||Pouwels, R.; Jochem, R.; Henkens, R.J.H.G.,
||Criteria for scientific tools for recreation planning in nature areas
||Management for Protection and Sustainable Development
||MMV 4 - Proceedings
||MMV4, Adaptive management, integrating scientific tools, recreation planning, biodiversity
||Recreation is increasing the last decades in Northwest-Europe. Although these visitors might have a negative impact on biodiversity values, they are important for the support of biodiversity actions. Therefore a major objective for planning and managing of visitor landscapes is to avoid the negative effects of recreational use and to ensure that expectations of visitors can be afforded. Scientific knowledge and scientific tools always have and always will be important in managing recreation in visitor landscapes. However it is an illusion scientists will deliver ready-to-go answers. In this paper we will define criteria that scientific tools should meet. We will follow the arguments of Haider  and McCool et al.  that the use of knowledge and tools should be implemented in decision strategies like adaptive management and use experiences from a case study of recreation planning in the New Forest (UK). We will show that scientific tools should be flexible to adapt to local data to gain credibility and legitimacy and should be able to show which management alternative is most likely to meet recreation objectives and conservation objectives. Therefore the recreation tool has to be linked to the biodiversity tool. The scientific tools also should be useful in communication between stakeholders so they learn each other’s key processes and values and better understand the “other side of the table”. Especially because stakeholders have different views about what should or should not be considered a problem.
||ILEN @ m.sokopp @ 1030
|Permanent link to this record