Even the most sensitive tourism might be bad for wildlife
19/08/2008 14:39:25Wilderness areas.
This report makes a strong case for wilderness areas. Like marine reserves, if a core area of a wilderness is protected as just that, wilderness, while wildlife viewing, trekking etc are allowed on the margins, then that would provide the best of both worlds.
A new report, written by Sarah E. Reed & Adina M. Merenlender of the Department of Environmental Science, Policy & Management, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, suggests that even the most sensitive forms of tourism might be bad for wildlife.
August 2008. Protected areas around the world were created with the goals of preserving biodiversity and providing nature-based recreation opportunities for millions of people. This dual mandate guides the management of the majority of the world's protected areas, but there is growing evidence that quiet, non-consumptive recreation may not be compatible with biodiversity protection. We combined non-invasive survey techniques and DNA verification of species identifications to survey for mammalian carnivores in 28 parks and preserves in northern California. Paired comparisons of neighbouring protected areas with and without recreation revealed that the presence of dispersed, non-motorized recreation led to a five-fold decline in the density of native carnivores and a substantial shift in community composition from native to non-native species. Demand for recreation and nature-based tourism is forecasted to grow dramatically around the world, and our findings suggest a pressing need for new approaches to the designation and management of protected areas.
Click the following link to read the full paper. Wildlife recreation.pdf
