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 record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".