The effectiveness of signage in the reduction of litter in backcountry and frontcountry campsites

Table 3: ANOVA TableTable 4: Tukey's Multiple Comparison Procedures.Table 5: Comparison of Climate Normals with Summer Months of 2004.vi Litter continues to be an issue for managers of parks and protected areas worldwide.Yet, little research exists examining the effectiveness of signage in reducing litter in a variety parks and protected area settings.From June 26 to August 18,2004 regulatory and interpretative signage were examined for their effectiveness in reducing litter in backcountry and frontcountry campsites in Whiteshell Provincial Park located in the Southeast corner of Manitoba, Canada.Results suggest that there are differences between backcountry and frontcountry littering.Results of a two-sample t-test indicated there are significant differences between backcountry and frontcountry littering (t=3.78P-value=0.0003).During the course of the study the fire pit was the most likely location to find litter (45.53% of total litter collected), while the water was the less likely location to find litter (0.30% of total litter collected).Results also suggest that there is a difference in response to interpretative and regulatory signage in both backcountry and frontcountry campsites.The type of sign and the difference in week produced a signifícant result (P-value=0.0001).Tukey's Multiple Comparison Procedure demonstrated that the mean of the regulatory sign (mean 3.25) was significantly different from the mean of the interpretative sign (mean 5.78), but was not significant from the mean of the control group (campsites without signs) (mean 2.70).Therefore, regulatory signs were more effective then the interpretative signs, but were not more effective then the control group.The interpretative sign was the least effective out of the three treatments.While results indicate signage was not effective in reducing litter in Whiteshell ABSTRACT vii Provincial Park; it is difficult to say with certaínty that this was the case.Campsite accessibility, campsite functionality and climate may have affected visitor's campsite selection, and therefore the outcome of the study.Campsite accessibility and functionality were not taken into consideration when control and treatment conditions were randomly assigned to sites.lt is hoped the study will give park managers insight into the use of different types of signs in backcountry and frontcountry campsites, and ultimately help to decrease the frequency of depreciative behaviour in parks and protected areas.viii Manitoba's vast boreal forest provides unparalleled opportunities to experience pristine natural areas and participate in a variety of outdoor activities.ln recognition of this largely untapped potential Travel Manitoba has identified Adventure Travel and Ecotourism (ATE) as a key focus of Manitoba's travel product (Government of Manitoba, 2003).Sustaining this resource and ensuring a vibrant ATE sector will, however, require sound knowledge of the potential threats and the means to avoid or redress them.Litter is one threat that continues to be an issue for managers and outdoor recreationists.A recent exchange in a national outdoor magazine highlighted this continued concern for littering in our parks and protected areas.ln the winter 2001 issue of Kanawa magazine, the past-president of the Canadian Recreational Canoeing Association, Kirk Wipper, wrote a piece on the continued problem of littering in our backcountry.He proposed that we place signs denouncing litter and littering behavior at each backcountry campsite.He then asked for the opinions of his readers.Shortly after, in the spring 2002 issue, a reader responded stating that the backcountry should be left as is and that the only way to prevent littering was through education (Smid, 2002).While there may be aesthetic concerns regarding the use of signage in the backcountry, few researchers have empirically measured the efficacy of signage.The question this research will address is whether signage can reduce litter in backcountry and frontcountry campsites and therefore, demonstrate whether signage is an acceptable management technique for the reduction of litter.CHAPTER 1 lntroduction Litter is a growing problem in parks and protected areas.Garbage can be found in most backcountry and frontcountry campsites, threatening both the ecological integrity of the area and people's wilderness experience.ln addition to detracting from visitor's experiences, litter can lead to habituation of wildlife and therefore potentially harm wildlife and lead to public safety concerns (Mace & Waller, 1998).The lack of accessibility of backcountry campsites makes it difficult to enforce littering laws and engage in regular cleanup.This can be especially difficult for backcountry managers who deal with limited staff, funding, and accessibility for an extensive backcountry area.Signage is one way park managers can try to promote the pack-it-in, pack-it-out philosophy.However, surprisingly little research has been done on the effectiveness of this method.Given that there is a problem with litter in parks and protected areas and that there is some controversy over the aesthetics of signage in the backcountry, it is imperative to determine the efficacy of signage before any management action can be taken.Little empirical research has been conducted on signage and the reduction of litter in parks and protected areas.This study will examine the effectiveness of different types of signage in reducing litter in both frontcountry and backcountry campsites.The literature review will discuss litter and related research, depreciative behaviour in parks and protected areas, the problem of litter in parks and protected areas, and discuss the gaps in past research.

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.