Ecotourism - Rules and Storytelling
The final point of our 3-day hike was Clingman's dome - the 3rd highest peak at the East coast and the top of the Smoky Mountains. I was rendering pictures of the open panorama with the shimmering Atlantic surface on the horizon, as that`s how high we`ve reached. Yes, but…) the dense milky fog barely allowed us to see each other as we reached the peak and started giggling next to the infoboard depicting a spectacular panorama with the named peaks we're supposed to see. It was breathtaking anyways, and the “soundproof” weather conditions added the impression of sacredness in the moment and place. The gray minimal and even brutalist outlook of a viewpoint was towering at the highest peak thus multiplying the greatness of nature with this skillful contribution of a human being. The shaggy and hasty non-stoppers pursuing the Appalachian trail were quietly caught with this beauty.
Thousands of sportsmen and tourists daily take the challenge of walking the entire Appalachian trail extending for 2200 miles from Florida to Maine through various parks with their gradually changing landscapes. The instant beauty and unity with mother nature - as well as the lasting “off the grid” brings them to the state of “rebirth” and is broadly known as a way to reconsider and/ or change your life or at least prove that “if you want it, you can do it”. At the other side of the coin are the obvious “time conflicts”, like leaving a family and a job for such a long while. Moreover, there are some deeper barriers of 4 to 8 months-long pure adventure. Those are the daily challenges of their physical skills, power of will, and dedication in pursuing the dream. As a result, only about 25% of the brave challengers actually get to finish the trail. There are also two “border-to-border” hiking trails on the West coast and in the central part of the country - Pacific Crest and Continental divide. These routes stretch over 2,600 and 3,100 miles of the wilderness respectively. Only about 500 brave through-hikers have finished all 3 mega-trails in the US and bear a pride title of Triple Crowners.
Among the into-the-wilders pursuing Appalachian and other Crown Trails there are also the modest eco-tourists who step at the parts of the trails to explore and enjoy nature during their weekends and short vacation trips. The numbers are approximated with millions of people daily. This enormous traffic supports the budget needed to maintain and develop infrastructure and services further, while protecting these lands from development pressure. People from abroad impressed with the beauty of national parks are attracted to the trails, where the National Park Service manage to regulate the environmental risks caused by the visitors activity. But - isn`t it wild to imagine these crowds within the vulnerable natural areas. How to protect the trees from fires, the trails from the garbage, and finally - the water from plastic pollution? This is what my Russian friends-co-hikers and I are impressed with each time we go “into the wild”, as we have seen these issues back in our country. We have seen garbage next to the Baikal lake and along the wild rivers of Karelia and Siberia where the beauty of pure nature makes such a drastic contrast to the traces of human activity. Why have we never seen the piles of plastic along the Appalachian and why the water in these areas is clean? I emphasize the water as it proves the sustained wellbeing of all the plants and animals in there.
The difference in the natural resource management systems in different countries can be well illustrated with the approaches in the US and Russia as the big countries with the extensive natural areas, environmental impact, and interest in ecosystem-based tourism. The National Park Service (NPS) was established on August 25, 1916, with the signing of the National Park Service Organic Act by President Woodrow Wilson. Both the way to protect wilderness, and support low-key economic activity of the Great Depression times, they manifested their mission as to "conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein, and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." There are about 20 types of designation with the various levels of protection, with a total of 424 of protected areas covering over 85 million acres in 50 states, the District of Columbia, and US territories. The trails have special National Park Service designation of the National Scenic Trails that they were given by the National Trails System Act in 1968 (AT, PCT) and 1978 (CDT). Working collaboratively with the responsible nonprofits - the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, The Pacific Crest Trail Association, and The Continental Divide Trail Coalition - and many more actors such as government agencies, local organizations, and volunteers - the park preservation, and stewardship of the trails. The legendary challenge of the Triple Crown brings the “eyes to the street”, that is personal involvement and recognizing responsibility of visitors to protecting the nature.
In Russia, the federal network of protected areas (OOPTs) was created in 1995 to regulate “organization, protection and use of specially protected natural areas in order to preserve unique and typical natural complexes and objects, natural landmarks, objects of flora and fauna, their genetic fund, study natural processes in the biosphere and control changes in its state, environmental education of the population.” Federally protected areas include 6 types of designations including National Parks with a total number of 299 natural areas (all levels of governance control over 11 millions) of the 146 million acres. Rooted back in 19th century`s research activity and threatened with industrialization in 20th, the system of protected areas has a mission to protect nature from people. The economic activity of these areas is regulated by the Ministry of nature. The trails - similar to the crown trail in the US - are not unfortunately part of this system, but the post-pandemic spike of interest to the ecosystem-based tourism introduced the further programs in support and development of the eco-tourism networks. Thus, the 2020 program established the framework of developing tourist infrastructure in a newly established designation of geoparks based on the different other regulated natural territories.
Yes, the systems of regulation and even some types of designations are similar, but… The major difference in the approaches is the focus of the federal agencies activity related to these wilderness areas - to save the nature for people versus to protect from people. Among all types of designations only Natural parks are less prescriptive and actually are supposed to accommodate visitors and recreation activity. The first protected area (currently National PArk) in Russia was the unique Baikal lake - deepest freshwater lake in the world - as it has a threat of elimination of the wild animals as a result of hunting. The regulation become strict and prohibitive. But practically these days it still has a major environmental threat caused by de-facto uncontrolled tourism. As our parents and grandparents living in the country that does not exist were practicing white water rafting and hiking on their own, outside the protected areas, the rules of conduct were mostly controlled on their own as well, which they`ve been taught in the tourist clubs. It was a wild experience with no supervision from the parks (as they were not allowed to enter protected areas and travelled the wilderness) and no informational signage - very minimal tourism infrastructure. The system was established to prohibit and prevent - not to invite.
This approach is effective as applied to ecosystems recovery and scientific research. Problems can start when the environmentalists and locals do not have access to most of the understanding of what is being done with the natural resources, as the community is used to being walled out. On the one hand for the positive changes there must be adjustments in the legislation, on the other - they can be double-edged. The positive changes started in 2020 with the ecotourism and recreational clusters competition establishing the framework for their development. But two years later, among a set of “fire fighting” legislation againsts the effects of the crisis, an amendment of the Protected Areas Act popped up with the underlying idea of relaxing the development regulation. It is a notoriously popular practice of accelerated solutions at the expense of strategic goals of the future. Thus the Ministry of construction almost made the amendment, luckily facing the push back from the environmental groups that launched the wide campaign against these actions.
The rivers, lakes, and creeks can be protected much easier within dedicated areas. But the infrastructure and knowledge provided by educational programs, signage, and other ways of communication with the visitors - prove to be more sustainable practice in the areas attractive and accessible for recreation. Well, at least each visitor knows where they are and what would be the consequences of their behavior. Thus, along the Crown Trails, and in the NPS even the common problem of waste is explained with the info desks in a way that no reasonable person would do. The pictures illustrate how the food and new smells attract the wild animals. That said, a life threat and safety measures are the best protection of the wildlife).
On the level of administration the difference - is the resistance versus the partnership relations of the Protected Areas and the local organizations. The nested scale of governance and joint programs with the local environmental organizations is an essential tool to assure that the area is in the focus of attention and involves the visitors to help protect it. As the community groups lose the role in co-creation of the future, it gets harder to keep the ears open. So the structure of governance is a double -edged sword in how it prevents and how it also provokes the “partizan” practices lacking knowledge and culture. Clear rules of the game and broader education of visitors makes a lot of sense as people don`t naturally want to do crazy things and destroy the beauty. The integrated approach though will still take growing the grass routes. These processes unfortunately take much moe time than the space-specific changes. And the big countries bear bigger responsibility in the global context.
This week we`re discussing the role of regulations, local communities, and spatial storytelling in eco-based tourism. So - stay tuned )
Reference:
Natural protected areas in Russia:
Interfax tourism, 2022. https://tourism.interfax.ru/ru/news/articles/94299/
The national competition for tourism and recreation clusters, 2020. https://priroda.life/
Vedomosti, 2022. https://www.vedomosti.ru/ecology/regulation/articles/2022/04/21/919121-ekologi-i-obschestvennost-otstoyali-zapovednie-zemli
Afisha, 2022. https://daily.afisha.ru/cities/22800-v-rossii-hotyat-razreshit-stroitelstvo-v-zapovednikah-i-parkah-pochemu-eto-ploho/
National infoagency Ecology https://nia.eco/2022/04/07/34049/
N.A. Sololev, Transparent World, 2015 http://www.transparentworld.info/ru/environment/hcvf/econet2014/map.html
https://ecologyofrussia.ru/stories/na-prirodu-bez-palatki-kak-budet-razvivatsya-infrastruktura-v-rossiyskikh-natsparkakh/
https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_6072/
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/o-razvitii-ekologicheskogo-turizma-v-natsionalnyh-parkah-rossii/viewer
http://www.oopt.aari.ru/oopt/
Natural protected areas and ecotourism in the US:
https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/national-park-system.htm
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350180442_Sport_event_ecotourism_sustainability_of_trail_racing_events_in_US_National_Parks
https://www.lonelyplanet.com/articles/travel-trends-long-distance-hikes
https://www.doi.gov/ocl/nps-organic-act
https://thetrek.co/what-is-the-triple-crown-of-thru-hiking/#:~:text=Quite%20simply%2C%20the%20Triple%20Crown,trails%20in%20the%20United%20States.
https://nationalparkobsessed.com/national-parks-by-size/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2711623
