Carrying Capacity of Parks and Wilderness

I Contemporary park and wilderness carryil'\g capacity frameworks rely on formulation of standards of quality. which are defined as minimum acceptable resource and social condtIons. Formulation of standal'ds of quality involves elements of both science and values. and both of these elements mJat be integated into informed judgments on the part of park and wilderness managers. That is. managers must ultimately make vahJe-based judgments about the maximum acceptable level of visitor-caused Impacts to the resource base and the quality of the visitor experience. However. sud1 jud~ts shotJd be as informed as possible by scientific data on the relationships between visitor use and ~ing impacts and the degree to ~ park and wilderness visitors and other interest groups judge vided and maintained. lndicaton of quality are measurable. manageable variables that define the quality of park and wilderness resources and the quality of the visitor experience. Standards of quality define the minimum acceptable condition of indicator variables. By formulating indicaton and standards of quality, par~ and wilderness can,be ~apaged wiWI:1 .a qefined ca1T)'ing capacity. IndiWdrVaiiabtes' are monitored over time. and if standards of quality are violated (or are in danger of being violated). management action is required. This approach to carrying capacity is central to contemporary park. and wilderness management frameworks. including limits of acceptable change (Stankey and othen 1985), visitor impact management (Graefe and othen 1990) and visitor experience and resource protection (National Park Service 1997). Carrying Capacity of Parks and Wilderness Resource and social impacts of recreation use constitute long-standing issues in the field of park and wilderness management, and these issues are often addressed within the context of carrying capacity. In its most generic form, carrying capacity refers to the amount and type of visitor use that can beaccpmmodated within a park or wilderness without unacceptable resource and social impacts. Recent experience with carrying capacity suggests that it can be applied most effectively through formulation of indicators and standards of quality for biophysical conditions (resource carrying capacity) and for the visitor experience (social carrying capacity) (Graefe and others 1990, National Park Service 1997, Stankey and others 1985, Stankey and Manning 1986). Analysis of carrying capacity focuses primarily on defining the level of resource protection and the type of visitor experience to be proInformed Judgment The contemporary carrying capacity bmeworb noted above rely (either explicitly or implicitly) on a foundation of infonned judgmenL That is, park. and wilderness managers must ultimately render judgments about the level of impacts and related visitor use levels KEY W(H)S: ~ ~ ~-..~ d ~ ~ va.; ~ P8tC8; ..Wdi.,~ ~-.T_-'" --Author to whom corrapondence should be addreued; ,.,.;I: nnanningOnatun.snt .uvm.edu EfMO'vnenta Management va. 30, ~. 2, pp. 157-168 02002 Springer-Verlag New Ya1< IrK; 158 R. E. Manning arid S. R. Lawson