Minimizing backcountry overnight visitation impacts
A comparison of per capita resource impacts from lodges, huts, and campsites in Banff National Park and Mount Assiniboine Park, Canada
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21603972 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jeffrey L Marion (0000-0003-2226-689X, Virginia Tech, Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation, corresponding author), Johanna Arredondo (0000-0001-9745-6992, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 34 |
| Issue | 7 |
| Pages | 1745-1766 |
| Publication date | 2026-07-03 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Sustainable Tourism (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0966-9582 • E-ISSN: 1747-7646 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/09669582.2025.2563664 |
| OpenAlex | W4414901726 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 30 |
A core sustainable tourism objective is to develop recreation infrastructures that accommodate visitation while minimizing the spatial “footprint” of resource impact. This recreation ecology study evaluated several measures of the areal extent of resource impact associated with overnight visitation in backcountry areas of two Canadian protected areas. Four types of accommodation were evaluated: a full-service lodge, self-service huts, developed campsites with formal tent pads, and primitive campsites. Innovative field-assessment protocols yielded measures of “facility footprint” and “visitor impact” to provide accurate assessments of per site and per person impact for each accommodation option and several specific facility types, including formal and informal trails. Huts provided the most effective option for accommodating overnight visitation with exceptionally little resource impact. For campsites, the spatial extent of impact is best minimized by including facilities that attract and spatially concentrate camping activities, and by using campsites in sloping, rocky, or uneven terrain and avoiding flat open terrain
Montane ecology · Mount · National park · Nature tourism · Per capita · Tourism · Economic and Environmental Valuation · Recreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management · Urban Transport and Accessibility
| Highly cited | No |
|---|