PERMITS AS A VISITOR CONTROL METHOD

Elery Hamilton-Smith, Department of Leisure Studies, Phillip Institute of Technology, Bundoora, Victoria

INTRODUCTION

There seems to be a common assumption that the use of a permit system to control visitors to parks or other wildland resources is a "good thing", and that it is a sign of responsible management to use such a system.

I argue that although there are times when a permit system is justifiable, even necessary, and effective, this is not always the case. All too often, permit systems are unnecessary, ineffective, and often are nonsense from an ecological viewpoint. Even when there is some need for such a system, they are often administratively cumbersome and ineffective.

However, having voiced that criticism, it is now my responsibility to spell out ways in which we should arrive at wise decisions about permit arrangements.

WHEN TO USE A PERMIT SYSTEM

My position is that in order for a permit system to be justified, four preconditions should exist;

1. A genuine need to reduce and/or place limits upon (or, in the jargon, to ration) the use of a resource;
2. An adequate level of on-site surveillance to ensure the effectiveness of the system;
3. Other methods, such as voluntary registration, user education, etc are inadequate to achieve management objectives; and
4. A permit system can be designed in a way which will meet defined management objectives (of which more below)

I cannot accept the argument that permit systems should be used to monitor the level and kind of use in a wildland area, or to provide the opportunity for educative contact with the user. These are certainly desirable goals, but both can be far more effectively achieved by using other methods.

Measuring of the level and kind of use can be achieved through observation, site surveys, voluntary registration, self-issued permits and the like. Although not compulsory, there is good evidence that in many situations, these methods are more accurate than an obligatory permit system. (Leatherberry & Lime 1981; Hamilton-Smith & Watson 1982).

User education is always important, no matter who the user is, but there are an enormous range of techniques available (Aldridge & Pennyfather 1975) any of which might be selected and used for any specific user audience. It seems to me a sad reflection that at least some of the staff responsible for cave parks are better placed vis-a-vis many of their visitors to receive rather than give education! While this situation prevails, talk of user education remains nonsensical.

It may be worthwhile briefly discussing my suggestion above that on-site surveillance is a necessary pre-condition. Basically, this rests on the assumption that without such surveillance, a permit system will only serve to control the law-abiding and probably more responsible sector of the population. Others will ignore the permit requirement. This happens, or has happened to a significant extent in many Australian cave areas. Even an area like Jenolan, where there is a reasonable level of staffing and the physical layout of the reserve facilitates surveillance, finds there is still occasional "illegitimate" caving.

PROBLEMS OF PERMIT SYSTEMS

As some sort of guidelines for the design of permit systems, one can usefully outline some of the problems presented by permit systems.

The first is the common claim that permit systems reduce spontaneity and freedom in outdoor recreation, and hence are undesirable. One counter-claim would be that spontaneity and freedom all too easily becomes anarchy and there is no place for anarchy when managing scarce and irreplaceable natural resources. I have a considerable measure of agreement with this position, but rather than using it as an argument for not having permit systems I see it as an argument for land resource managers to do all they can to develop constructive relationships with users and, if necessary, to heighten their efforts in user education. In talking of constructive relationships I see this as a reciprocal matter. Users can and, often do, contribute to the task of the manager; even more importantly users are the best political constituency the manager can have. It is vital that manager-user relationships are strong.

However it is also a caution against developing permit systems which are administratively clumsy, which demand an excessive lead time, or which impose unnecessarily complex paperwork on anyone. All of these characteristics are likely to produce a permit system which will hamper the user, and often the on-site manager also.

In turn, this leads us to the question of the administrative distance between the issuer of permits and the on-site manager. Close liaison is vital, not only to avoid inconvenience or annoyance to any party. but more importantly to ensure that the permit system is operating in congruence with management objectives.

One minor problem, which is difficult to avoid, is the issue of people being granted a permit and then not utilising it. The problem here is the extent to which a "no-show" may in fact have deprived other users of an opportunity. Other problems may arise depending upon the nature of the permit system in operating so as to treat a specific user sector inequitably. I'll return to this below.

This leaves us with the central issue of the extent to which a permit system actually helps in the achievement of management objectives. As a simplistic example one might impose a condition that the collection of fauna is prohibited. If at the same time, the permit system allows contamination of the environment, then the end objective of ecological protection is obviously being jeopardised. So, I now want to turn to the issue of how a permit system might be related to management objectives using the management classification of caves which has been developed in Australia (Worboys et al, 1982).

PERMITS AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

The classification system, if properly applied to a cave area, provides a basis for an access permission scheme, in so far as access to individual caves is concerned. Although it is not possible to deal fully with all the possible situations here, it is important to note that there remain questions of how one might deal with a specific area containing a number of caves, and how cave access permits might relate to permits for surface access, e.g. for camping.

PUBLIC ACCESS CAVES

Here any control is generally applied through a ticketing system rather than by way of permits. However, there may be licensing of concessionaires (as a real example, the Tasmanian National Parks & Wildlife Service has licensed the conduct of cave wilderness tours to Exit Cave) and they may well be some ways in which access is rationed, particularly at peak periods.

REFERENCE CAVES

Permits would only be issued for a purpose which related to the reference function of the cave - the very nature of a reference area means that such permits must be very few indeed, otherwise the value of the resource for reference purposes will be inevitably destroyed.

CAVES OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL VALUE

Here permits would be issued in conformity with the reasons for the classification. Thus, if a cave is seen as being of outstanding natural value because of the fragile archaeological evidence contained in its floors, one would not give entry permission for simple recreational purposes, and would probably confine entry to genuine archaeological research purposes. On the other hand, if classified as being of outstanding natural value only because of the size of the cave tunnels, recreational caving would probably be the major purpose for which permits would be issued.

DANGEROUS CAVES

Obviously, if this classification is used, no entry permission should ever be granted.

"WILD" CAVES

This is, in my opinion, the more problematic area at present. In my view, the very meaning of the classification is that cave access permits would not be demanded. One might well demand the holding of a camping permit, or that registration was required on entry to the park concerned. In the latter event, registration might well be used to check that users had appropriate equipment and knowledge. But there should not be any cumbersome administrative requirements to apply for caving permits. I hold that to use this classification wisely would relieve management agencies of considerable excess work in issuing caving permits.

Finally, I turn briefly to the question of the basis upon which permits might be allocated.

ALLOCATION OF PERMITS

At the beginning, I made the point that a permit system was only justifiable when, amongst other conditions, it was considered necessary to reduce, or place limits upon, the use of a resource. This means that in looking at a basis for the allocation of permits, we are essentially considering the basis upon which we will ration the use of the resource.

Stankey and Baden (1977) suggest there are, in fact, five ways in which we may ration wildland resources.

1. We may establish an advance booking system, where places are allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. I do not know of any arguments to support this system. It advantages early applicants over others, irrespective of their sense of conservation ethic, commitment or any other quality. It maximises the number of "no-shows" and becomes an administrative nightmare for all concerned. Of course, it may occur by default, or as a result of crowding. If this happens, then I suggest some much more positive management policy is required and should be instituted.
2. A lottery may be set up. This has the advantage of "fairness" to all applicants, in the sense that each has an equal chance. It has been successfully used in rationing permits for game-hunting but it is administratively clumsy for most purposes. Greist (1975) has demonstrated a potential application of this method for general wildland management, but it does not seem to meet the special needs of cave management.
3. Queuing - a first-come first-serve system administered on site - may work for theatre or football tickets; one can see no way in which it could satisfactorily be used for caves or any other wildland resources. Again, we see it happening by default, or as a result of poor management, and again, these situations demand a positive management response.
4. Pricing is a further method, which is applied, for instance, to the fine arts, rare stamps and premium motor cars. It is hard to see a way in which it can deliberately and with a positive result, be applied to natural resource access, although some degree of pricing of access is increasingly popular.
5. So, we come to allocation by merit. This seems appropriate, because it allocates access to those who most "deserve" it. In the case of fragile land resources, as caves are, the assumption is that we will ration the resource amongst those who are best able to safeguard its values. The problem is how we might best decide which applicants are likely to safeguard these values. In Australia, it has been general practice to limit caving in some areas to member societies of the Australian Speleological Federation. Personally, I have some doubts about this, not because there is necessarily anything lacking in the competence and sense of responsibility of such groups (although sometimes there may be - it would be foolish to claim perfection), but rather because there is almost certainly equal competence and responsibility in other groups. In other words, a permit system which operates upon a questionable and arbitrary basis may very will be quite inequitable.

So, allocation by merit tends to be unjust. Land managers are forced to either adopt an arbitrary criterion, such as membership of a recognised organisation, or to enter into the very difficult and inevitably, subjective task of assessing the merits of each applicant party.

Here, I return to the issue of classification. If caves are satisfactorily classified on the system discussed above, then one may very well be able to give general access to any groups satisfying minimum on-site assessment, thus allowing them to enter any "wild" caves. Monitoring of group performance and the impact of any particular group on the environment may well provide a basis for allocation of access to caves in other classifications, without resorting to arbitrary criteria.

Stankey and Baden present a number of principles which deserve every consideration. They argue firstly that an accurate knowledge base is necessary; I want to comment that we can never wait for knowledge before acting, and that in fact, I would emphasise their fifth principle (below). Secondly, and I have already argued this, that direct rationing should only be used when other methods fail. Thirdly, that combinations of systems will help minimise costs and improve the outcome - this is a possibility which we have not yet adequately examined in Australia, but one that is worthy of attention. Fourthly, that rationing should require users to judge the worth of any particular opportunity - again an avenue that we should be exploring. And lastly, perhaps most importantly, that rationing programs should be monitored and evaluated. Until this is done, we in fact do not know what we are doing in Australia, let alone what we might do!

In summary, any permit system can only be as good as the overall basis for management decisions. If management objectives are clear and the resources are sufficiently well-known to provide for management classification, then a permit system might well be designed to work effectively and justly. BUT, we will only know if it does work if we set up adequate monitoring and evaluation. Otherwise, permit systems only serve to give the appearance of responsible management with none of the reality.

REFERENCES

ALDRIDGE, D & PENNYFATHER, K., 1975, Guide to Countryside Interpretation. Edinburgh H.M.S.O., 2 vols.

GREIST, David A., 1975, Risk zoning: A recreation area management system and method of measuring carrying capacity. J. Forestry, 73(11): 711-714

HAMILTON-SMITH, Elery & WATSON, John, 1982, Monitoring of Wildland Recreation: Issues Methods and Potential. Paper to Natural Area Management Workshop, Tasmania.

LEATHERBERRY, Earl C. & LIME, David W., 1981, Unstaffed trail registration compliance in a back-country recreation area. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Research Paper NC-214.

STANKEY, George H. & BADEN, Joh, 1977, Rationing Wilderness Use : Methods, problems and guidelines. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Research Paper INT-1 92

WORBOYS, G., DAVEY, A., & STIFF, C., 1982, Report on Cave Classification. Cave Management in Australia IV, pp. 11-20