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

Provincial Park; it is difficult to say with certanty 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 lntroductionLitter 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.Litter is not a new problem.An interest in issues related to litter began to increase in the United States in the late 1960's and early 1970's when Keep America Beautiful lnc.released a study on litter in the United States (Clark, Burgess & Hendee, 1972).The United States identified that litter was a problem that was costing the United States millions of dollars.This led to an increase in research on littering behaviours and effective interventions.The following section will discuss the broader research on littering behaviour and interventions for littering such as, incentives and reinforcements, environmental interventions, stimulus control, and written, verbal and visual prompts. Littering BehaviourFew studies have observed and examined actual littering behaviour.An accurate picture of who litiers and why has only begun to emerge in the last decade.When researchers in Australia observed littering behaviour outside a shopping complex, they found that there was no difference between littering rates of men and women.Also, people of all ages and backgrounds litter, people with higher education were less likely to litter, and a lack of garbage bins was not a major factor in littering (Beverage lndustry Environment Council, 1999).This demonstrated the fact that there does not seem to be a littering 'type'.Most people have littered at least once, however little is understood about why people litter.When the Beverage lndustry Environment Council (1999) in Australia examined littering behaviour and attitudes they found that there were often major differences between attitudes expressed and littering behaviour.Of CHAPTER 2Literature Review Litter and Related Research the people observed littering almost half stated that they had not littered in the last 24 hours.Moreover, three quarters of people said that littering was a'very important' or'extremely important' environmental issue.The most common response to why people littered was laziness.This study along with others (Christensen & Clark, 1978) concluded that general littering attitudes are not always connected to littering behaviour.People believe that littering is wrong but many do it anyway.

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.