Introduction

Since the mid-1970s, a series of visitor management frameworks, which were put in use in the management of conservation, national parks, etc., have emerged as the times require to address issues such as recreation carrying capacity; human use that causes stress for ecosystems; methods to determine appropriate types, levels, and conditions of use; and methods to inventory and manage an appropriate mix of visitor opportunities (Nilsen & Tayler, 1997). It is quite interesting that all of those frameworks were developed in North America, namely, the US and Canada. Some of the frameworks are used widely like Recreation Opportunity Spectrum management framework which is adopted by the US, Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand, whereas some of them have almost been weed out, like the Visitor Activity Management Process (VAMP).

In this poster, in the first section, five visitor management frameworks which are the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum management framework, the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) framework, the Visitor Activity Management Process (VAMP), the Visitor Impact Management (VIM) framework and the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) framework, are summaries in the order of the time they were created. Then I will introduce the use of visitor management framework in the context of New Zealand, from how it was adopted by Department of Conservation, New Zealand, its mapping process, and how it helps to direct decision-making.

Five visitor management framework

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)

ROS is an experience-Based Management framework which was established in 1978 by America social scientists to under the growing recreational demands and increasing conflict overuse of scarce resources, and a series of legislative directives (Nilsen & Tayler, 1997).

ROS is based upon three major propositions: ·recreation experiences are influenced by recreation activities and the settings in which they occur; ·recreation settings are defined by resource, social, and managerial conditions; ·alternative recreation activities and combinations of resource, social, and managerial conditions can be used to create a diversity of recreation opportunities (Pettengill & Manning, 2011). ·Under ROS, creation opportunity – which is the “availability of a real choice for a user to participate in a preferred activity within a preferred setting in order to achieve a satisfying experience” (Taylor, 1993, p.2) – changes with the landscape moving from modern to primitive. ·

As different visitors have different demands for natural experience and have different motivation to join activities in a natural environment, like parks or conservations. ROS management framework is used for planning and management creation opportunity zone to match specific visitor groups with their recreation opportunity. For example, in Figure 1, the land of Yoho Park is divided into four creation opportunity zones, and different types of activity and facility are arranged according to creation opportunity zone.

The limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) Framework

LAC was developed in 1985 in response to concerns about the management of recreation impacts (Nilsen & Tayler, 1997) and it has emerged as the most generic of all visitor management frameworks as it allows ‘stakeholders’ get involved into LAC process (Haider & Payne, 2009). It is a supplementary for ROS as both of them are used in the landscape, but one is planning-oriented, the other is problem-oriented. The process (see Figure 2) helps to control the unaccepted change of resource and social condition within the set standard.

Strengths: The final product is a strategic and tactical plan for the area are directed against the problem occurring on ecological and social conditions, and detailed and explicit indicators are clear and convenient to manipulate. Entailing stakeholders in the LAC process makes the plan take account of different interest group.

Weaknesses: LAC is a problem-oriented framework. The process focuses on issues and concerns that guide subsequent data collection and analysis. Compared with ROS which is planning-oriented, LAC is somewhat lagging. Strategic and tactical direction may not be provided on management topics where there are no current issues or concerns (Nilsen & Taylor, 1997).

The Visitor Activity Management Process (VAMP)

VAMP is created by Park Canada in 1985. It could be described as a park planning process from park establishing, developing to managing. As the framework is directed against parks rather than only against conservation or protected area, VAMP makes visitor using of the park as the kernel of the framework and even considered the strategy about park marketing, whereas other frameworks, like LAC, are more concern about the setting.

Based on natural and cultural resources, park managers using VIM could tailor activities, programs, services, and facilities to specific visitor groups (Haider & Payne, 2009)

At present, VAMP has largely been superseded but is used to help with risk management and appropriate activity assessment by Parks Canada (Haider & Payne, 2009).

The Visitor Impact Management (VIM) Framework

VIM was created in 1990 and worked as an adaption of LAC, but it hasn’t been applied widely as LAC and even didn’t go out the State (Hailer & Payne, 2009). Literally, it is used to monitor visitor impact indicators on the natural environment and then make strategies to maintain the desired condition in the areas (Hailer & Payne, 2009). Similar to LAC, it is also a problem-oriented framework, however, it works best in site-specific situations rather than in landscapes.

VIM addresses three basic issues relating to impact: problem conditions; potential causal factors; and potential management strategies (Nilsen & Taylor, 1997).

Strengths: Process provides for a balanced use of scientific and judgmental considerations. It places heavy emphasis on understanding causal factors to identify management strategies. The process also provides a classification of management strategies and a matrix for evaluating them (Nilsen & Taylor, 1997).

Weaknesses: The process does not make use of ROS, although it could. It is written to address current conditions of impact, rather than to assess potential impacts (Nilsen & Taylor, 1997).

The Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) Framework

VERP was developed in 1993. VERP builds on the experience of VAMP and the other previously mentioned frameworks including LAC and VIM. This framework is the most general and holistic among all frameworks I mentioned ahead. The framework not only concludes the management but also considered to build a strong team which is the operational facet.

Steps of Process

1. Assemble an interdisciplinary project team.
2. Develop a public involvement strategy.
3. Develop statements of park purpose, significance and primary interpretive themes; identity planning mandates and constraints.
4. Analyse park resources and existing visitor use.
5. Describe a potential range of visitor experiences and resource conditions (potential prescriptive zones).
6. Allocate the potential zones to specific locations within the park (prescriptive management zoning).
7. Select indicators and specify standards for each zone; develop a monitoring plan.
8. Monitor resource and social indicators.
9. Take management actions.

It is a new framework dealing with carrying capacity in terms of the quality of the resources and the quality of the visitor experience (Nilsen & Taylor, 1997). It contains a prescription for desired future resource and social conditions, defining what levels of use are appropriate, where, when and why (Nilsen & Taylor, 1997).

Strengths: Like VAMP, VERP is a thought process that draws on the talents of a team and is guided by policy and the park purpose statement. It guides resource analysis through the use of statements of significance and sensitivity, and visitor opportunity analysis is guided by statements defining important elements of the visitor experience. Zoning is the focus for management (Nilsen & Taylor, 1997).

Weaknesses: Additional work is required to pilot the approach in different environments. The will and ability to monitor sufficiently to provide information to guide management actions must also be tested (Nilsen & Taylor, 1997). A current study shows that a lack of training and leadership in the social dimensions of resource management has limited the successful application of VERP (Fefer et al., 2018).

Visitor Management Framework in New Zealand

Background

ROS is the primary visitor management framework that New Zealand adopt. According to the book, The New Zealand Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (Taylor, 1993), initially, a serious of workshops worked on ROS in 1982 and then only were used in a few regions. But only until 1987 when the Department of Conservation (DOC) was established, the framework began to be used more widely. In 1990, DOC decided to make a unified ROS classification and one set of criteria and concept that could help to make consistent management across all land of New Zealand.

ROS in New Zealand:

Reasons that DOC adopts ROS

1) ROS was developed for recreational setting on the vast holdings. In New Zealand, about 30% of the land area is protected land. ROS provides a consistent and straightforward method for intergraded management.

2) ROS focuses primarily on visitor experiences. It is appropriate for NZ who wants to promote its tourism industry and achieve a better visitor experience.

Countries applying ROS have more or less differences in creation opportunity classification. In New Zealand, the spectrum from urban to wilderness has been divided into 8 recreation opportunity from urban to wilderness (Figure 6). Three types of characteristics, activity, setting and experience combine to form a recreation opportunity (Figure 5).

Mapping

The draw of New Zealand ROS map is based on NZMS 260 map sheets which are 260 pieces topographic maps covering New Zealand whole land.

Initially, the process of mapping ROS is most by manually. Separate transparent overlays, which delineates the boundary of creation opportunity zone by the criteria of physical, social and managerial setting characteristics, are overlapped to draw the border roughly. Criteria for activity and experience also further check and help resolve remaining inconsistencies. Then complete the final ROS overlay maps.

At present, ROS are mapped automatically in large. With the apply of Geographic information system (GIS), the process of mapping and making complex analysis has become much faster and easier.

Management and visitor strategies

ROS is based on the postulate: as awareness of associations between recreation settings and psychological outcomes improves, so will efficiency in meeting visitor demands (Pettengill & Manning, 2011). Under the approach of ROS, three factors, namely, setting, activity, experience are three-oneness, similarly as the supply and demand. In coordination with ROS, DOC also divided visitors into 7 groups which are largely corresponding with the ROS classification (see Figure 7) according to their demands on nature experience.

Recreation opportunity zone management

Planning alternatives ·The ROS is an ideal tool for generating and assessing alternatives; ·It can also be used where changes within recreation provision are proposed with the collaboration with LAC.

Guiding and maintaining management direction(refer to Figure 7) · It helps to evaluate the compatibleness among creation opportunity zones. It directs what kinds of setting, activity could be maintained and what should be altered, removed and forbidden.

Information presentation· ROS is a mean of matching the nature experience (creation opportunity) with a particular group of visitors (DOC, 1996). Literal information can be access on the internet and brochures, for example, Tourism New Zealand, where different types of activity are arranged by their categories. It shows what kind of recreation opportunities are available and where they can be found. Therefore, visitors can choose their keen activity and make their travel plan. ·The map on-site also has clear guidance of all kinds of activity available, difficulty, risk, etc. to better achieve visitor experience.

Conclusion

The five frameworks have been developed to deal with different issues and have a mutual relationship with each other like LAC is supplementary of ROS, and VERP combines the LAC and VIM. However, the integration of the frameworks still has spaces to improve (Nilsen & Tayler, 1997). The study on visitor management frameworks is still of deficiency. The iteration and development of visitor management frameworks are slow.

In the context of New Zealand, ROS works pretty well, however, there are also some new issues that need to be concerned. First, it’s how the current frameworks will reply to global climate change. Moreover, with the change of demographic structure of visitors, is the ROS which was created in the 1970s, still, fit for the situation today and future?

Reference