While restrictions in wilderness areas are typically stricter given the low tolerance for human impact in remote areas, the restrictions in front country areas are looser with greater enforcement. Under the Wilderness Act of 1964 emphasizes the need for managers to keep sake the pristine wilderness character which leads to one of the major guidelines in those areas to be the leave no trace principle. However, due to the sheer volume of wilderness terrain, it requires the use of indirect management techniques (Manning et. al. 2017). While direct management explicitly informs visitors what is and is not permitted, indirect management techniques try to encourage visitors to make the correct decisions without the associated enforcement and costs (Manning et. al. 2017). On the other hand, in the front country, managers implement infrastructure to assist people with discarding their waste, as there is more opportunity to place trash bins and restrooms throughout the areas closer to the park entrances (Manning et al. 2017). There is also more staff to enforce the regulations in the front country, as it is easier to monitor entire front country areas.
Leung and Marion (2000) suggested using Global Positioning Systems and Geographic Information Systems to assess whether backcountry restrictions are effective. However, doing so would not necessarily track obedience of regulation, as it would be difficult to pinpoint the source of impact. Also, the technique is not appropriate for front country use because the front country areas can be monitored in less costly, simpler ways. Still, both backcountry and front country areas can be better managed through enhanced understanding of land durability and use thresholds to maintain a balanced ecosystem. For instance, it leads to relocating trails to more resistant sections (Leung and Marion 2000). Additionally, managers can implement restoration actions, such as facilitating additional sunlight penetration to enhance survival of resistant vegetation, in both the front country and backcountry (Leung and Marion 2000). Further, in both types of recreation areas, education is crucial to decrease impacts from visitation (Leung and Marion 2000),
References:
Leung, Yu-Fai, Marion, Jeffrey L. 2000. “Recreation impacts and management in wilderness : A state-of-knowledge review.” Presented at the Wilderness science in a time of change conference-Volume 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT, 1999 May 23–27; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 23-48
Manning, Robert E., Laura E. Anderson, and Peter R. Pettengill. 2017. Managing Outdoor Recreation: Case Studies in the National Parks, 2nd Ed. Boston: CAB International.
Comment by Fenton Kay:
Good point, Mary. We have mostly been viewing front- and backcountry with respect to mountains and forests. However, in much of the western U.S., those areas are located in arid places without forests and precious little vegetation. Examples are Arches N.P., Bears Ears N.M., and Desert Peaks N.M. Which of Leung and Marion’s management suggestions do you think are applicable to such areas?
My Comment:
Great question. A properly managed trail system limits the areal extent and severity of recreation impacts by concentrating traffic on resistant tread surfaces (Leung and Marion 2000). Also, designated campsites can be located, constructed and maintained to substantially reduce the areal extent and severity of camping impacts (Leung and Marion 2000). More resistant surfaces, like grassy ground cover, sand, gravel and rock, can accommodate many more nights of use without permanent impact (Leung and Marion 2000). Further, seeding and transplanting resistant vegetation, using locally obtained sources of native plant mate- rials, have been done in some wildernesses (Leung and Marion 2000). The researches would suggest that managers encourage use of these areas and make access to the areas with the precious little vegetation more difficult to visit (Leung and Marion 2000).
References:
Leung, Yu-Fai, Marion, Jeffrey L. 2000. “Recreation impacts and management in wilderness : A state-of-knowledge review.” Presented at the Wilderness science in a time of change conference-Volume 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT, 1999 May 23–27; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 23-48
Comment by Leila Lubin:
I appreciate the way you compare the two areas. Regarding the restoration action you mentioned, I would like to add that depending on the forest condition, the openness of forest canopy can also have a negative impact by causing invasive weeds and plants to colonize (Silveira et al. 2017). Those invasive species have potential to upset the natural balance among native species (Manning et al. 2017). Therefore those responsible should take all precautionary measures to prevent and limit the visitor’s actions in all parks whether in front country or wilderness areas. Great job!