Main index     Proceedings main index     Proceedings #9 index

SOME ISSUES IN CAVE CLASSIFICATION

Elery Hamilton-Smith, Executive Officer, Australasian Cave and Karst Management Association

INTRODUCTION

The notion of developing a management classification for Australian caves was first suggested by Andrew Skinner in 1973. However, the idea arose more or less separately in other parts of Australia during the mid-seventies. Then at the 1977 Conference on Cave Tourism and Management (convened by the Australian Speleological Federation), it was proposed that a uniform national system be considered (Middleton 1978).

During the discussion on this proposal, it was argued that a management classification would enable managers to more readily determine priorities in resource expenditure; that while some caves might require a high level of management control, many others might need little or none. A uniform national system would avoid re-inventing wheels, but most importantly it would facilitate communication with cave users. Some of those present suggested that classification should be left separately to each state, but it was argued and generally agreed that this was inappropriate simply because visitors moved across state boundaries and a proliferation of systems would only result in confusion.

In 1978, I prepared a summary of existing proposals (by Cameron-Smith, Hamilton-Smith, Macrow and Gobby, Skinner, a Western Australian group, Wilson and Worboys) and circulated this. Extensive discussion then took place at the 1979 Conference and this resulted in a series of principles and a basic classification (in Robinson 1980). A committee of Worboys, Davey and Stiff was established to more fully document this agreement. So, they reported further to the 1981 conference, and the proposed system was ratified by those present, and recommended as a uniform national scheme for management purposes (Worboys, Davey and Stiff, 1982).

The actual conference resolution read: "This conference recommends unanimously that the report of cave classification prepared by Graham Worboys, Adrian Davey and Clyde Stiff, and printed elsewhere in these proceedings, be considered for adoption by all cave managing agencies in Australasia".

The resultant scheme has been applied in a number of situations, and although some variations have arisen, there has been a reasonable level of agreement in its actual application.

However, recent years have seen speleologists and other cave visitors indulging in a great deal of tilting at windmills and multiple splitting of very fine hairs over both the idea and the applications of classification. With all respect to those concerned, this debate has generated a great deal of heat and little or no light! Having got over that festival of mixed metaphors, It is clear that the whole issue clearly demands further examination, even if only to develop much better communication and understanding amongst cave visitors.

The current paper essentially argues that the scheme needs little amendment in the light of experience over the last 10 years, BUT that it does need much greater clarity of expression and understanding by managers and others.

CLASSIFICATION AS A PLANNING TOOL

Firstly, it is probably useful to discuss briefly the very place and nature of resource classification schemes in park planning.

There are a group of planning tools which all rely upon classification in one way or another, and which are directed towards assisting managers to determine the appropriate management regime for specific sectors of a park. The first of these was probably the familiar idea of zoning. In non-urban situations, this was initially based, rather vaguely in most cases, upon a mix of resource value and resource utility considerations. It typically led to such zones as wilderness, low intensity natural, high intensity natural, developed and a services precinct.

The well-known Recreation Opportunity Spectrum idea or ROS (Clerk and Stankey 1979) essentially identifies a spectrum of recreation opportunities generally ranging from relatively undisturbed natural environments for low density recreation use to highly modified environments for high density use. It is based in a series of theoretical ideas which assume a relationship between the preferences of individual recreationists and the natural settings within which recreation occurs, and this has proved problematic; it demands further research (Driver et al 1987).

It is worth noting here that the ROS has stimulated some attention to specialisation analysis, as a relatively crude means of establishing a typology of recreationists, and this method has been applied to cavers in Australia (Hamilton-Smith 1981).

The Cave Classification Scheme (Worboys, Davey and Stiff, 1982) developed in Australia is in effect a variant of the ROS approach. What it essentially does is provide a basis for allocation of management resources, and because it was designed for uniform terminology, to help communicate managerial decisions to cave visitors. Hamilton-Smith (1981) demonstrated the potential relationship between this classification and specialisation analysis, demonstrating that it more adequately relates to levels of specialisation than some of the earlier and simpler proposals.

None of these systems are, in themselves, adequate tools for establishment of heritage significance or conservation management. They were not developed for these purposes, nor are they suited to them. However, they might be used in conjunction with other sets of ideas. For instance, the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) of Stankey et al (1985) or the Visitor Impact Management of Graefe et al (1990), are both designed to deal with the management of environmental values, and might well be used in conjunction with ROS or the Cave Classification. Assessment of significance (in relation to caves) is fully discussed by Davey (1984).

This is all to emphasise that part of the criticism which has been voiced of cave classification is due to people who failed to understand its role, and were criticising it for not doing something which it was never intended to do. A similar misunderstanding arises from its being seen as a classification of caves themselves rather than a classification of the approaches to management of caves.

However, there are a number of real problems which demand attention.

THE PROBLEM OF 'ADVENTURE'

One source of confusion has arisen out of the multiple usage of the term 'adventure'. It has become the trendy term for tours which do not rely upon built pathways and fixed lighting, but which do generally provide leadership by guides or others. However, the 1981 classification also used it to signify caves which would have little or no formal development, and which would be accessible to the public for enjoyment. Discussion at that time indicated that these were seen as generally readily accessible places where any members of the public might be encouraged to go for recreation and which did not demand guiding.

It seems to me that we would do well to maintain this usage, namely to restrict the term 'Adventure Cave' to those caves which would be open with little or no control, where people might enter as they please or with a minimum of formality and where guiding would normally not be offered.

This would then leave open the possibility that an 'adventure tour' might be guided, and could occur in any cave where such use was appropriate. It might be in a show cave, with the lights out and perhaps excursions off the normal route; it might be in a cave of outstanding natural value if that cave was robust enough, or in any wild cave of suitable character.

As a side issue, I wonder how adventurous some of these tours really are? Is 'adventure' really the right word? In any case, we should perhaps clarify this by using two different words?

CAVES, PART-CAVES OR SITES?

The original document simply talked of caves and thus was commonly understood to imply that any one cave would be assigned only to one classification.

Then, in 1985, when a number of us were involved in preparation of a draft management plan for the Naracoorte Caves Conservation Park (SA National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1986), we found it necessary to treat some parts of relatively large caves in a different way to other parts. Thus, Victoria Fossil Cave was seen as having one part designated as a Show Cave, another as reference and still another as of outstanding natural value (pp. 98-99).

I think it is fair enough to say that we did not see this as being particularly innovative or different. None of us saw the concept of 'a cave' as being limited by what we might walk into at any one time, but rather saw 'a cave' as a segment of a dynamic and inter-related karst system; we all know of separate caves which have later become one or of single caves which in one way or another have come to seen as two or more.

This idea was carried a little further in work by Dunkley, Kiernan and myself on the Jenolan Caves Management Plan in 1988. Here we used the term 'site' to indicate parts of caves, and made it clear that sites might range from 'a few square metres up to a whole cave or group of karst features'. John Dunkley, who was responsible for writing this part of our joint paper made the site idea very explicit, pointing out that this was a response to the specific needs of Jenolan (and hence in keeping with the original call of Worboys et al for flexibility in application to any specific area).

Many cave scientists and managers today accept that a 'cave' is simply an arbitrarily-determined component of a wider karst or other geomorphic system. It may be (usually) determined by its accessibility to human entry, but that is in fact just as arbitrary as a managerial decision. So, I would argue that essentially the basic concept has not really changed, given the perception of a 'cave' as an arbitrary unit. It certainly needs some clarification in language and more explicit documentation.

TOWARDS CLARIFICATION

Probably the largest-scale application to date is the review of Victorian caves and karst by Davey and White (1986). Here, and in a currently unpublished paper by Davey to the 1987 Conference, a number of clarifications were suggested:

It should be noted that in both places, the assessment of significance is separately discussed, and some refinement of the schema originally developed by Davey (1984) is presented. Boadle (1991) has followed on from the Davey and White work, and in particular (p. 8) emphasises that classification is NOT a public access policy and NOT a ranking of significance. He has properly used the classification as a tool where applicable.

HOW MUCH FLEXIBILITY?

The tough question asks how much importance should be ascribed to uniformity of terminology and application of the scheme. This was initially seen as very important - but the question must be re-visited.

We have noted above the issues and clarifications which have arisen out of applications in South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria and argued that the refinements developed in the course of these are just that and do not after the basic character of the original scheme.

However, some others have found it necessary to depart more strongly from either the terminology or the definitional pattern and it is clearly useful to ask how far this is just flexibility in application or a totally different kind of scheme.

As I understand it, the initial Wilson (1977) terminology is still used in North Queensland and this does represent a real difference in terminology but not, as I see it, in definition of classes. It appears to be used as a tool, just as has occurred in the other states already discussed.

Both Western Australia and New Zealand, in my view, have moved in a different direction in that both have moved to a stratified access policy - of four levels in NZ (Millar and Wilde 1989) and five in WA (Taylor, this volume). It appears that these categories relate only to access policy and do not provide a framework for other aspects of management decision-making.

CONCLUSION

I would now argue for some action. The Association should call formally for a small group to prepare a revised statement of the scheme in the light of discussion here and elsewhere; to consult with the Australian Speleological Federation on its content; to submit it to the next meeting and to an appropriate meeting of the Federation; and when approved by both bodies, to make copies readily available to both cavers and managers.

My own belief, as implied above, is that the current schemes in both Western Australia and New Zealand are inherently different to that which was established by the Worboys, Davey and Stiff report. It would be inappropriate to attempt to integrate them with the 'uniform' scheme because they operate upon quite different premises. This is no criticism; they have been designed to meet the administrative imperatives of the agencies concerned and should be respected as such.

However, the opinions expressed here are just that they can be considered alongside of all other input to any review which takes place. My concern is only to see that we clarify misunderstandings and optimise the value of management classification as a tool for better care of our karst resources.

REFERENCES:

Boadle, P., 1991, The Management of Karst and Cave Resources in the Buchan and Murrindal Area, draft only, Bairnsdale Region, Department of Conservation and Environment

Cameron-Smith, B., 1977, Cave Management in New South Wales National Parks, Cave Management in Australia, II: 13-25

Clark, R.N. & Stankey, G.H., 1979, The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A framework of planning, management and research, USDA Forest Service General Technical paper. PNW-98

Davey, A.G., 1984, Evaluation criteria for the cave and karst heritage of Australia. Helictite, 15 (2) 1-40

Davey, A.G., 1987, Some experience in applying the Australian Cave Management Classification Scheme, paper to 7th Australasian Conference on Cave Tourism and Management (unpublished)

Davey, A.G. and White, Susan, 1986, Victorian Caves and Karst: Strategies for Management and Catalogue, A report to the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands, Applied Natural Resource Management, Canberra (complete version for restricted circulation only)

Driver, B.L., Perry J. Brown, George H. Stankey and Timothy G. Gregoire, 1987, The ROS Planning System: Evolution, basic concepts and research needed, Leisure Sciences, 9(3):201-212

Dunkley, John, Kevin Kieman and Elery Hamilton-Smith, 1988, Jenolan Caves and Karst: The resources and their management, in New South Wales: Tourism Commission and Crown Lands Office, Jenolan Caves Reserve. Draft Plan of Management, Vol. 2

Graefe, A.R., Kuss, F.R. & Vaske, J.J., 1990, Visitor Impact Management: The Planning Framework, National Parks and Conservation Association, Washington, DC

Hamilton-Smith, E., 1977, Introduction to the management of cave and karst areas, J. Sydney Speleological Society, 21(1):3-15

Hamilton-Smith, E., 1978, Review of Cave Classification in Australia, Cave Management Newsletter, 1:2-4

Hamilton-Smith, E., 1980, The concept of recreational specialisation, in Mercer, D.C. (Ed.), Outdoor Recreation: Australian Perspectives. Also in Cave Management in Australia IV: 19-31

Macrow, P. & Gobby, A.R., 1977, Tourist cave management in South Australia, Cave Management in Australia, II: 27-37

Middleton, G.J. (Ed.), 1977, Resolutions of the conference, Cave Management in Australia II: 3

Millar, Ian R. & Wilde, Kevan A. 1989, General Policy and Guidelines for Cave and Karst Management in areas managed by the Department of Conservation, Department of Conservation, Wellington. Reprinted in Cave Management in Australasia VIII, Appendix, pp1-72

Robinson, A.C., 1980, Resolutions of the conference, Cave Management in Australia III: 3-5

Skinner, Andrew, 1973, Mass Recreation at Ida Bay: The Development of Exit Cave, unpublished thesis, Tasmanian College of Advanced Education

South Australia : National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1986, Draft Management Plan: Naracoorte Caves Conservation Park

Stankey, G., D.N. Cola, R.C. Lucas, M.E. Petersen & S. S. Frissell, 1985, The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning, USDA Forest Service General Technical paper INT-176

Western Australia: Cave Working Group, 1977, Submission to the Department of Conservation and Environment on Cave Protection and management in South-western Australia, unpublished report

Wilson, P., 1977, Managing the Limestone Caves of Chillagoe and Mungana, unpublished report prepared for the National Parks and Wildlife Service of Queensland

Worboys, G., 1977 , A basis for cave management, Proc. llth Biennial Conference, Australian Speleological Federation, Canberra 1976, pp7-16

Worboys, G., Davey, A.G. & Stiff, C., 1982, Report on cave classification, in Watson, J.R. (Ed.), Cave Management in Australia IV: 11-18 ff, C., 1982