Tourism Potential (GIS)

Conclusions

2011-04-14T08:51:00.001-07:00

The purpose of the project was to research tourism potential modelling in other jurisdictions,
determine what data is required for modelling, what is available in Nova Scotia,
provide feedback on
the Department of Natural Resource Integrated Resource Management process, and develop a model
for identified tourism values. The project was quite effective in reaching this stated purpose with the
exception of the actual creation of a GIS model. The field of tourism potential modelling is quite
specialized and unique and there are few jurisdictions that are doing this work. This type of work
seems to be carried out mainly in the arena of both government and academia. The examples
discovered were as follows: B.C. Tourism capability modelling which was carried out by the B.C.
government, the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum conducted by Parks Canada, a Visual Resource
Assessment also carried out by the B.C. government, and a Nature-Based Tourism Potential model
conducted by researchers at RMIT University in Australia.
From the case studies came the data that is required for modelling tourism potential. As
mentioned, this data includes many sources such as basemap information, biogeoclimatic data,
tourism surveying, crown land information, and other data sources. Through the course of the project
it has been determined that there is a gap in some areas between required and available data in Nova
Scotia. This gap has been addressed previously but will be expanded on in the recommendation
section. The project also examined the Integrated Resource Management dataset at the request of the
client. This information would be quite useful for modelling as it contains all provincial crown lands
in a ranked format. This data is recent and the result of a multi-departmental effort. It should,
however, not be treated as the definitive data source to use as it has acknowledged problems such as
how and why lands where placed in a certain category.
The project was originally intended to develop a GIS model for tourism values. However this
was not possible due to a lack of required data. The project however has effectively met the other
client requirements of research on other modelling efforts, reviewing existing data sources,
delineating what is available locally, and recommending courses of action. It should be noted that
modelling using geographic information systems is not absolute and is the result of a long process of
trail and error. Economic feasibility would be the next step logical step in tourism development it it
would be helpful if this was incorporated into the modelling as B.C. attempted. To conclude, there are
several recommendations of note that would help facilitate future tourism potential modelling.
Recommendations:
The first recommendation concerns the use of appropriate tourism surveys. Current tourism
surveys and studies are focused on the tourism market and services that the province offers. In order
to effectively model tourism potential, this data should be recent, and survey the user group (tourists)
directly. Further, the tourists surveyed should be directly asked what nature tourism activities they
participate in and what their landscape aesthetic preferences are, in order to assess tourism potential.
This data should also be geocoded and inputted into a GIS (digitial) format. This would help by
making the data more accessible for modelling and would decrease model production time and
costs.
The second recommendation is to create some type of biogeoclimatic data similar to what is
available in B.C. This data should include precipitation amounts, climatic data, and vegetation/ground
cover information. This type of data would go a long way towards creating an accurate and effective
model that would model both tourism attractiveness and environmental resiliency factors which are
mentioned by the case studies as being important. Vegetation data (ground cover) as mentioned, does
not exist and should be collected. The important factors to consider in collecting vegetation data are
ground cover, the resiliency of this ground cover, and the attractiveness or aesthetics of this
vegetation. The vegetation data is quite important because it helps researchers determine what the
aesthetic preferences of tourists are. By knowing the existing vegetation the researchers can also
figure out how environmentally resilient the region is and how it can handle increased tourism
use.
The third recommendation is to collect appropriate wilderness data. This will require
consultation with DNR and field research to determine wildlife habitats. Before modelling can occur,
these habitats should be collected, analyzed, mapped, and examined to ensure that they provide not
only wildlife viewing opportunities but opportunities that are sustainable and can be supported by the
land cover of the area.
The fourth recommendation is consultation with the Nova Scotia Geomatics Centre (NSGC) in
Amherst, N.S. The NSGC distributes and creates much of the geographical data in the province and
has many industry and government contacts. Because of this they have a good idea what is available
and what the usefulness of this data, especially their topographic basemap data.
The fifth recommendation is to pick an appropriate GIS software with modelling capabilities
such as ArcView’s Modelbuilder. Also, since access is often a problem with proprietary data, the client
should begin the process of data collection far in advance of the actual project.
Next, the client should have a clear idea of what activities will be modelled and resources
Grid cell size is the next recommendation. After consultation with the studies discussed in
chapter 4 it is clear that the grid cell used for the modelling was commonly a 100 metre by 100 metre
cell. Through consultation with faculty this was determined to be an acceptable grid cell size for
scales of around 1:25,000 down to 1:250,000 and this works because the models researched all
183
advocated mapping within this scale range.
The size of the study area and the scale of the mapping
used will determine an appropriate grid cell size.
Tourism potential modelling should not be attempted unless the developer has the money,
resources, time, and technical consultation or support to develop an accurate and useful model. As
well, there should be a clear identification beforehand of what specific tourism products or activities
are going to be modelled and what they require to be modelled. Any modelling effort should also be
environmental responsible and maintain principles of environmental sustainability.
Lastly, this project on tourism potential modelling is the result of a public tender put out by the
Department of Tourism and Culture in the summer of 2002. There is currently a private consultant
firm, Environmental Design Management (EDM) of Halifax, who were awarded the contract to
develop a model for a pilot area in Guysborough County. This company should be consulted to find
out more about doing tourism potential modelling. Since the research project is along the lines of what
this consultant is doing it would be prudent to discuss briefly the work that this consultant has done
and what stage of the project they are currently at, as well as some of the data they have used. This
company has worked closely with the Department of Tourism relying on their extensive tourism
market knowledge to determine the basis and ranking of such of a model. To help assess both what
products to model and what they require, EDM relied on several tourism reports and publications such
as the 2000 Tourism Exit Survey, the various tourism product development studies of the department,
and tourists publications such as the annual Doers and Dreamers guide all off which can be accessed
through the departments website at http://www.nstpc.com/research_reports_ip.html The focus of the
consultant’s project is modelling those activities/products that are important to the tourist market, as
determined by the Department of Tourism. The project has two distinct streams that are worth
mentioning. Some products are being simply mapped while others are actually being modelled using a
predictive GIS model. One of the primary products being modelled is access to beaches/coastal areas.
Rankings for the various tourism products being modelled come from the knoweledge of Department
of Tourism staff as well as from specific groups like trail user groups and associations. High and low
rankings come from what are deemed “soft” and “hard” adventures.
Soft adventures tend to be activities like walking and hiking and these are ranked based on
where the trails are, the slope (as a slope over a certain grade would receive a low ranking), ground
cover, and scenic views. A mathematical equation based on these factors determines the potential
areas. Areas with under a certain slope receive a high ranking score while those with slope b, over this
slope threshold, get a poor score. The hope is that the modelling procedure can eventually be adapted
to the entire province. The information relating to the progress of EDM was gained from conversation
with John Jozsa from EDM on March 27, 2003. The company is currently in the mapping and
modelling stage having determined the final draft of what tourism values to model and progressing to
the modelling stage and the production of draft tourism values maps.

Tourism Data

2011-04-14T08:50:00.002-07:00

It was hoped that for modelling purposes there would be appropriate tourist and operator data
information that would express the tourism attractiveness preferences of tourists and the tourism
resources that exist, however this information does not appear to exist in this form.
After contacting
the client, Cathy MacDonald-Department of Tourism, a referral for tourism data was made to the
2000 Nova Scotia Visitor Exit Survey found at the following web url,
http://www.nstpc.com/docs/0112756_Visitors_Exit.pdf. This report provides general information on
visitors to the region as well as the activities they were engaged in. The report used surveys to
determine the numbers of same-day and overnight visitors from June 5 to November 30. The
following are the access points for tourists and the numbers of tourists to each point: Halifax
International Airport 935, Highway 104 Amherst bound 760 Caribou ferry 595, North Sydney ferry
461, Digby ferry 383, and the Yarmouth ferry 779.167 This survey also provided important
information on activity preferences and participation rates which is worth mentioning. The following
nine activities are those with the highest participation rates shown with the rate of tourist participation
as a percentage. Since a tourist can participate in more than one activity during a visit the percentages
will not total 100%. The activities are: general sightseeing 72%, leisure walking/hiking 55%, visiting
friends or relatives 55%, other shopping 51%, visiting craft shops/studios 45%, visiting a
National/Provincial historic site 36%, nature observation 34%, beach exploring/beachcombing 31%,
visiting museums 28%. Of particular note is the number of non-resident person-visits which have been
steadily increasing since 1996. For 1999 and 2000, non-resident person-visits seem to have leveled out
with 1,421,900 for both years. It is unclear however what accounts for this trend.168 This survey is an
extensive reporting of tourists, their expenditures, and the services they use. It does not, however,
make mention of the nature activities, scenery, or nature-based activities that they prefer. In terms of
modelling it would be much more useful if there was an accompanying survey that focused on these
issues. This supplemental survey could be administered to that select group of tourists who are
engaged in nature-based activities as indicated by their response to the previous survey.

Forestry Data (DNR)

2011-04-14T08:50:00.000-07:00

It was hoped that Department of Natural Resource forestry data available through the regional
office in Truro could be used. This database includes tree species, height, and related data.
166 This
forestry data does not appear to be as well suited to tourism potential modelling as originally thought.
There is information on species of trees but this fact does not indicate the environmental aspects of the
area. What is needed is ecological land classifications and ground cover vegetation information. When
development such a trail occurs in a natural area there is a degree of environmental impact that occurs.
An important aspect of tourism potential modelling was the concept of carrying capacity,
environmental resiliency of the land, and what the environmental impact of increased tourist traffic
will be on the ground cover. The Department of Natural Resources forestry data does not contain this
type of information so was not as well suited to the purposes of the project as originally thought. The
forestry data includes a relatively new data set with information on ecological land classifications
which should be discussed.
This data on ecological land classifications contains many different sources of information like
soils, basemap, forestry data, surficial geology, satellite data, landscapes, and other data sources,
however it appears to be disappointing as a useful data source. This data claims to be a combination of
many different datasets however, upon closer examination, it contains only three major attributes, soil
drainage, texture, and topography. This type of integrated data would be good for modelling, however
the same data could be easily gained from topographic basemap, data, and soils data which can be
downloaded for free from the Natural Resources (Geogratis) website which is
http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/clf/en.

N.S. Topographic Data

2011-04-14T08:49:00.001-07:00

The 1:50,000 and 1:250,000 digital national topographic system mapping to be used as the
base map data for modelling is available from the Nova Scotia Geomatics Centre for a cost. This
mapping is in DXF and NTX formats with a NAD 83 projection. Layers available through this

mapping are boundaries, geography, hydrography, contours, land use, and transportation mapping
for the province.165 This data was important to all the tourism potential models as it provided the initial
base layer of data input for the model development. This topographic base map layer was common to
all models and provides information on facilities, existing infrastructure like roads, power, etc., and
on elevation changes and hydrological features of note. This basemap information is somewhat dated
as it is from the late 1980s and the basemap data for the Annapolis Valley area. Since this is the only
basemap data available it can be used for modelling, but the concerns mentioned above should be kept
in mind.

Protected Areas Data (DEL)

2011-04-14T08:47:00.002-07:00

The Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour manages protected areas throughout
the province and this information is a crucial element of any tourism potential modelling project as
the aim is to develop natural areas for tourists while ensuring that sensitive areas remain largely
undisturbed and there is minimal environmental impact to the area. These areas are protected because
they are examples of unique or representative landforms, contain protected wildlife habitats,
or other
specific environmental or ecologically significant areas. These areas provide many recreational
162
opportunities.
“Protected landscapes embody important cultural values; some of them reflect sustainable land
use practices. They are also important for research and education, and contribute significantly to local
and regional economies, most obviously from tourism and recreation.” Wilderness areas included in
this Department of Environment and Labour data are “used for scientific research, education and a
variety of recreation and nature-tourism related activities such as hiking, canoeing, sea-kayaking,
163
sportfishing and hunting.” This protected area data comprises two main streams which are
wilderness (protected ) areas and nature reserves, both being provincially protected and managed.
This data was created from provincial boundaries of crown land parcels as determined by the survey
division of the Department of Natural Resources. In terms of capability with other data this
information is pretty reasonable having a scale of 1:10,000 with a creation date falling within the last
10 years. Of this data, the wilderness data is acknowledged as being the more accurate data due to
some overlay problems with the nature reserves.164 This data appears to overlay nicely with existing
data and an example can be seen on the next page as figure 17.

Canada Land Inventory

2011-04-14T08:47:00.000-07:00

There have been previous attempts on a more national scale to rank land in terms of its
recreational potential or capability and this was in the form of a land inventory. The Canada Land
Inventory (CLI) was a federally funded project conducted by Natural Resources Canada that mapped
the resource capability of land across Canada at various scales with 1:50,000 and 1:250,000 being the
most common. The project mapped the capability of land across Canada in six categories, agriculture,

forestry, land use, recreation, ungulates, and waterfowl. The CLI project was for assessing the
development capability of rural lands and began as a cross-Canada mapping process initiated in the
1960s. “The inventory was developed and carried out by federal and provincial governments in
conjunction with universities and the private sector.” The Canadian Land Inventory was a
federal/provincial program and it covered the rural regions of Canada where alternative land uses have
an impact on sustainable development. It was meant to be a planning tool and not a management
strategy. The Integrated Resource Management, on the other hand, was an actual management
program that included planning, management, and sustainability.155 Many of these CLI maps were at a
scale of 1:250,000 so they are good for generalized regional capability, but are not as detailed as the
Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources Integrated Resource Management data which was
much more recent and specific. This data includes information on land with high recreational
capability. This data is focused on the individual crown land parcel.
The Canada Land Inventory and its recreation capability mapping was a good attempt at
determining the recreational potential of land. This mapping was meant “to provide an estimate of the
quantity, quality, and location of outdoor recreational lands in the settled portions of Canada as basic
information for planning recreational use of the resource. The inventory classes recreational land-use
capability from Class 1 (very high capability) to Class 7 (very low capability).”156 The key element in
the recreation mapping linking it to tourism potential was that it ranks land capability for recreation
based on principles of environmental protection (resiliency) which was important to tourism potential
modelling. This concept of environmental planning was evident in the CLI process because “the basis
of the classification is the quantity of recreational use that a land unit can attract and withstand
without undue deterioration of the resource base, under perfect market conditions. Thus, a land unit
with a high capability feature such as beach could accommodate a large number of users with a lower
risk of major damage to the beach area, whereas an alpine meadow would rank much lower because
157
heavy use by visitors would very quickly damage the fragile ground cover.”
The recreation mapping
was somewhat generalized and this should be a consideration to address before using this data. The
recreation mapping was derived by aerial photographic interpretations, field checks, and available
records. The inventory for recreation was developed with a focus on non-urban recreation.
“Land is ranked according to its natural capability under existing conditions, whether in
natural or modified state; but no assumptions are made concerning its capability given further major
artificial modifications. Sound recreation land management and development practices are assumed
for all areas in practical relation to the natural capability of each area. Water bodies are not directly
classified. Their recreational values accrue to the adjoining shoreland or land unit.” Wildlife and sport
fishing are natural recreational activities that are included in the process, however their ranking does
not reflect the biological productivity of an area.158
Recreation capability of land within the CLI system was ranked on a one (highest) to seven
(lowest) scale. This classification was further broken down into a 24 letter subclass based on the
alphabet. The relevant subclass codes for the study area are A (water access for angling), B (shoreline
for supporting family beach activities), C (access and frontage for canoeing potential), Q (topography
and water variety that enhances nature study, hiking, or aesthetic appreciation opportunities), U
(shoreline with yachting, boating, and deep water potential), V (areas with superior views for their
159
class or corridors for frequent viewing opportunities), and Y (shoreline with family boating access).
These values in the Canada Land Inventory are consistent with the tourism values mentioned
by the Department of Tourism in their project tender. This tender mentions fishing, shoreline
160
resources, water access for canoeing, and boating-accessible shorelines.
The Canada Land Inventory
was too generalized, outdated, and broad (it includes all rural lands-private and crown) to be useful.
From an examination of the 1:50,000 CLI recreation capability mapping it was evident that the
majority of the classified land within the study area is 4 or worse on the scale of 7 meaning that it is
161
generally poorly or only moderately suited to recreation/tourism potential development.
In terms of
a national scale this is fairly poor but from looking at the data for the Annapolis Valley area a rank of 4
is pretty good.

IRM Data (DNR)

2011-04-14T08:45:00.000-07:00

The Integrated Resource Management (IRM) data of the Nova Scotia Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) is a crucial source of information for modelling potential and the client would like
this evaluated as a source of data to be integrated with /into the final model. The rationale for this was
that the IRM data was a co-operative provincial land classification or valuation system and since the
required model was aimed towards tourism potential on crown lands then this information must be
assessed and integrated into the final project. The IRM process was developed by the Department of
Natural Resources essentially in response to pressures for the protection of crown land.134 Prior to the
IRM system, crown lands were classified in one category with forestry freehold land being the norm,
135

with provincial parks being the major exception to this class. Some of the push for the new
integrated system of crown land classification came from the Parks Division of DNR which wanted a
better classification system in response to international pressures for protected areas of crown land
within Nova Scotia. Due to this need to designate and manage protected areas, the IRM system was
developed. Crown lands under the Integrated Resource Management falls into three land classification
categories: C1 (General Resource Use), C2 (Multiple and Adaptive Resource Use), and C3 (Protected
and Limited Use-the category where most of crown lands fall). The IRM system did effectively
develop from the need to protect these C3 lands.136
The IRM data breaks land into three classes (C1, C2, C3), and into a further subclass system
that uses letters of the alphabet to determine opportunities for crown lands. The vital subclass values
for the IRM data of the study area are C (significant wildlife habitats), D (significant wetlands), E (old
growth forest), F (beaches), G (lands with recreation/trail development potential), H (outstanding
scenery/viewplanes), J (shoreline access), and L (non-designated sites of ecological significance).
These values match those mentioned by the client quite closely with significant wildlife habitats,
beaches, recreation/trail development-hiking corridors, shoreline access-coastal access, and areas of
outstanding scenery/viewplanes, all matching values highlighted as being vital according to the client.
Those IRM subclasses mentioned that do not match the tourism values from the client tender,
significant wetlands, old growth forests, and non-designated sites of ecological significance do not
necessarily show tourism potential but are still important. These three types of lands are
environmentally sensitive, with wetlands being very vulnerable to damage due to increased use. By
addressing these three environmentally sensitive classes of land the model will be more accurate and
will protect these areas by buffering them and steering development away from them to more suitable
137
and resilient locations within the study area.
The first IRM category was C1 (General Resource Use) where DNR policies on forestry,
mining activities, etc. say that “Crown Lands assigned to this category will be available for the range
of resource uses, and include lands for which a low level of conflict among competing uses is
anticipated. Lands will be managed in accordance with provincial acts, policies and commitments
ensuring that provincial environmental standards are met, that biodiversity is maintained, and resource
development is carried out according to the principles of sustainability.”138 Although these lands are
generally for resource use, other uses are allowed within special C1 management sites, as well as
recreation trails, old forest areas, wildlife habitats, and sensitive river habitats.139 Recreation was
allowed but must not compete with the primary objective of this class which is resource use.
The second IRM land classification was C2 (Multiple and Adaptive Resource Use) and lands
that have conflicting values for resource and land use are assigned to this category. Land in this
category, however does have outstanding scenic, natural, and recreation value.140 Harvesting of trees
can occur but there are more management restrictions placed on activities on these class of lands.
Lands in C2 can support extraction activities, but there is often a special circumstance which requires
more restrictions on resource-based activities. These restrictions often take the form of special
environmental hazards such as the presence within these areas of significant wetlands that must be
protected, and resource activity like forestry must be modified to ensure the existence of another
141
resource activity like mining.
“Within this category of lands, the full range of land/resource uses
may be permitted, but they must be planned in such a way as to protect the integrity of predominant
values which may be impacted by other uses.”142 In recognition of the special concerns within C2
lands there was a requirement that there must be a 20 metre buffer on all watercourses within crown
lands. This regulation was a move to help protect those C2 lands that have specific wetland and
143
habitat restrictions placed on them, the key factor that separates C2 from C1 resource lands.
C2 lands provide opportunities for recreation that are not typically found in C1 lands, but
there are competing uses present between resource and recreation. Logging companies generally have
the priority on C2 lands but recreation is allowed and activities like hiking, snowmobile trails and, in
Annapolis and Kings Counties, there are also canoe portages included.144
The range of land uses within the C2 category was broader as wilderness management areas,
community water supply areas, significant wetlands, sites of outstanding scenic, cultural, recreational,
and natural value not in C3, and others can exist here. C2 seems to have the greatest variety of
permitted uses with significant amounts of mixed land uses occurring as opposed to the primarily sole
145
focus of C1 on resource use and C3 on protected areas.
C3 (Protected and Limited Use) was the final Integrated Resource Management land use
category and besides being the one that helped initiate the IRM process it currently takes up the
largest number of crown land parcels within the entire IRM system. Whereas, the Integrated Resource
Management program ultimately falls under the jurisdiction of the Nova Scotia Department of Natural
Resources the C3 crown lands are an exception. As the primary focus was protection of significant
lands this category falls under the management apparatus of the Nova Scotia Department of
Environment and Labour. The level of restriction on activities was highest in this category. This
category includes lands that are specifically allocated to special uses and where other resource
146
activities may be limited, modified, or denied.
This IRM data consists of polygon coverages of the three classes of land, C1, C2, and C3, in
E00 format with DNR MTM coordinates.147 The data comprising the IRM data was created, largely,
one block of property at a time and was digitized from previously existing information on wetlands
148
and other features.
In terms of review, the crown lands within the Integrated Resource Management
must go through a multi-step review process that assesses the classification of the crown lands from
different departmental viewpoints. This more collaborative process with department integration helps
ensure a classification system that is the least intrusive and most complementary method possible.
This process of classification includes four major inter-department players that must be consulted in
order to place land in the appropriate category: the Department of Natural Resources geologist, their
biologist, their recreation planner, and finally the Integrated Resource Management administrator.
This administrator is the last person in the process and for the western region this would be Leif
149
Helmer at the Department of Environment and Labour office in Bridgewater.
This Integrated
Resource Management data was useful for determining tourism/recreation potential within the study
area. This was because part of the IRM classification system involved the identification of crown land
which possessed a high recreation potential for certain activities like canoeing, hiking, etc. Within the
western region of Nova Scotia, including Annapolis and Kings Counties, there was an identified
recreation potential for some areas based on the presence of interconnecting waterways and lakes
which provided opportunities for wilderness travel, beaches, islands, and natural scenic land areas.
Potential could also be realized from abandoned rail lines in the area. “Provincially owned abandoned
rail line corridors present exciting opportunities for recreation, tourism, and community development
through the establishment of high quality public trails.” Identified sites of ecological significance and
protected areas within the Integrated Resource Management data also offer potential for tourism
within the region.
Protected areas “provide opportunities for wilderness recreation.” Regional protected areas
identified as being C3 lands within the IRM data do have wilderness tourism potential but these lands
have very strict restrictions in place and activities must be of very low impact such as hiking and
canoeing. The protected areas of Cloud Lake, Annapolis County is one such protected area within the
IRM and within it “wilderness travel opportunities are strong because of a series of interconnected
150
lakes and streams. There is a tradition of heavy, mostly local, recreation use.”
The Integrated Resource Management system of crown land classification does have its
obvious benefits for modelling of tourism potential, however no system of assessing the value and
potential of crown lands or any land can be without problems as the value of land can be somewhat
subjective and personal. The major criticism of the Integrated Resource Management information as
both a hardcopy/digital data source and a land management system was that its evaluation techniques
were debatable and there was much confusion by the public over how land was valued and what can
occur within the three land classifications and, in some cases, what the differences are between each
category. Many problems encountered were voiced by citizens during the public participation process
that occurred during the development of the IRM program. Initial concerns were voiced by TIANS
(Tourism Industry Association of Nova Scotia) which has a mandate to foster tourism growth while
balancing this duty with the demands this growth places on the natural environment. From their
viewpoint they feel that the IRM plan was flawed and want a moratorium for sites identified by the
N.S. Public Lands Commission.151 The C2 category (Multiple and Adaptive Resource Use) was
confusing to many as to what activities can and can not occur within its limits and special areas like
Gully Lake are not reflected within the process. The First Nations peoples also felt that this system
ignored them by letting land abuses continue that affect the in-land and saltwater fishery. They also
felt it reflected the status quo, and the IRM C3 (Protected and Limited Use) category was very
confusing. The First Nations were unsure if they could even fish or use outboard motors within this
class of lands. Lastly, there were concerns or problems in terms of conservation land. Citizens
wondered why the Shelburne Barrens were in C3 while the Chebucto peninsula was in C1 and C2
where resource extraction is allowed. There was concern that IRM planners were not aware of the
152
Chebucto peninsula having municipal conservation zoning status.
The IRM system was an attempt at the provincial level to manage crown lands, help minimize
land use conflicts, and classify these lands so as to maximize their potential. The process makes
specific mention of lands within the three category classification system that have high recreational
potential, however it should be noted that although these lands are classed accordingly by the
department, the primary focus of the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is
resource related management. The department does make efforts aimed at protecting sensitive areas,
and providing land for recreation opportunities, however their main mandate remains the management
of crown lands for resource extraction be it forestry or mineral extraction.
Despite problems with the Integrated Resource Management data produced by the
Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources this data still provides useful information on crown
lands that have high tourism or recreation potential. Within the study area, there are several areas of
potential that are worth highlighting as they will help develop the tourism potential model. During the
classification process there was a DNR parks planner involved who reviewed crown lands before they
were classified. Because of this, there have been several areas within the IRM data for the
Annapolis/Kings study area that have been identified as having high recreation or tourism potential.
These identified areas are for non-motorized and low impact recreation/tourist activities much the
same as those that have already been mentioned as potential nature tourism activities. There are
thirteen such areas within Annapolis County and thirteen within Kings County. Through the assistance
of Brian Kinsman, a parks planner for DNR in Truro, the areas of IRM classified crown lands with
high recreational value have been limited to a few examples. The IRM data scale is 1:50,000 meaning
that is a common scale and it can be easily integrated with other data such as the topographic. These
areas could be quite useful in terms of modelling. For Annapolis County these areas are the Upper
Clements West Park Reserve (park reserve, Annapolis Basin access, adjacent to former rail corridor,
ie. trail potential), West Paradise (two crown land parcels with Annapolis River frontage, good
scenery, and trail potential), the Upper Clements Wildlife Park (a large land base with wildlife viewing
opportunties and hiking trails), Big Molly Upsum (a large block of crown land, extensive river/lake
frontage, highly scenic area, and abandoned rail corridor with trail potential),and the biggest parcel the
Anna-King Block (a large area, extensive water frontage, adjacent to the Cloud Lake Wilderness Area,
and possessing highly scenic areas).153 Similarly, Kings County also has a number of areas of high
recreational potential that would be suited to modelling efforts. These Kings County areas are
Blomidon Provincial Park (a large region with camping facilities and services, shoreline access for
boating, scenic viewplanes, and hiking possiblities), Cloud Lake Wilderness Area (a large land base,
wilderness area with hiking, canoeing, camping, and scenic view opportunities), and the Anna-King
Block (a large block of crown land in Kings with high scenic potential and water access).154
The IRM process treats lands with recreation or tourism potential as a factor to be planned for but not
their primary focus. Further information on the Integrated Resource Management data can be found in
both appendix A and B of this report.

Potential from Background Research

2011-04-14T08:44:00.000-07:00

Tourism potential, as determined by the background research presented, was a mix of tourism
and natural attractiveness, environmentally sustainability and resiliency, carrying capacity,
accessibility and encounter norms, and resources present. The complexity and diversity of criteria that
must be considered for a project such as this was high. The model relies on the availability of
accurate data and the successful integration of user-input data, user surveys and preferences, with
digital data. Success can be determined by the creation of a model that looks at an assessment of
tourism potential areas through a reasoned process using current, quality data. The ideal model is a
combination of other methods, models, and points of view, and chapter 4 presented background
research that outlines different methods for tourism potential development.
Determining tourism potential involves co-operation between all stakeholders in the tourist industry
including tourists (users), tourism operators, and the government departments involved. The
Department of Tourism and Culture and DNR must have a significant and legitimate role in the
process. There must be an abundance of quality operators and tourism facilities, as well as quality
supporting infrastructure such as airports and other transportation services. Background research has
linked tourism potential not only to quality resources and facilities but to having a diversity of these
quality attractions within the given study area.

Development Potential

2011-04-14T08:43:00.003-07:00

The future potential of crown lands within the study area was based on identifying areas of
high, medium, low priority. These areas can be discovered through the modelling process as well as
the survey and field research stage. A ranking of priority areas is obviously possible once the model
has been completed. From the ranked areas, calculated by the weighted grids of the model, it will be
possible to identify those regions showing a high tourism potential. From this, the client will be able
to assign values and importance designations to certain areas to determine the priority of areas for
future tourist development within the study area. As extensive surveying and stakeholder studies are a
major component of tourism potential modelling, then from these measures priority levels can also be
set by the department using this initial study. To understand the preferences of tourists and encourage
tourism development that caters to the right market there must be detailed user/tourist surveys
completed that expresses the needs, wants, and demographic make-up of the nature tourist user group
who will be taking advantage of those areas identified by the model. Similarly, tourism operator
studies and surveys will also have to be undertaken. This industry-sided research was meant to
identify those operators that exist, the activities and services they offer to tourists, the tourist facilities
that exist, the supporting infrastructure in place (roads, etc.), the use areas for the tourist activites, and
any gaps where tourist operators feel there is room for development and improvement. Significance
was linked to several criteria such as the drawing power of the attraction or tourist activity (does it
have regional, provincial importance), is there a diversity of quality attractions within the area
(tourists prefer diversity), what number of current or potential attractions can the area support, how
resilient the environment is to increased tourist traffic, and do the attractions appeal just to local
tourists or to a national or international market.

Potential of Crown Lands in IRM

2011-04-14T08:43:00.001-07:00

Through a closer examination of the Integrated Resource Management, and consultation with
planning staff involved in its development and application, it is clear that this data was a good source
of information for determining tourism potential. The system attempts to plan for the future and
minimize land use conflicts. Tourism potential of crown lands within the IRM (Integrated Resource
Management) data can be determined through comparing this information with the tourism values
specified by the client, the Nova Scotia Department of Tourism and Culture, in their project tender. In
this tender the department outlined the following tourism values as being important elements in terms
of modelling potential; scenic viewplanes (water and land), hiking corridors, canoe portages, canoeing
and recreational fishing waterways, wildlife viewing opportunities, cross country ski routes, beaches,
snowmobile trails, coastal access, and scenic waterfrontage.133 The Integrated Resource Management
data was quite useful in determining tourism potential as many of the values within it matched those
tourism values alluded to by the client in their tender.

Definition of Potential

2011-04-14T08:42:00.003-07:00

The determination of what is tourism potential is a central question that must be answered
before model development can occur. It is not an easy concept to define because tourism potential,
like the industry itself, is quite subjective and open to personal preferences. Site-based potential was
derived from the digital data itself, the Integrated Resource Management data in particular; the
potential to draw tourists can be directly linked to natural resources such as scenic beauty that an area
offers. The potential model was meant to integrate or mesh with the existing Integrate Resource
Management land classification system of the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources. The
“Integrated resource management (IRM) is a planning and decision making process that coordinates
resource use so that the long term sustainable benefits are optimized and conflicts among users are
minimized. IRM brings together all resource groups rather than each working in isolation to balance
the economic, environmental, and social requirements of society. IRM includes planning for minerals,
132
forests, recreation, wilderness, energy, wildlife, and parks.” The important question to consider in
defining tourism potential is : “do the natural resources of the study area provide the necessary
elements required for the preferred tourist activity?”.

Case Study Differences

2011-04-14T08:42:00.001-07:00

Although, some of the methodologies were similar, the case study models were quite different
overall. The B.C tourism capability model used a much more advanced resource assessment process
than the other models studied. In this case there was a tourism resource inventory created for many
locations throughout B.C. and this inventory provided in-depth information on existing tourism
facilities, use areas for tourist activities, information on these facilities, and available tourist
attractions. As well, the model itself was part of a more extensive process of tourism potential
determination where the researchers did not determine tourism potential themselves. Tourism experts
took the results of the model and used them to determine tourism potential. The GIS and modelling
component in B.C. was used mainly to inventory the tourist resources in place, and the suitability part
of the process was an attempt to make a more accurate and complementary product. The basis for
changes in potential rests with tourism experts who assess visitor opportunities and where areas to
127
develop should be, however the rationale behind changes is not clear from the study.
This model for
B.C. also took the process further than the other examples by looking towards feasibility by including
an analysis of the economic value of tourism activities. As well, there were three levels of coverages:
capability coverages (how the natural and cultural resources of an area support a tourism product and
how resource and intermediate analysis coverages are combined and classified, intermediate analysis
coverages with scenic data and, lastly, resource coverages with geological features, biogeoclimatic
zones, wildlife habitats, and other natural resource data. This model also contained information on
constraints to development and local considerations within its tourism resource inventories unlike the
128
other models. In addition, the B.C. Capability models did further suitability mapping after potential
was derived in order to help facilitate future development. The next model, the Recreation
Opportunity Spectrum, differed from the others in its methods. This models looked at tourism in
terms of supply (the type and number of tourist opportunities that can be offered), demand (the type
and number of opportunities people want), and diversity (the range of different activities preferred).
For many tourism potential models the key ingredient was the scenery that an area offered for the
tourist and because of this many employed viewsheds to analyze these opportunities. However the
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum went further by developing soundsheds. These soundsheds were
defined through fieldwork and were meant to assess the impact that sound would have on a natural
area. Part of this model that tied in to soundsheds was the development of social encounter norms.
These principles were added to the model and helped determine the likelihood of encountering other
tourists along trails and in other natural areas. These encounter norms helped determine the tourism
129
potential of an area.
The ROS system looked at tourism potential from many viewpoints. The model combined
physical (human modifications like trails, settlements), social (encounter norms), managerial (park
zoning and municipal by-laws), and a final ROS (combination of all three) map into a final model.
This process looked at the infrastructure, social, and legal impacts of recreation development. Other
models did not include zoning concerns like this ROS model did.130
Lastly, was the nature tourism model for Grampians National Park in western Victoria,
Australia. This model seemed to be separated from the others in its environmental components and
analysis. This model, like the others, examines aesthetics and scenic opportunities; however it
distanced itself from the other examples in its treatment of environmental concerns. One of the chief
components of this model was an environmental resiliency model. This model included data on the
environmental impact that tourism would place on land and the ability of the land to withstand these
pressures. The model was closely related to the idea of ecological and environmental carrying
capacity. This model, unlike the previous examples, did not include a digital elevation model however
part of the methodology accounts for this omission. The second step in the development process
resulted in the creation of an accessibility weighting which ranked areas based on their distance from
road and walking track access points and there was little in the way of an accessibility component in
the other models.131 The case study differences are shown in the point form list below.
Differences
B.C. use of a Tourism Resource Inventory (1:250:000)
B.C. use of economic feasibility, suitability mapping, and tourism experts to actually
Determine potential
Recreational Opportunity Spectrum use of soundsheds and incorporation of zoning
Nature-based tourism potential model use of a tourism attractiveness and environmental
resiliency model, as well as accessibility rankings
Nature-based tourism potential model for diversity of attractions and the impact development
on the environment

Conclusion of Case Study

2011-04-14T08:41:00.001-07:00

There were some basic similarities of note that exist between the models discussed. The
methodology component of the models was where there seems to be areas of overlap. To begin with,
the use of surveys in the initial stages of model development is quite common among the case studies.
The first model, the B.C. tourism capability, made use of tourism user and operator surveys. The
second model, the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum of Parks Canada, used park staff interviews and
the results of park user studies and visitor surveys to help develop the model. The third model, the
nature-based tourism model for Australia, had direct surveys/questionaries of park visitors that
explored tourist attraction preferences and natural aesthetic preferences for various vegetation.
The three tourism potential models examined also used available topographic base mapping
for their respective regions to identify infrastructure for tourism development and to help researchers
identify supporting infrastructure such as campgrounds and human modifications made to the natural
areas. Both the B.C. tourism capability model and the nature tourism model for Grampians National
Park, Australia used grids in their modelling process for gauging elevation and these grids where set at
a cell size of 100 metres.126 Using ranked grids and a digital elevation model for slope analysis was
important as it helped determine access and environmental impact (resiliency) of the land. There was
some similarity between the B.C. model and the Australian model in terms of data. Both these models
made use of scenic data for scenic view opportunities and biogeoclimatic data, a specific data source
that includes climate, precipitation amounts, soils, and vegetation information. The last similarity
between the models concerned the digital format that incorporated the information for the mode. The
B.C. tourism capability model and the Australian nature tourism model had data for modelling in
point, line, and polygon coverages. The point coverages included attractions (waterfalls), line features
included trails, and the polygon (areal) features were vegetation and use areas. The case study
similarities are shown in point form below for quick reference.
Similarities
Use of tourist surveys
Use of topographic basemapping
Similar grid cell sizes
The use of point, line, and polygon coverages for tourism features
Tourism users, operators, governments all involved in process

Nature-Based Tourism Modelling

2011-04-14T08:40:00.001-07:00

The final case study was a nature-based tourism potential model developed in Australia for

application within the Grampians National Park (GNP) in western Victoria. The park is

approximiately 46 by 88 kilometres in area and is west of the city of Melbourne. Grampians National

Park has very attractive scenery consisting of rugged sandstone ridges and with roughly 50 walking

trails it possesses great tourism/recreational potential.92 Model data is gathered at the primary level

(survey results) and then information is assessed and relevant data is used in the resultant model. “It is

anticipated that using the tourism potential model will help to identify new opportunities for tourism

growth in the region, particularly in the south. The model has particular application in planning for

nature-based tourism, and will assist in identifying locations that are both attractive, environmentally

resilient and can form part of an interesting and diverse series of nature-based tourist attractions

within close proximity to each other.” Initial data for this tourism potential model concentrated on

values of tourism attractiveness and levels of attractiveness for the purposes of the model were

determined by questionnaires distributed to tourists. These surveys set “...out a method for

determining and quantifying what tourists collectively perceive as attractive and therefore consider

worthwhile visiting. To determine levels of perceived attractiveness, a questionnaire was administered

to 120 tourists and visitors to the region. From the evaluation of the questionnaires, measures of

attractiveness throughout the region were then determined as part of the developed tourism

attractiveness index.”94 With many sources of information being incorporated into this model there are

assumptions that must be made with the data and generalization must occur.

The first such assumption that was made with the existing data was that there was a link

between the personality of potential tourists and their respective landscape preferences as discovered

by two researchers in 1986, Abello and Bernaldez. Tourism attractions “...act as drawcards and

therefore as nodes for potential environmental impact.” This means that the model assumed that

tourism development would have an environmental impact on the land and as such this formed the

rationale for the environmental resiliency model component. Areas that have a diversity of tourism

attractions were assumed to be more attractive to tourists. In terms of tourist attractions, the

infrastructure that supports these attractions must be seen as tourist attractions as well. The

environmental resiliency model, a key component of the tourism potential model, assumed that the

susceptibility to environmental damage will decrease with increasing elevation. To help create

suitable grid cell sizes it was also assumed that visitors could cross a 5-6km area within a single day

visit.99

As well, scenic viewsheds were an integral part of the model and scenic viewpoints were assigned an

attractiveness level from the intersection of a rendered scenic viewshed with topographic features

from basemaps such as hydrology, vegetation types, slope. These features such as hydrology, and

100

slope where features deemed important to both good and bad views. A ground digital elevation

(DEM) model was used in the final mode, and rock outcrops, curvature and refraction corrections, and

tree canopy height corrections were made to this DEM.101 There were also many data assumptions that

were made with the environmental resiliency model. Firstly, if the environmental resilient areas are

included in the tourism attractiveness analysis than the total number of highly attractive ranked

102

mapsheets was reduced. In addition, the diversity of tourist attractions and the attractive areas and

103

resilient areas (found in proximity to each other) were all auto-correlated. Data assumptions also

occurred in response to survey results. The survey influenced the model because the results assumed

that natural attractions, waterfalls, scenic views, geological formations, and walking tracks were the

most important features, while infrastructure like public facilities and information centers were not

important attractions. Within the study area, Grampians National Park, specialized activities like

boating and rock climbing were not favoured and foreign tourists were unfamiliar with attractions

outside of the most-visited areas.104

There are many sources of data that this particular model required and this data was the result

of an extensive research and tourist consultation process. The two main data components of the output

tourism potential model are an environmental resiliency model, meant to account for environmental

impacts caused by tourists, and a tourism attractiveness model, which clarifies tourist aesthetic

105

preferences which are combined to create the final model. Data for the tourism attractiveness model

comes from perceived attractiveness to tourists as determined by a tourist questionnaire distributed to

120 visitors to the study area in Grampians National Park. From the results of this questionnaire the

106

previously mentioned attractiveness polygons were built within the GIS.

Next, actual tourism

attractions were incorporated. This data included nature based attractions (rivers, scenic vistas,

waterfalls, interesting geomorphology, and plants) and cultural attractions (historic sites, important

buildings, golf courses, tennis courts, scenic look-offs, picnic areas, and boating facilities).107 In terms

of tourism attractiveness, vegetation data was used extensively. “Using photographs of each of the

ecological vegetation classes in the analysis, respondents were asked to identify those communities of

108

greatest or least attractiveness.” The last significant data source used was the Land Conservation

Council of Victoria (LCC) report of 1997 which “lists the historic and cultural features for south-west

Victoria including the GNP (LCC, 1997)...the report acknowledges the tourism potential of the many

and varied historic places throughout the region.”109

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

2011-04-14T04:29:00.001-07:00

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) was a resource-based GIS model reliant on a
data-gathering process with an initial field component and a subsequent Geographic Information
System (GIS) modelling process. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum was originally created by the
U.S. Forest Service as a tool to help manage recreation and tourism on National Forest lands within
the U.S. and integrating recreation and tourism with other non-recreational land-uses. This ROS
system was used in to complement the existing Canadian National Park visitor assessment program
the VAMP (Visitor Activity Management Process).66 The VAMP system was activity based and had
problems concerning the uncertainty of how to deal with opportunity assessment.67 The ROS was also
developed in response to the problem of applying carrying capacity as a management tool for national
parks. This system includes both ecological (the idea that the number of people in an area is directly
related to the loss of ecological integrity and biological diversity) and social (the idea that the number
and type of people in an area or at a site was directly related to its perceived recreational quality)
carrying capacity.68 For the purpose of this model “a recreation opportunity is a combination of three
components of individual recreational involvement: activities, settings, and experiences. A recreation
opportunity, therefore, is an activity that yields certain experiences for participants in a specific
69
setting.” The ROS focuses on three items where recreation opportunities are concerned: supply,
demand, and diversity.
Supply means “...the type and number of opportunities that can be offered by an agency,
based on the nature under consideration.”70 The recreation opportunity areas can only support specific
kinds of recreation activities based on certain physical, social (encounter), and managerial
71
characteristics. Next is the concept of demand, that is “...the type and number of opportunities
72
people want. Determining demand can be difficult” Demand for opportunity areas was indicated by
the number of people that use existing opportunities.73 The last item that this study focused on was the
concept of diversity. “The diversity element recognizes that people who come to parks differ in their
interest in activities, expectations, experiences, and preferences of settings. Diversity in ecological
conditions is a characteristic of the natural environment.” The ROS model acknowledges these
different aspects of diversity and uses them to assess recreation opportunities.74
The Recreation Opportunities Spectrum is basically a national parks classification system used
“to...assist national park managers in assessing and managing visitor opportunities.”75 The ROS model
was applied to two sites, Pukaskwa National Park near Thunder Bay, Ontario and Yoho National Park
76
in B.C. and provided Parks Canada with a means of identifying visitor opportunities

Tourism potential link

2011-04-14T04:27:00.000-07:00

The British Columbia report, Visual Resource Assessment A User Guide, can be readily

adapted to discussions of tourism potential. Specifically, the report can be linked to and combined

with the scenic view aspects (tourism attractiveness) and environmental resiliency aspects of the

various tourism potential models. All the models have a subjective element and several focus on

scenic view opportunities. The nature tourism model developed by Dr. Colin Arrowsmith for use in

the Grampians National Park in Australia perhaps most closely reflects these visual elements

discussed throughout the visual resource assessment. The guide is a form of visual resource

management for provincial lands. Visual resource management can be defined as “the management of

the seen aspect of both land and the activities which occur on it...the administration of the land's

scenic or aesthetic attributes.” The rational for incorporating landscape aesthetic classifications into

discussions of tourism potential modelling can be seen through this particular study of development

and sustainable management practices. Tourism is an industry reliant on the natural world, and the

continuing health of the land is dependent on observing principles of environmental sustainability and

minimizing the negative impacts of development.

To be continually effective, tourism must respect the land and incorporate this ideal into the

management practices that exist. Tourism potential is a concept that is highly resource-dependent and

its success is predicated on practices that are environmentally sustainable and that conserve natural

resources for the future. The ranking of landscape aesthetics and preferences are very subjective and,

as such, this process must incorporate a degree of uncertainty with some basic assumptions made with

regards to data. For tourism potential, it is assumed that the most natural conditions in the landscape

are preferable. As well, high scenic areas have the highest level of protection. Development of

tourism is assumed to occur where it will have little impact on the concept of visual sensitivity. This

means that development should occur in areas where it will complement the existing natural landscape

and not cause an unsightly visual impact. In other words, excessive tourism development should not

happen in natural pristine regions.61

It can be said, “the ultimate goal of landscape analytical procedures and management

strategies is to maintain the integrity of the landscape.”62 From this statement it is clear that the key to

success for tourism potential is development that blends effectively into the existing environment and

can peacefully co-exist with existing resources and land uses. Two of the essential ideas that are

stressed throughout this particular study are the concepts of a landscape's visual quality and the visual

impact that development imposes on the land.

Methodology ROS

2011-04-14T04:20:00.000-07:00

The methodology for this recreation opportunity spectrum model was divided into four distinct
maps: a physical, a social, a managerial setting, and a ROS class map. The first map created was the
physical setting map which relied on two main factors: remoteness of the area and the existence of
human modifications which would include elements of the built environment such as hydro/electric
lines, railways, trails, dams, lodges, and settlements.84 This map also used size as a constraint because
an area had to be a certain size in order to support recreation activities; these size constraints and the
identification of human modifications led to the discovery of a variety of recreation opportunities
within the two test sites.85 The physical setting map for Pukaskwa is below in figure 7

The social setting map was second and this map was more user-oriented. This map looked at
the density of people in different areas of the two parks based on park statistics. These areas were
chosen based on their encounter norms, with the lowest likelihood of encounter occurring at the
wilderness end of the spectrum and the highest likelihood of encountering other people at the urban
end of the spectrum.86 This second map for Pukaskwa is shown in figure 8 below.

The fourth map, the ROS class map, determines recreation opportunities through overlaying

the social, physical, and managerial setting maps. This final ROS class map for Pukaskwa is shown

below in figure 10 and is the descriptive means of determining recreation opportunities.88

Tourism potential was determined by reconciling and analyzing the differences that result from

the process of overlaying the settings maps. The concept of tourism potential was also addressed

through using the three factors of the likelihood of encounter, remoteness of the ROS area, and the

amount of human modifications present. If the area in question was identified as having a low

possibility of encountering people while hiking then this area would have a high, untapped tourism

potential. As well, the remoteness of the area identified and the level of human (landscape)

modifications play a role in assessing potential of the area. The ROS model determines potential by

using three levels, front country, backcountry-low access and backcountry-high access opportunity

areas. Front country areas are close to settlements with substantial amounts of human modifications and

are not as pleasing to tourists. Backcountry-low access areas, however have desired features but have

accessibility barriers. Lastly, there are backcountry-high access areas that are less remote than low

access areas and buffer front country areas from backcountry-low access regions. The happy medium is

to have a remote area that is accessible and has little in the way of human modifications and thus has

potential that has not been realized.

rimary data-gathering involved direct user input and fieldwork.

2011-04-14T03:58:00.000-07:00

For the Pukaskwa test site
this primary data consisted of discussions with park staff to gain information about management
policies for controlling access along roads in the park, water access, and the use of coastal hiking
trails.77 For the Yoho site, the process of primary data-gathering followed the same format. Park staff
was questioned about management practices in relation to controlling access along the rivers in the
park and recreational activities on lands managed by the B.C. Ministry of Forests. This Ministry also
provided additional information concerning their ROS-based land classification system for managing
recreation on B.C. Crown lands.78 As well, the Yoho case study consulted the Atlas of Central Rockies
Ecosystems and this book provided information that helped in the determination of encounter norms
for trails and roads. Encounter norms are simply the likelihood of encountering other people along a
trail or within a wilderness area. In wilderness areas the encounter norm was quite low while more
urban regions have a high likelihood of encounter; encounter norms relate to the potential or usage of
the area by tourists.79 As with any type of modelling in GIS there is a subjective element that must be
addressed. In the creation of this Recreation Opportunity Spectrum model for national parks the
creators (the team of stakeholders) involved in the development process had to make make some basic
assumptions about their data. These assumptions made in the development stage affect the output,
however they are necessary to create such a complex and diverse model. Since the models are being
applied to national parks in totally different provinces, Ontario and British Columbia, the researchers
had to generalize some data in order to make the two models more compatible, this involved making
three assumptions about the data.
To make the Yoho model match its counterpart in Ontario (Pukaskwa) developers had to
assume that the terrain found in Yoho National Park in B.C. was relatively flat, however this was not
the case as it is quite rugged especially in the Kicking Horse Pass region of the park. Secondly, in
terms of defining soundsheds within Yoho this process was done by ear. In reality, noise in Yoho
would have effects up the mountainside and this would have the effect of changing potential
opportunities for tourists in the area as sound would travel farther, disrupting the peacefulness of the
80
area. Lastly, assumptions were made for estimates of user densities within Pukaskwa and Yoho
National Parks. The methods of gathering this information differed greatly in both parks with traffic
data being used in Yoho National Park and backcountry permits were used for Pukaskwa National
Park. Neither source of data was optimal according to Angus Carr, an author of the models.81 For
Pukaskwa and Yoho the respective park management plans were digitized, as well, there was a digital
database created for the park and adjacent areas containing roads, watercourses, settlements, lakes, and
park boundaries.82

Original data for the Pukaskwa model came from their existing national park Geographic Information

System. Mapping of varying scales already in existence were also used to provide a useable base for

the models, specifically this mapping included the Ontario Basic Mapping (OBM) at scales of 1:

20,000 and 1: 50,000 along with the national 1: 250,000 NTS map sheets for the regions where these

parks were located.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

2011-04-14T03:57:00.001-07:00

Importance

2011-04-14T03:56:00.004-07:00

The B.C. Visual Resource Assessment looks at the existing landscape and what impact
development will have on the future aesthetics of the region. Issues like landscape quality, distribution
of scenic values, existing/potential viewing possibilities, and the prediction of adverse visual impacts
are all present concerns in evaluating potential and aesthetics. The study goes beyond this approach to
assess how future activities will affect the aesthetics values of an area. In terms of future impacts and
potential for the area there are issues such as; ability to absorb visual impacts, measures to mitigate
impacts, rehabilitation methods like re-foresting to improve aesthetics, and opportunities for view
enhancement.63 Importance of visual elements in the landscape and the concept of visual compatibility
are key criteria stressed by the B.C. government throughout this assessment. Tourism development
that is expecting to capitalize on natural scenery must take notice of principles of visual impact, as it
must be visually and environmentally compatible with the surrounding landscape. Visual
compatibility means that development should blend into its natural surroundings without being too
64
noticeable. The impact of negative development on natural areas is further addressed by the study in
that their concept of visual sensitivity is “the degree to which any portion of the landscape is sensitive
65
to, or liable to be visually degraded by, man-made developments either proposed or existing.”
Tourism potential involves a type of symbiotic relationship with the values of aesthetics outlined in
this study. Model development should reflect these aesthetics values. Of importance from this visual
resource assessment are the following points:
Most natural conditions are the most favourable.
Development must observe visual sensitivity, the concept that the area around a development
is sensitive to it.
Tourism must be dependent on concepts of environmental sustainability.
Development must be able to absorb and mitigate visual impacts it might cause.
Tourism development, or any development in a natural area, must strive to be visually
compatible with its surroundings.

( Visual Resource Assessment ( Tourism potential link

2011-04-14T03:56:00.002-07:00

The British Columbia report, Visual Resource Assessment A User Guide, can be readily
adapted to discussions of tourism potential. Specifically, the report can be linked to and combined
with the scenic view aspects (tourism attractiveness) and environmental resiliency aspects of the
various tourism potential models. All the models have a subjective element and several focus on
scenic view opportunities. The nature tourism model developed by Dr. Colin Arrowsmith for use in
the Grampians National Park in Australia perhaps most closely reflects these visual elements
discussed throughout the visual resource assessment. The guide is a form of visual resource
management for provincial lands. Visual resource management can be defined as “the management of
the seen aspect of both land and the activities which occur on it...the administration of the land's
59
scenic or aesthetic attributes.” The rational for incorporating landscape aesthetic classifications into
discussions of tourism potential modelling can be seen through this particular study of development
and sustainable management practices. Tourism is an industry reliant on the natural world, and the
continuing health of the land is dependent on observing principles of environmental sustainability and
minimizing the negative impacts of development.
To be continually effective, tourism must respect the land and incorporate this ideal into the
management practices that exist. Tourism potential is a concept that is highly resource-dependent and
its success is predicated on practices that are environmentally sustainable and that conserve natural
resources for the future. The ranking of landscape aesthetics and preferences are very subjective and,
as such, this process must incorporate a degree of uncertainty with some basic assumptions made with
regards to data. For tourism potential, it is assumed that the most natural conditions in the landscape
60
are preferable. As well, high scenic areas have the highest level of protection. Development of
tourism is assumed to occur where it will have little impact on the concept of visual sensitivity. This
means that development should occur in areas where it will complement the existing natural landscape
and not cause an unsightly visual impact. In other words, excessive tourism development should not
happen in natural pristine regions.61
It can be said, “the ultimate goal of landscape analytical procedures and management
strategies is to maintain the integrity of the landscape.”62 From this statement it is clear that the key to
success for tourism potential is development that blends effectively into the existing environment and
can peacefully co-exist with existing resources and land uses. Two of the essential ideas that are
stressed throughout this particular study are the concepts of a landscape's visual quality and the visual
impact that development imposes on the land

Problems/Improvements

2011-04-14T03:56:00.000-07:00

For the most part tourism capability/potential modelling in B.C. seems to have been successful
as it involves the operators, government, and the user/tourist. However it has experienced some
problems during its inception and evolution. Since tourism capability modelling can be such a labour
intensive project it must have government co-operation to succeed. It appears that this type of
modelling has fallen out of favour with the B.C. government in recent years as its proponents have
either moved onto other departments or left government altogether. As well, there were problems
associated with the data and technical aspects of capability modelling. Within the models the land
base is assigned a relative value at a small scale (1:250,000). During development, models at finer
resolution (1:20,000) were created in an attempt to identify specific areas where tourism could be
developed instead of the general areas determined from smaller scale models. This was largely
unsuccessful though because it created results that were too fragmented to be of any real use. As quite
common in most areas the modelling efforts were also plagued by data access problems as data was
either restricted or was supposed to exist but did not in reality.56
As with any GIS modelling effort, the model will be a learning effort and the final outcome the
result of a long period of trial and error. Initial tourism capability efforts in B.C. during the mid-1990s
were reflective of this sentiment because the initial models had no suitability or economic feasibility
component and it was later discovered that in terms of tourism development these are important
elements. Through refinement there were many improvements made to the tourism resource inventory
that serves as the basis for tourism modelling. These refinements were: to assemble good base
mapping, pick appropriate and representative tourism resources, collect additional tourism data from
each region, incorporate recent data into existing tourism capability modelling methodology, run
tourism capability models for 10 products representing a range of important activities, and plot the
model outputs and collate them into a atlas.
57
The last area of improvement was the development of a
Tourism Opportunity Spectrum (TOS) which uses tourism modelling to identify tourism opportunities
using a three step method. This TOS development is a refinement of the modelling efforts of the past
as it is more inclusive.

The three steps are capability, suitability, and economic feasibility. Step one is simply the ability

of resources to support various tourism products (activities). Step two considers if the proposed

development is consistent with local land-use or zoning (does it compete with or complement existing

resource users). Step three evaluated the viability of the tourism operation as a business. Here

capability has a community-sized focus unlike the larger regional capability focus of previous

modelling. The B.C. tourism capability modelling case study can be broken down into the following

basic points:

Assumptions

Resources essential to the tourist activity identified before modelling.

Most popular and economic activities were assumed to be selected.

The model relied on reasonable data.

Problems/Improvements

Models at finer resolutions (1:20,000) produced results that were too fragmented to be useful.

There were data access problems concerning restricted data or data that should exist but did

not.

It was recommended that all tourism products be merged to create an atlas showing large scale

tourism potential.

Advantages

Tourism operators, users, the B.C. Government, and private sector consultants were all

Involved.

A major problem in the determination of tourism potential was how to put some type of

intrinsic value on seemingly abstract aesthetic criteria such as the value of scenic look-offs and

wilderness viewing areas. After research, the link between assessing tourism potential for a natural

area and the actual scenic qualities (natural aesthetics) of the area has become evident. Since nature-

based tourism, or any tourism, has to do with personal preferences it was quite reasonable to explore

how landscape aesthetics are ranked. Similarly, since tourists are attracted to an area because of its

natural beauty and scenic attributes they can also be discouraged from visiting areas because of

unsightly development that spoils the natural scenery; unsightly development has a negative visual

impact on the landscape.

Evolution of B.C. Tourism Capability Modelling

2011-04-14T03:55:00.001-07:00

The methodology for these tourism focus areas can be split into three types. Tourism focus
areas were determined for land based tourism (kayaking, wildlife viewing, lodge suitability mapping
and others were merged), tourism facilities (created through using a 8km buffer from existing
facilities), and for marine based tourism (viewscapes for marine tourism).51
Grids and buffering operations are common throughout the B.C. tourism capability modelling
process. As mentioned, the 1:250,000 mapsheets are used for the primary base data of the models and
this leads to buffering operations and the creation of grids. Slope was crucial in terms of tourist access
and as such, the models used a 100m grid and a 5 class (0-30%, 30-40, 40-50, 50-100, >100) digital
elevation model to determine this factor. Large rivers and lakes over 200 hectares had 1000 metre
buffers applied to them. Included in the methodology was the previously created tourism resource
inventories for the area which had features such as mines, waterfalls, gravel roads, and river rapids
extracted from them.52 Although individual tourism resource inventories were created for areas
throughout B.C. and a wide variety of products were modeled, the model process followed the same
basic steps. One of these inventories was the tourism resource inventory for Nootka Sound in southern
B.C. This resource inventory had three phases common with other inventories done throughout B.C.
Phase one included the actual inventory, accessing opportunities, and constraints. Phase two
encompasses the selection of tourism products to model, their location, and issues of allocation of
resources. Finally, phase three is the development stage where tenures for implementation occur,
53
operations are started, and support and marketing of the tourism development is conducted. The
model consists of tourism operator facilities (use/user areas) and those features used for/or significant
to tourism. These basic factors are then mapped against the base map data for the area; this process is
used to determine potential and any data gaps that might exist. The model criteria themselves are
selected based on a three-pronged selection method. This method includes tourism products
(activities) selected based on their potential market, economic significance, and the quality of their
supporting resources (infrastructure). Model inputs are then selected from among the activities that
are desired such as river kayaking, backcountry skiing, and other resource-based activities. Once an
activity is selected then model inputs can be created by addressing which attributes are needed for that
particular tourist activity to be developed, what is needed to help modify the quality of the tourism
product, those attributes that would exclude product development, and those which provide access to
potential tourism products. Once these inputs are overlayed in the model, buffering functions are
undertaken and the tourism capability of the region can be judged.54

This ranking process results in a model that classifies tourism capability using a scale from
Moderate, to high, to very high. Those areas that received high or very high capability ratings, among
the various tourism products, can be identified as areas with high tourism potential. After areas of high
tourism potential have been realized then it was quite easy to look forward to the second stage, actual
implementation. This stage involves assessing those assets in the potential regions and anticipating
55
possible constraints which might preclude further development.

Methodology

2011-04-14T03:54:00.002-07:00

In B.C., Tourism Potential Modelling has gone through three distinct stages of development.
These three stages of evolution are the 1991-1999 tourism capability modelling at a scale of
1:250,000, then 1:20,000 tourism capability modelling from 1994-2000, and finally the suitability
mapping of tourism products at varying scales of 1:20,000 to 1:250:000 which has become popular
since 2001. The first stage of development from 1991-1999 consisted of three steps: 1) determining
the capability of resources of an area to support a selected tourism product 2) the relative value of
tourism, and 3) an overall (combined) tourism capability. The second stage of development in 1994-
2000 was a more in-depth version of the first attempt with the capability of resources to support
selected tourism products and the location of tourism developments being judged. During this second
stage the model incorporated constraints as well as local considerations into the process which helped
move the model forward to the determination of feasibility. Local issues consisted of trying to place a
relative value on the land and focusing on community tourism development such as historic/cultural
50
sites. Lastly, tourism modelling in B.C. was centered on suitability mapping of varying scales. In this
process suitability mapping for selected tourism products was merged to help identify areas of interest
for tourists. This model was more thorough and created tourism focus areas at a 1:250,000 scale. The
evolution process for tourism potential modelling is diagramed in the chart below, shown as figure 6.

marine cruising capability

2011-04-14T03:54:00.000-07:00

First, the areas where resources essential to the chosen tourism product (such as heli-hiking) are
located must be identified. “Next, the model uses elements of the natural setting to assess the quality of
heli-hiking possible on the remaining land area. Factors influencing the quality of the product include
the nature of the terrain (for example, are extensive views possible), the presence of scenic features
such as lakes, ice fields and waterfalls, the opportunity for wildlife viewing, and the presence of
cultural/heritage features.”44 Intermediate analysis coverages are the second stage of the modelling
process. “In some cases, preliminary analysis of raw data is required in order to make this data useful
for modelling tourism capability. A good example of this was the scenic data. Raw scenic data includes
information on the degree and type of alteration to the landscape, water influence and type, vegetation,
etc. In this case, an intermediate analysis was done to produce a coverage which classifies the landscape
45
as having a high, moderate or low scenic quality.” Intermediate analysis coverages combine
biogeoclimatic (soils, vegetation), scenic (forest cover, rivers, and topography), basemap (lakes),
geological features, fisheries, bird, mammal, heritage data, and wildlife data such as (wildlife viewing
sites). Each of these coverages relates to a specific tourism product model such as the heli-hiking
46
model. Within the B.C. context, tourism capability models have been implemented for a wide variety
of tourism products or activities such as hiking, mountain biking, downhill skiing, snowmobiling, day
sport fishing, wildlife viewing, heli-hiking, natural tours, day kayaking, marinas, bicycling touring, and
heli-skiing.47
The final stage of development was the resource coverage step. These coverages consist of
natural and cultural resources that support the range of tourism products to be modelled. These resource
coverages are a combination of geological, water, biogeoclimatic zones, fisheries, mammal, wildlife
habitat and viewing sites, scenic, coastal water depth, coastal exposure, shoreline, coastal fisheries,
and forest cover data. In many of the individual tourism product capability models, scenery aspects
were addressed by the specific inclusion of biogeoclimatic data.
Biogeoclimatic data includes important natural resource information such as geological, soils,
vegetation, and climatic data (duration of snow and annual snowfall, terrain access, views, and other
climatic elements like chance of both summer and winter precipitation). Biogeoclimatic data was
obtained from the B.C. Ministry of Forest and this data provided information useful to the scenic
component that was vital to many of the tourism product capability models. This biogeoclimatic data
and the scenic models can be broken into data concerning road-based activities (near built-up areas) and
48
back country activities (wilderness areas). Once the data was divided into the three levels of coverages
(capability, intermediate analysis, and resource) and the three coverage types (point, line, and polygon)
then the tourism capability models are created in ArcInfo at a scale of 1: 250, 000 in using a MELP
(Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks) Albers projection, NAD83.49