoring Program, [WWW Document], available at: http://www.worldweb.com/ParksCanada-Yoho/TrailMonitor/English/index.htm.