Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Yukon River tourism potential : resource capacity methodology and assessment Freeman, M. Joan 1983

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A6_7 F73.pdf [ 17.32MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095727.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095727-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095727-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095727-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095727-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095727-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095727-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095727-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095727.ris

Full Text

YUKON RIVER TOURISM RESOURCE  POTENTIAL:  CAPACITY METHODOLOGY AND  ASSESSMENT  by  M. JOAN  B.Sc.  FREEMAN  Queens U n i v e r s i t y ,  A THESIS SUBMITTED  Kingston,  IN PARTIAL  O n t a r i o 1975  FULFILMENT  OF  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER  OF  SCIENCE  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE  STUDIES  SCHOOL OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL  We a c c e p t t h i s t o the  t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g  required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H  COLUMBIA  S e p t e m b e r 1983  ©  PLANNING  M. JOAN FREEMAN, 1983  ' < . i In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s  in partial  advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t  freely  f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r an  of B r i t i s h  available  Columbia,  I agree t h a t  f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y .  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r  I  the further  scholarly  purposes may be granted by the head o f my department or by h i s or her representatives.  It  thesis for financial  i s understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of gain s h a l l  not be allowed w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n  permission.  School o f Community and Regional The U n i v e r s i t y 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, V6T 1Y3  Date  B.C.  of B r i t i s h  Planning  Columbia  this  - i i  -  ABSTRACT  This  study  toric  concerns  and c u l t u r a l  resources  h o r s e and D a w s o n . capacity  of these  Carrying capacity source  ical  resources  is  The s t u d y  biophysical  lations cerns  future  not  now e x i s t  it  determine which a c t i v i t i e s  his-  White-  the  carrying  a  re-  quality  carrying  of t o u r i s t s .  investigated  policies  because  capacity:  A third  in  capacities  first  step  the  study  have a t o u r i s m p o t e n t i a l .  f o r the  for all  i n the  regucon-  future.  f o r which c a r r y i n g  were no s u c h g o a l s  carrying  determin-  few management  c o u l d change  the a c t i v i t i e s  Thus t h e  that  C o r r i d o r and t h e s o c i o - p s y c h o l o g -  Since there  was d e c i d e d t o c a l c u l a t e a tourism p o t e n t i a l .  of  f o r t h e C o r r i d o r and b e c a u s e  goals define  dor,  capaCorri-  activities  analysis  was  to  T h i s was done by a  procedure.  screening procedure  a tourism p o t e n t i a l . ually.  of the  or user expectations  s h o u l d be c a l c u l a t e d .  The  and u s e d t o a s s e s s  f o c u s e d on two d e t e r m i n a n t s  city  screening  C o r r i d o r between  b e i n g d e g r a d e d b e l o w an a c c e p t a b l e  p o t e n t i a l s ; present  I d e a l l y , management  having  Yukon R i v e r  natural,  d e f i n e d as t h e maximum number o f t o u r i s t s  a c t i o n s , was  and p o l i c i e s  p r o v i d e d by t h e  for tourism.  characteristics  characteristics  a n t , management  of the  A m e t h o d was d e v e l o p e d  can s u p p o r t w i t h o u t  standard. the  the t o u r i s m p o t e n t i a l  i d e n t i f i e d 61 d i f f e r e n t  activities  T h i s was t o o many a c t i v i t i e s  w h i c h may  to consider  have  individ-  - iii As a r e s u l t , benefits  activities  they  mary b e n e f i t depends  on t h e  tourist  has w h i l e  The  specific  from the  For  the  The l i t e r a t u r e  g a i n from t r a v e l  surrounding environment he o r she  variables  literature  is  that  every a c t i v i t y This  and f o r  five  experience  eight  The c a l c u l a t i o n o f c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the or prevent  .  determination  .  resource  it  category  invalid  quality  activity.  additional  analysis  resource  socio-psychological  f o r the  Corridor.  contacts  a  activity. identified  types.  was assumed f o r had t h e  same  resource  specialized  the  re-  f o r a few s p e c i a l i z e d  for these  i n v o l v e d the  ac-  requireactivities  following five  and s o c i o - p s y c h o l o g i c a l  standards  for  areas  each of t h e s e unsuitable  and e s t i m a t i o n o f t h e  use l e v e l s  c o m p a r i s o n of each e x p e r i e n c e ' s capacity.  experience  types.  and e l i m i n a t i o n o f  ence or s p e c i a l i z e d  carrying  pri-  steps:  factors  that  use.  of the  analysis  biophysical  were  experience  s u c h as b i g game h u n t i n g w h i c h h a v e s p e c i f i c  of the  An  social  experiences  eight  assumption i s  was e s t i m a t e d  .  the  and k i n d s o f  within a given  Carrying capacity  .  indicated that  an e x p e r i e n c e .  which d i f f e r e n t i a t e  ments.  limit  the  participating in a particular  and u s e d t o d e r i v e  requirements.  tivities  .  is  according to  purpose of c a l c u l a t i n g c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t i e s ,  most p a r t source  were grouped i n t o c a t e g o r i e s  provide to t o u r i s t s . tourists  -  The l o w e s t  for the  remaining  biophysical value  is  the  factors.  f o r each  biophysical  experi-  and  areas.  and s o c i o - p s y c h o l o g i c a l overall  carrying  capacity  - iv The  results  data  gaps  are  preliminary,  and a s s u m p t i o n s  capacities  "ball  activities.  Yet  the  park"  involved.  were o n l y e s t i m a t e d  -  a r e a s b e i n g used f o r d i f f e r e n t  more t h a n  one u s e . types  w h i c h were n o t carrying  This  because  considered  capacity  study  potential  was  provides  to  part  Yukon R i v e r  policy  d e c i s i o n makers.  useful  tourism  to  in the  of the  Markets,  complete the  of the  are  and n o t  activities  the  by s o c i o - p s y c h o l o g i c a l  services  n e e d e d by  needed  for  and f a c i l i t i e s  they  offer  for  with having  three factors  factors.  a complete also  allocation  a perspective  of  overall  A tourism potential resource  uses,  and f a c i l i t y  In most c a s e s ,  information  problems,  combinations  be e s t i m a t e d  The c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n and m e t h o d s because  numerous  and some a r e a s  l i m i t e d by s e r v i c e study.  for  have a m i x t u r e o f  c o u l d not  assessment.  Corridor is  planners  analyses.  are  established  assessment.  investigated  capacity  they  uses  l i k e l y to  different  experience  due t o t h e  Because of m e t h o d o l o g i c a l  for single  Corridor is  Carrying  estimates  of  tourism  need t o  be  assessment and the  tourism study  and a p p r o a c h  for  - V TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT Table  i i  of Contents  List  of Tables  List  of  v ix  Figures  and Maps  Acknowledgements CHAPTER  ONE:  xiii xv  INTRODUCTION  1  1.0  Introduction  1  1.1  The P r o b l e m  2  1.2  Approach CHAPTER  11 TWO:  ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK  15  2.0  Introduction  15  2.1 2.1.1 2.1.1  P a r t One: Tourism P o t e n t i a l Concepts R a t i o n a l e f o r G e n e r a l C o n c e p t u a l Framework Relevant L i t e r a t u r e I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Study Design  16 16 18 27  P a r t Two: C a r r y i n g C a p a c i t y Concepts Introduction Overview of the C a r r y i n g C a p a c i t y Concept O p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g the Concept - Approaches f o r Calculating Carrying Capacity 2 . 2 . 3 O p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g t h e C o n c e p t - The S t a n k e y A p p r o a c h 2 . 2 . 4 A p p r o a c h Used i n T h i s Study 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2  Part Three:  2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5  S t u d y R e q u i r e m e n t s and A n a l y t i c a l Framework Study Requirements P r a c t i c a l C o n s i d e r a t i o n s - Budget C o n s t r a i n t s P r a c t i c a l C o n s i d e r a t i o n s - Product Requirements O v e r v i e w o f A n a l y t i c a l Framework A n a l y t i c a l Framework o f S c r e e n i n g A n a l y s i s A n a l y t i c a l Framework o f C a r r y i n g C a p a c i t y A n a l y s i s  31 31 31 34 37 43 43 43 43 44 45 46 49  - vi  -  TABLE OF CONTENTS  - continued Page  CHAPTER 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 3.4 3.5 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.6 3.7 3.7.1 3.7.2 3.7.3  4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.3.1  THREE:  THE YUKON RIVER CORRIDOR: RESOURCES, U S E S , POTENTIALS and PROBLEMS  51  General S e t t i n g B i o p h y s i c a l Resources H i s t o r i c a l Resources P r e s e n t U s e s o f t h e Yukon R i v e r C o r r i d o r Hydroelectric Transportation Mining Settlement F i s h i n g , H u n t i n g and T r a p p i n g Tourism P r e s e n t T o u r i s m i n t h e Yukon T e r r i t o r y P o t e n t i a l Uses Hydroelectric K l o n d i k e G o l d Rush I n t e r n a t i o n a l H i s t o r i c P a r k O t h e r R e s o u r c e Uses Tourism P o t e n t i a l f o r the North Resource P l a n n i n g Problem E x i s t i n g and F u t u r e Use C o n f l i c t s Resource A l l o c a t i o n Problem Tourism P o t e n t i a l Problem  51 51 55 56 56 59 59 59 60 62 66 67 67 68 69 70 70 70 71 73  CHAPTER  74  FOUR:  SCREENING METHODS  a n d RESULTS  Introduction Overview of Methods P r e l i m i n a r y S c r e e n i n g M e t h o d s and R e s u l t s S c r e e n i n g Method f o r Resource F a c t o r s Method f o r A s s e s s i n g the R e s o u r c e ' s S u i t a b i l i t y f o r an A c t i v i t y 4 . 3 . 2 Method f o r A s s e s s i n g Presence of F e a t u r e s A t t r a c t i v e to Tourists 4.4 S c r e e n i n g M e t h o d f o r Demand F a c t o r s 4 . 4 . 1 Method f o r A s s e s s i n g a M a r k e t ' s P r e f e r r e d V a c a t i o n Activities 4 . 4 . 2 M e t h o d f o r A s s e s s i n g t h e A f f e c t o f C o n s t r a i n t s on Demand 4.5 R e s u l t s of Screening A n a l y s i s 4.6 E x p e r i e n c e C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Method and R e s u l t s  74 74 77 82 82 87 90 96 100 102 127  - vii  -  TABLE OF CONTENTS  - continued Page  CHAPTER  FIVE:  CARRYING CAPACITY  METHODS  5.0 5.1  Introduction F a c t o r s Important t o Determining B i o p h y s i c a l Limitations 5.1.1 T o p o g r a p h y and S o i l s 5.1.2 Vegetation 5.1.3 Hydrology 5.1.4 Wildlife 5.1.5 Fish 5.1.6 Historic 5.2 Socio-psychological L i m i t a t i o n Factors 5.2.1 Perceptual Factors 5.2.1.1 Wilderness Quality Factors 5 . 2 . 1 . 2 Queuing F a c t o r s 5 . 2 . 1 . 3 R e s o u r c e Use C o n f l i c t F a c t o r s 5.2.2 Attractiveness Factors 5.3 Daily Capacity Factors 5.4 Annual C a p a c i t y F a c t o r s 5.5 Inventory of Resource C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 5.6 C a l c u l a t i n g t h e Use L e v e l s f o r D i f f e r e n t L i m i t i n g F a c t o r s f o r Each E x p e r i e n c e C a t e g o r y 5.7 Estimating Carrying Capacities CHAPTER 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.3.4 6.3.5 6.4  SIX:  CARRYING CAPACITY  RESULTS  Introduction Q u a l i t y S t a n d a r d D e f i n i t i o n s f o r Each E x p e r i e n c e Type S u i t a b i l i t y Analysis C a l c u l a t i n g of B i o p h y s i c a l and S o c i o - P s y c h o l o g i c a l Carrying Capacities Vegetation Water Q u a l i t y Wildlife Fish Socio-psychological Calculations O v e r a l l C a r r y i n g Capacity of the C o r r i d o r  136 136 140 140 145 147 149 150 151 151 152 154 156 156 159 164 165 166 169 170 175 175 177 178 194 198 213 217 225 228 230  - viii  -  TABLE OF CONTENTS - c o n t i n u e d Pa^e CHAPTER 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.3 7.4 7.5  SEVEN:  CONCLUSIONS  a n d RECOMMENDATIONS  233  Introduction Conclusions U t i l i t y o f R e s u l t s and C o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n A p p l i c a t i o n to C o r r i d o r Issues Methodological Applications L i m i t a t i o n s o f Study Recommendations O b s e r v a t i o n s on C o r r i d o r ' s T o u r i s m P o t e n t i a l  233 234 235 235 238 240 241 242  LITERATURE CITED  250  PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS  CITED  272  APPENDIX 1:  T h e o r y Used t o D e v e l o p t h e A n a l y t i c a l Framework  275  APPENDIX 2:  Literature Identifying Experience D e t e r m i n a n t s and V a r i a b l e s  317  APPENDIX 3:  Tables L i s t i n g Data R e l a t e d Information Presented in Chapter Three  321  APPENDIX 4 :  T a b l e s and T e x t C o n t a i n i n g D a t a Related to Information Presented i n Chapter Four  324  APPENDIX 5:  T a b l e s and T e x t C o n t a i n i n g D a t a Related to Information Presented i n Chapter Five  333  APPENDIX 6:  T a b l e s and T e x t C o n t a i n i n g D a t a Related to Information Presented In C h a p t e r S i x  347  to  - ix L I S T OF TABLES Table  Page  2-1  Synopsis  of Relevant  2- 2  Example of the  Literature  Carrying Capacity  P r o v i d e d by S t a n k e y ' s 3- 1  Yukon R i v e r : Use  Findings  19  Information  39  Approach  O r i g i n of T r a v e l l e r s  and S e a s o n a l  64  Patterns  3-2  O r i g i n Breakdown of T a b l e 3-1  'Other'  Category  in  65  3- 3  Yukon T e r r i t o r y :  4- 1  Range o f P o s s i b l e T o u r i s t A c t i v i t i e s  78  4-2  Resource S u i t a b i l i t y V a r i a b l e s I n f o r m a t i o n Used t o S c r e e n t h e L i s t e d i n T a b l e 4-1  84  4-3  Known A t t r a c t i o n s , A c t i v i t i e s and E v e n t s t h e Study Area  4-4  Summary o f Yukon R e s i d e n t R e c r e a t i o n Demand  4-5  The Type o f C o n s t r a i n t s and I n f o r m a t i o n U s e d t o E v a l u a t e t h e A f f e c t o f C o n s t r a i n t s on Demand  103  4-6  A c t i v i t i e s E l i m i n a t e d and A c t i v i t i e s o f H i g h e s t P o t e n t i a l on B a s i s o f R e s o u r c e S u i t a b i l i t y  107  4-7  R e s o u r c e F e a t u r e S c o r e s Used t o E v a l u a t e C o r r i d o r ' s Attractiveness for Activities S c o r e s a r e b a s e d on r e s o u r c e and a t t r a c t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m T a b l e s 4-2 a n d 4-3  109  4-8  E v a l u a t i o n o f t h e C o r r i d o r ' s Demand P o t e n t i a l f o r M a r k e t Segments f r o m C a n a d a , U . S . A . a n d E u r o p e  112  4-9  E v a l u a t i o n o f t h e C o r r i d o r ' s Demand P o t e n t i a l P o s s i b l e M a r k e t Segments f r o m t h e Yukon  119  O r i g i n of T r a v e l l e r s  65  and R e s o u r c e Activities  Profile  in  91  and O u t d o o r  101  for  - X -  LIST OF TABLES - continued Table  Page  4-10  Effect of Constraints on the Demand for Potential (P) and Possible (*) Vacation Types from Tables 4-8 and 4-9  121  4-11  Evaluation of Demand Potential for Different Vacation Types when Constraints are Taken into Account  122  4-12  Activities Feasible in the Yukon River Corridor  125  4- 13  The Experience Categories and Natural Setting, Social Interaction and Activity Determinants for Each Category  131  5- 1  Factors Affecting Instantaneous Biophysical  141  Carrying Capacity Levels  5-2  Factors Important for Determining Instantaneous Perceptual Use Limits for Each Experience Type  153  5- 3  Specialized Activities and Essential Resource  161  6- 1  Status of Information Needed to Produce Accurate Use-Level Estimates and List of Factors Used in this Analysis  176  6-2  Natural Setting Criteria and Standards for Experience Types  179  6-3  Socio-psychological Standards for Wilderness Factors  187  6-4  Vegetation Sensitivity to Impacts: Derivation of Maximum Trampling Levels by Two Procedures: (1) Reanalysis of Existing Data and (2) Utilization of a Theoretical Correlation Equation  199  6-5  Acceptable Number of Tramples per Season for Each Impact Category  202  6-6  Assumptions Used to Identify Locations for which Vegetation Sensitivity Use-Levels were Calculated  211  Requi rements  - xi  -  L I S T OF TABLES - c o n t i n u e d Table  Page  6-7  Maximum A c c e p t a b l e V a l u e of Water Q u a l i t y  6-8  Present  6-9  Known I n f o r m a t i o n on W i l d l i f e A b u n d a n c e and D i s t u r b a n c e S e n s i t i v i t y in the C o r r i d o r  218  6-10  Information  226  6-11  Low H i g h and R e a s o n a b l e V a l u e s D a i l y and Annual C a p a c i t i e s  6-12  Socio-Psychological  6- 13  Overall  Water Q u a l i t y  in the  i n Study  214  Area  Used t o C a l c u l a t e  215  229  Estimates  229  of the C o r r i d o r f o r  232  and S p e c i a l i z e d  of F a c i l i t i e s  Levels  Yukon R i v e r  Carrying Capacity  Carrying Capacities  Evaluation the  Values  on F i s h R e s o u r c e s  Each E x p e r i e n c e 7- 1  for Different  Activity  and I n f r a s t r u c t u r e  for  244  Corridor Appendix  Tables  Al-1  S i m i l a r M o t i v a t i o n and A c t i v i t y Groups f r o m S t u d i e s by M c K e c h n i e ( 1 9 7 4 ) , R i t c h i e ( 1 9 7 5 ) and P h i l l i p s (1977)  286  Al-2  V a r i a b l e s U s e d by B a r g u r Comprehensive Approach  307  Al-3  V a r i a b l e s U s e d by B a u d - B o v y and Lawson the Tourism Product Approach  (1979)  Al-4  A n a l y t i c a l Steps Followed C r i t e r i a S u p p o r t i n g Them  and  A3-1  O r i g i n of T r a v e l l e r s  A3-2  Yukon T e r r i t o r y :  A4-1  Resource  A4-2  A s s e s s m e n t o f I n s t i t u t i o n a l F a c t o r s and C o n s t r a i n t s Important to the C o r r i d o r ' s Resource P o t e n t i a l f o r Tourism  331  A5-1  Slope  334  A5-2  Depth t o Bedrock  and A r b e l  in the  Study  in the  1967 - 1979  Seasonal  Use P a t t e r n s  Capability Activity  Limitations  (1975)  for Various Limitations  Matrix  Activities for Activities  in  312 316 322 323 325  334  - xi i  -  L I S T OF TABLES - c o n t i n u e d Table  Page  A5-3  Parent  Material  L i m i t a t i o n s to T r a i l  Use  335  A5-4  Soil  A5-5  E r o s i o n P o t e n t i a l of S p e c i f i c S l o p e , S o i l P e r m a f r o s t and G r o u n d I c e C o n d i t i o n s  A5-6  T e x t u r e and P a r e n t M a t e r i a l S e n s i t i v i t y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n for Engineering (Pipeline) Construction  337  A5-7  Soil S u i t a b i l i t y Tank E f f l u e n t  338  A5-8  Vegetation  A5-9  Water Q u a l i t y S t a n d a r d s and R e l a t e d Water Q u a l i t y C r i t e r i a Used t o D e r i v e V a l u e s f o r Each S t a n d a r d  340  A5-10  Abundance Level  341  A5-11  Habitat Species  A5-12  Hunt E f f o r t  A5-13  Catch E f f o r t  A6-1  H e c t a r e E s t i m a t e s o f A r e a s shown on Map 1 . were D e t e r m i n e d by P l a n i m e t e r Measurement  Values  348  A6-2  C a l c u l a t i o n o f L i m i t i n g T r a m p l i n g V a l u e f o r Each Impact C a t e g o r y U s i n g L i d d l e ' s V u l n e r a b i l i t y Index a n d A s s u m i n g a L i n e a r R e l a t i o n s h i p B e t w e e n Number o f T r a m p l e s and L o s s o f C o v e r  349  Texture Limitations  335 Texture,  f o r Subsurface Disposal of  Septic  Impact C a t e g o r i e s  Categories  Requirements  Categories Categories  339  for Wildlife  for Significant  336  and F i s h  Wildlife  for Wildlife  342 344  for Fish  345  - xiii LIST OF FIGURES AND MAPS Figure  Page  1- 1  Components of Tourism Potential  2- 1  Driver and Tocher's (1970) Model of the Recreation  5 26  Decision Process 2-2  Analytical Framework of Screening Analysis  48  2- 3  Steps Followed in Carrying Capacity Analysis  50  3- 1 3-2  The Yukon River Corridor Spirit Houses at Little Salmon Abandoned Sternwheeler on Hoofalinqua Island Ft. Selkirk - Once a Community of 5000 People. Gold Dredge Dawson  52 57  3-3  Resource Use Compatability Matrix of Present and Future Developments in the Yukon River Corridor  72  5-1  Examples of Land Density Ranges Used by Tourism Planners for Different Types of Resorts.  157  7-1  Possible Images for the Corridor  247  Map-1  Tourism Resources of the Yukon River Corridor  190  Map-2  Vegetation Classification of Corridor from Carrnacks to Dawson  207  XIV  -  -  APPENDIX FIGURES Figure  Page  Al-1  Some C o m p o n e n t s A f f e c t i n g T o u r i s m  277  Al-2  Phenomena  278  Al-3  R e l a t i o n s h i p C o n c e p t u a l i z e d between M a s l o w ' s H i e r a r c h y o f Needs and P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n R e c r e a t i o n O p p o r t u n i t i e s and A c t i v i t i e s  284  Al-4  D r i v e r and T o c h e r ' s Decision Process  296  Al-5  R e l a t i o n s h i p between D r i v e r - T o c h e r Model  Al-6  S t a g e s i n t h e Consumer D e c i s i o n P r o c e s s t h e EBK Model  Al-7  E n g e l , B l a c k w e l l a n d K o l l a t Model Decision Process  Al-8  The T o u r i s t P r o d u c t  of T o u r i s t Travel  (1970) M o d e l Goal  of the R e c r e a t i o n  S t a t e and Goal  Process  Object  in  According to  o f t h e Consumer  o f Baud-Bovy  299 300 301 310  - XV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I  w i s h t o e x p r e s s my s i n c e r e t h a n k s  Fox, his  I  for  his  advice,  assistance  encouragement  am g r a t e f u l  ial  in the  to the  Government,  are:  Hoefs,  R.  Affairs,  Branch,  of  R.  analysis.  Environmental  of t h e Department  Yukon A r c h i v e s ; Branch;  T.  Canada, C a l g a r y ;  Gasaway and D.  S.  Service,  I n d i a n and  Northern  and D.  Connelly,  Canada,  ARC  Verburg, formerly  Service, D'Aquino,  Kelleyhause,  Victoria; Inland Alaska  driver  who d r o v e  back t o W h i t e h o r s e  is  all  hundred  t y p i f i e d t h e many f r i e n d l y Y u k o n e r s  made my Yukon v i s i t extended to  u s , o u r c a n o e and s e v e r a l  of R.  Waters Depart-  these  so m e m o r a b l e and r e w a r d i n g . people,  some o f whom a r e  and A.  Innis-Tayor,  i n t o Yukon l i f e .  long time  residents,  The Yukon C o n s e r v a t i o n S o c i e t y  pounds  whose  A special  named  below.  D a v i d C o s c o p r o v i d e d me w i t h a c o m f o r t a b l e home i n W h i t e h o r s e . Burian  among  Protection  Parks  K.  who  o f T o u r i s m ; M.  H. T u r i c k  Oswald, Canadian Forest  a n d B.  of  Will,  for  Territor-  Notable  Yukon D e p a r t m e n t  Survey of Canada, C a l g a r y ;  Vancouver;  K.  F i s h and Game.  assistance thanks  T.  Yukon  and t h e A l a s k a n G o v e r n m e n t  Atkins,  formerly  Hooper, Parks  Geological  The dump t r u c k gear  S.  M. R i d g e ,  Canada, Winnipeg;  Directorate,  of  Branch;  of the  Irving  study.  o f f i c i a l s of the  used i n the  and H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e s  Ottawa;  Klassen,  ment  formerly  Chambers,  Whitehorse;  Yukon P a r k s  Parks  Graham,  B.  throughout the  t h e C a n a d i a n Government data  Professor  r e a d i n g o f t h e m a n u s c r i p t , and  numerous g o v e r n m e n t  Yukon W i l d l i f e  Whitehorse;  critical  and p a t i e n c e  p r o v i d e d me w i t h much o f t h e these  t o my s u p e r v i s o r ,  gave v a l u a b l e  Rudy insights  provided o f f i c e  space.  - xvi Several  tour operators  ing Hector  s u p p l i e d i n f o r m a t i o n on t o u r i s t  M a c K e n z i e o f Yukon M o u n t a i n and R i v e r  o f G o l d R u s h T o u r s , J o h n Lammers o f Griffiths  of Adventure  Yukon.  remote  U.B.C,  sensing f a c i l i t i e s  Dr.  Barbour  typed the  and a N a t i o n a l  edit  the  final  Yukon  Funding f o r t h i s  earlier  P.  Murtha, Faculty  of  image a n a l y s i s  advice  helpful.  Forestry, a n d N e d i n i a Holm  of the U n i v e r s i t y  prepared the  of B r i t i s h  Columbia  advice.  figures  and maps and Mar  A x e l Mothes t r a v e l l e d  w i t h me d u r i n g my  River.  Wildlife  Environmental  Conservation  i n d e b t e d t o Deborah T u r n b u l l  assisted  manuscript.  Karpes  equipment.  and o f f e r e d e d i t o r i a l  draft.  and s t i m u l a t i n g  s t u d y was p r o v i d e d by C a n a d i a n A r c t i c R e s o u r c e s  I am d e e p l y drafts,  with the  Hightower  a n d Nancy G e r r i s h  down t h e  Finally,  H.C.  the manuscript  I t s o Yesaki  trip  assistance  Wm. Rees and D r .  reviewed  of D r .  includ-  U n l i m i t e d , a n d Dave  o c c a s i o n s were p a r t i c u l a r l y  were used t o p e r f o r m t h e s a t e l l i t e  provided technical  preferences  E x p e d i t i o n s , Gus  Yukon W i l d e r n e s s  The e n c o u r a g e m e n t  J o h n Lammers o f f e r e d on s e v e r a l  The  -  in the a n a l y s i s  of  Committee  Fellowship.  who t y p e d t h e t a b l e s  visitor statistics  and  and  helped  - 1 -  CHAPTER ONE:  1.0  INTRODUCTION  INTRODUCTION The purpose of this thesis is to develop and illustrate a method to calculate carrying capacities for tourism opportunities provided by the Yukon River Corridor from Whitehorse to Dawson City.  A tourist is defined as any person who is travelling for reasons other than business and who is away from home for at least one night. Tourism encompasses all the social and economic activities caused by tourists travelling.  It includes public and industry services such  as provision of museums, airports, wilderness guides, resorts; and less apparent activities such as policy planning, investment analysis and lobbying by interest groups about issues of concern to them.  Tourism opportunities are determined by all the resources, attractions, services and experiences which tourists use or seek. This study investigates the opportunities associated with the corridor made up of the Yukon River and adjacent land between Whitehorse and Dawson.  Only resource related opportunities were  considered in this study.  Resources are defined herein as the  biophysical base of an area as well as the cultural and natural features which attract tourists.  Carrying capacity is a simple concept that herdsmen have been aware of for centuries; namely, that a resource such as a pasture has a maximum use level (i.e.  herd size) that it can support on a sustained  - 2 yield  basis.  on t h e  The c a r r y i n g  productivity  resource  tance).  It  depends  The q u a l i t y  well  is  (although  an a c c e p t a b l e  s u c h as  of the  can s u s t a i n  relationship  level  THE  basis  is  ability  of q u a l i t y ( F i s h e r  to  and K r u t i l l a  an a c c e p t a b l e to the  is  impor-  concept  at  1972).  affected  and u s e r s '  This  some  supply o p p o r t u n i t i e s  opportunities  characteristics.  a  productivity  p r o d u c t i v i t y may be o f  area's  central  depends  The maximum number o f t o u r i s t s  biological  at  cattle  by  factors  expectations of  as  maintaining  level  of  quality  definition  of  carrying  on a capacity  as  hereinafter.  PROBLEM  Tourism is  ranked a f t e r  activity  in the  directly  employed  large  i n terms  economy that  is  Yukon T e r r i t o r y .  of  itself  of Alaska  m i n i n g as t h e  15 p e r c e n t its  Tourism a l s o  small,  example,  it  local  the  s e c o n d most 1979 t h e  Yukon's to the  industry  Columbia  enjoy  tourist  labour  is  small  economic  industry  force; while  Yukon e c o n o m y ,  (Tourism  social  economy,  the  it  Yukon 1 9 8 0 ;  is  Yukon  i n comparison  to  Economic  recreation  benefits  to Yukoners.  p r o v i d i n g some s a f e g u a r d  c a u s e d when w o r l d m i n e r a l  residents  important  1980).  important  diversifies  hardships  of the  and t h e  or B r i t i s h  provides  In  significance  R e s e a r c h and P l a n n i n g U n i t  the  for  not such a s i m p l e b i o l o g i c a l  on t h e  tourism opportunities  1.1  of a pasture  and t y p e o f d e v e l o p m e n t ,  as e c o l o g i c a l  used  grass.  of t o u r i s m resource  amount  continual  capacity  prices  facilities,  For against  drop.  Similarily,  s u c h as  Whitehorse's  - 3 cross-country Finally,  ski  there  resort,  which they  a r e many t y p e s  of t o u r i s t  impacts  t o u r i s m can have on an a r e a  impacts  of  other  for  instance,  ski  resort,  will  park  different.  present  continue. sents  ".  the t o u r i s t  The b u l k o f t o u r i s t s passing through the  largest  stop over  the  north.  are  frontier  only not  sparcely  source  use. for  gold  way  potential  A l a s k a or  cruise  tourism industry one s u c h  include  or grand t o u r  Hence,  seat,  of  of  vast  few  areas  for tourism  accommodate areas  and t h e  area.  either  The w i l d e r n e s s  value  to  repre-  and w i l d e r n e s s  underutilized wilderness  is  tourism  resources.  areas could undoubtedly  corridor  expected  Yukon's  of a passenger  potential  in the  is  Yukoners."  rush h i s t o r y .  used; although t h e i r  The Yukon R i v e r  be  for  beauty  railways.  new g r o w t h  to  and D a w s o n , and a r e  or  these  that  to central  to the  comfort  the main roads  Thus,  radically  Yukon economy  on an A l a s k a n  from the  been a s s e s s e d , t h e s e  tourist  my.  off  dam  from a  can be d e v e l o p e d  few o f t h e  Whitehorse  attracted  and by i t s  s e e n by most t o u r i s t s them v e n t u r e  resource  Yukon on t h e i r  Yukon as a b r i e f  last  the  A hydro  impacts  are  118) s u g g e s t e d  u t i l i z e s very  the  this  fixed.  whereas the  industry  p.  now v i s i t  Tourists  the  uses.  (1978,  single  hence,  be f l e x i b l e u n l i k e  relatively  of t o u r i s m i n the  Bell  The e x i s t i n g i n d u s t r y  are  finance.  activities;  or a gambling c a s i n o  surrounding  fact  . the  which  c o u l d not  tend to  flood a valley  campsite,  prominence In  .  always  Therefore,  compatible with  The  industries  alone  is of are has  more  represent  Yukon's  a  econo-  - 4 -  The corridor is now undeveloped, but investigations of its hydro electric and mining potential are ongoing; i t could be developed for these purposes within a few years.  The Yukon River has also been  proposed as a heritage river park.  Non-park forms of tourism,  trapping, fishing, transportation, and other possible uses for the corridor's resources have so far been ignored as development options. Moreover, the benefits these alternatives would provide to Yukoners and Canadians as a whole are unknown.  The corridor is a public resource; hence, it should be developed in a manner that will maximize social benefits.  Decision makers are un-  likely to allocate resources so as to maximize social returns without knowing the full range of options and the costs and benefits of each. Therefore, the potential of each possible option for the corridor should be assessed before its resources are irreversibly allocated to a particular use.  An assessment of the corridor's tourism potential  would be particularly relevent for the following reasons:  (1)  the  area is already used by tourists, ( 2 ) it has both gold rush and wilderness attractions, and ( 3 ) the present importance of tourism to the Yukon economy suggests that tourism could be a viable option for the corridor.  This thesis provides part of a complete tourism assessment of the Yukon River Corridor; namely, the resource's capacity to support different types of tourism use.  Capacity is a useful indicator of  specific aspects of supply and demand or theoretical potential. link between these aspects and overall tourism potential is  The  - 5 -  illustrated in Figure 1-1.  The conceptualization in Figure 1-1  requires explanation; i t underlies this study's conceptual framework.  The meaning of supply and demand in the context of tourism sources requires clarification.  As economists use these terms they are not  fixed quantities for a given commodity or service.  Instead supply is  the quantity of a good or service that becomes available at a given price.  Unlike the economic notion of supply, the supply of natural  or cultural resource that tourists utilize cannot be increased by investing more funds (but services can be).  Thus the supply  resources for tourism is fixed.  Demand however, is another story.  Although people may have set  expectations which attract them to the Yukon the number of tourists who come to the Yukon to realize a particular experience is determined by a number of factors not the least of which is cost of travel.  Therefore, tourism demand for a given resource is not fixed,  but tourists' quality expectations for it are essentialy set.  Tourism potential is defined as the maximum number of tourists that could visit a region i f every feasible type use for the region is provided.  Figure 1-1 distinguishes two kinds of tourism potentials,  theoretical and actual.  Theoretical potential refers to the number  of tourists predicted by supply and demand alone, without taking into account limitations from existing constraints.  In the real world  what is theoretically possible is never achieved; supply is  •quality of resources, services, facilities  Demand  quality of expectations  Market size preferred product  quantity of resources, services and f a c i l i ties  Theoretical Potential laws policies ~ ^ investment goals hidden agenda  /  /  / /  /  CONSTRAINTS  '//////.  /  Institutions  Private Enterprise'  Actual Potential Operations Real Use <^arketin^  Figure 1.1  Components of Tourism Potential.  Supply  - 7 restricted  by t h e  and f a c i l i t i e s potential  is  objectives  of companies  and by g o v e r n m e n t  into  What can  and what does  happen  the  Figure  1-1.  reduce  the  unfilled  Decisions  development to  tours,  of marketing  an a c c e p t e d  key  happen a r e  between  achieving  these  actual  constraints  fail the  often  may  or,  airplanes  potential  things;  made d u r i n g p l a n n i n g and c o n s t r u c t i o n  is  actual  two d i f f e r e n t  use  maxim t h a t  will  The  and r e a l  s i z e of a development  hotels,  after  services  account.  differentiation  importance is  l a w s and r e g u l a t i o n s .  d e f i n e d as what can be a c h i e v e d  have been t a k e n  hence,  providing tourist  poor m a r k e t i n g  and o t h e r  tourist  recognized within even t h e  unless  it  potential  best  is well  results  in  facilities.  the t o u r i s t  it  tourism  Marketing  which t o u r i s m assessment  The  industry;  s t u d i e d and p l a n n e d marketed.  in  is  the  studies  predict.  In  theory,  Market  size is  whether is  m a r k e t i n g may a l s o  or not t h e y  affected  size  can  peoples'  successfully agree that  tastes.  of  changed.  Experts  to accept  strategy  prevailing  it.  tastes;  tastes  costly  market on o n l y  although they  campaign attempts  and t o d i r e c t  demand  how much o r  image o f an a r e a  promotional than  in  focuses  about  product  Tourism  An i n c r e a s e  disagree  change  c o n t i n u a l , and c o s t l y  on t o u r i s m d e m a n d .  p e o p l e who c o u l d use a  f a c t o r s ; marketing  promotions  a better  effect  o r e v e n know a b o u t  size is  by numerous  skillful  Clearly, is  pool  it  pool  changing a p a r t i c u l a r market's  an i n t e n s e ,  tastes  as t h e  do use  when t h e  be c a u s e d  of t h e s e ,  1974).  defined  have a d i r e c t  on  how do  requires  (Boerjan to  change  marketing  efforts  - 8 at  the  non-users  marketing is  adopts  crucial  the  to the  insignificant  Originally  But  determinent  markets  are  demand a l s o e f f e c t s  table  campsites  ity  of  the  analysed  resource  marketing  an  to  determine  and more t o u r i s t s  not  continually  keep  increasing;  p e o p l e may n o t  of  space  Since success is In  of  and t h e  enjoy  for  supply that of  environment's  it  of t o u r i s t  sharing  them; is  river  because  of the t o u r i s t  short,  that  a full  would a n a l y s e : quantity  Similarily they  assessment  and t h e  quantity  resource  resource  u s e s was e s t i m a t e d  resources  available.  by  capacity relating  of the  depends  size  and  supply.  supply,  the  the  of  the market's of  too  potential  of the market,  Also,  are  industry  expectations of  a dining  limits  tourism  and q u a l i t y  sought,  their  usable.  sensitivity  essential  are  benefits  quality  uses.  would  are  the  tourist  quantity  it  thought  facilities  the q u a l i t y  amount  quality.  requirements,  different  if  there is  tourism potential  ious t o u r i s t  the  even i f  nests; the  consider  study  was  u s i n g them w i l l  instance,  satisfaction,  theoretical  This  people  use a l l o w e d .  on c u s t o m e r  quality  infinite,  may be c l o s e d a l o n g a s t r e t c h  of  analyses  For  dictate  near Bald Eagle amount  although  potential.  b u i l d more f a c i l i t i e s not  tourism  potentials.  strangers  expectations  Therefore,  and f a c i l i t i e s  supply a f f e c t s  versa.  with  Most  s u p p l y o f and demand f o r t o u r i s m o p p o r t u n i t i e s  inter-related; and v i c e  of t o u r i s m  services  number o f  the  strategy.  pool.  r e a l i z a t i o n of t o u r i s m p o t e n t i a l ,  potentials;  expanded the  Moreover,  an e x i s t i n g m a r k e t  latter  supply of  theoretical come.  within  supply  the for  corridor  quality  values  qualvarfor to  - 9 D e t e r m i n i n g the market another  s t u d y was  Furthermore, general this  s i z e was b e y o n d t h e  undertaken to address  Westwater Research  this  Institute  s t u d y o f t h e Yukon T e r r i t o r y ' s  s t u d y was m a d e .  facilities; facilities  it  was  This  thesis  assumed i f  t o u r i s m demand a t  considered a l i m i t a t i o n to the  Finally,  this  industry  c o n s t r a i n t s ; these  transfers  of  therefore,  federal  present  to  potentials.  In  summary, t h e  with  powers t o t h e  (eg.  primary  f o c u s was on t h e  the  carrying  capacity  of  The c a r r y i n g  capacity  o f an a r e a ' s  d e t e r m i n e d by t h r e e  - the fect  potential. private settlements,  government),  quality  of  l i m i t tourism potentials,  resources  sensitivity  e x p e c t a t i o n s of the  for t o u r i s t  resource  of the to  or  use  is  paving t r a i l ) ,  p r o m o t e an o v e r  used t e n t  resource  which  resource's  c o n d i t i o n which  degradation tolerated  change  af-  use.  a c t i o n s which upgrade the  (eg.  characteristics  for tourism.  characteristics  t h e amount o f  over-use  resources  resource's  - management  facilities  factors:  biophysical  user's  and  i n s t i t u t i o n s were a l s o not c o n s i d e r e d a l i m i t a t i o n  b a s e and t h e m a r k e t s w h i c h  the  and  and  land claim  territorial  resource  fect  future  institutional  the  - the  time  services  services  area's  can c h a n g e  the  demand e x i s t e d more  present  were not  1980).  was e n g a g e d i n a  a l s o d i d not a s s e s s  w o u l d be d e v e l o p e d ; h e n c e ,  study;  p r o b l e m (Mothes  at U.B.C.  sufficient  s t u d y d i d not deal  scope of t h i s  resilience  of  by  users.  an a r e a  user expectations  c a m p g r o u n d as a r e c r e a t i o n  af-  to  (eg. vehicle  - '10 (RV)  campground),  u s e r demand  This  study  is  (eg.  area  are  policies  regulating  characteristics.  and a c t i o n s  were n o t  Management  In  to  or  policies  t o change t h e  can be c o n c e i v e d as  regard the  limit).  and u s e r ,  S i n c e management  with  for  present potential  balancing  f i n d i n g s of t h i s  study  will  be u s e f u l .  a d d i t i o n to  carrying  its  capacity  c o n t r i b u t i o n to tourism potential analyses  ism developments. developments are  biophysical  considered a l i m i t a t i o n to  actions  s u p p l y w i t h demand, i n t h i s  characteristics  f i s h i n g s e a s o n and c a t c h  p o o r l y d e f i n e d and s u b j e c t  tourism uses.  prove  biophysical  p r i m a r i l y concerned with  socio-psychological the  or balance  are useful  Such a n a l y s e s  maintained.  developments  Thus t h e  f o r p l a n n i n g and m a n a g i n g  define  when b o t h e n v i r o n m e n t a l concept  t h e maximum use  quality  and u s e r  can be u s e d t o  so as t o m a x i m i z e t h e i r  assessments,  level  for  satisfaction  p l a n and  sustainable  tour-  manage  e c o n o m i c and  social  benefits.  Social  benefits  a r e m a x i m i z e d when t o u r i s t  optimal  l e v e l ; however,  optimal  level  hence  government  n i n g and m a n a g e m e n t . to maintain Corridor cept  is,  merits  use a t  A major  socially  i n many brief  the market  use i s  system f a i l s  involvement  is  to  levels  is  keep use a t  needed  r e a s o n why g o v e r n m e n t  optimal  an an  in tourism input  because  r e s p e c t s , a common p r o p e r t y  elaboration.  m a i n t a i n e d at  is  required  t h e Yukon  resource.  plan-  This  River con-  - it Most o f t h e and as  resources  such are  termed the  considered useable likely  to occur.  advantage benefits fore,  to overuse  of the  because  commons".  publicly  o f what H a r d i n  constraints  tourist  its  society  derives  from the  t h e maximum b e n e f i t s  must be d e f i n e d and u t i l i z e d  is  overuse  o p e r a t o r may g a i n a  resources  are  owned  (1968)  As l o n g as a r e s o u r c e  by e v e r y o n e w i t h o u t An i n d i v i d u a l  C o r r i d o r are  from o v e r - e x p l o i t a t i o n a l t h o u g h c o l l e c t i v e l y  to achieve  levels  o f t h e Yukon R i v e r  subject  "tragedy  -  the  is  temporary total  decreased.  There-  f r o m t o u r i s m , o p t i m u m use  by p u b l i c a g e n c i e s  managing  the  resources.  In  c o n c l u s i o n , the  ism p o t e n t i a l s  f o r the  and m a n a g i n g f u t u r e ings  1.2  for these  results  of t h i s  purpose of  study  have use  resource  tourism developments.  in assessing  a l l o c a t i o n and i n Means  purposes are d i s c u s s e d i n the  of  final  tour-  planning  using the  find-  chapter.  APPROACH Both p r a c t i c a l identify cal  and t h e o r e t i c a l  a s u i t a b l e method f o r a n a l y s i n g  considerations  commitment t o  analyses.  academic t h e o r y .  literature  and how t h e s e  The o v e r r i d i n g t h e o r e t i c a l  variables  analysis  Accordingly, a careful the  as w e l l  c o n c l u s i o n s which  as  conform  was to  s t u d y was made must  of  consider  use l e v e l s .  f o l l o w e d from t h i s  a  economic  concern  analysis  s h o u l d be u s e d t o e s t i m a t e  to  Practi-  w h i c h c o u l d be u s e d i n m a r k e t ,  t o d e t e r m i n e what v a r i a b l e s  important t h e o r e t i c a l are:  results  capacity.  constraints  t h e m e t h o d s and a s s u m p t i o n s u s e d i n t h e  accepted the  carrying  i n c l u d e d t i m e and b u d g e t  produce  and c o s t - b e n e f i t that  i s s u e s were c o n s i d e r e d i n o r d e r  The  review  travel  is  primarily  to partake  it  -  undertaken to o b t a i n e x p e r i e n c e s  in s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s ,  ing c a p a c i t y iences  12  therefore,  rather  a region's  should be assessed in terms of the t o u r i s t  offers  rather  than the a c t i v i t i e s  than  carryexper-  available;  an experience  results  from performing an a c t i v i t y  in a  environmental  setting  in a s s o c i a t i o n with c e r t a i n  p e o p l e , thus  factors ties,  affecting all  environmental  three  components of an e x p e r i e n c e  s e t t i n g and s o c i a l  settings)  sessed in order to determine a r e g i o n ' s specific  have to be a s capacity  are and what experiences they expect  determines what a c t i v i t y , use; t h e r e f o r e ,  carrying capacity  or e n v i r o n m e n t a l , or s o c i a l  the s p e c i f i c v a r i a b l e s  depend, to a l a r g e e x t e n t ,  under c o n s i d e r a t i o n and i t s  The f o r e g o i n g t h e o r e t i c a l framework  carrying  (activi-  f o r any  experience;  who the t o u r i s t s  limits  particular  of t h i s  thesis.  t i o n t h a t the c a p a c i t y  largely factor  used to  calculate  upon the market  type  unique resource demands.  and p r a c t i c a l  considerations underlie  The key t h e o r e t i c a l  of an area  point i s the  i s dependent upon the  the  recogni-  interrela-  t i o n s h i p between the supply of e x p e r i e n c e s an area can provide and the use l i m i t a t i o n s experiences. limiting 1.  d e f i n e d by each market segment demanding these  The experience concept i m p l i e s t h a t three types  factors  suitability  of  need to be c o n s i d e r e d : characteristics  of an area  for d i f f e r e n t  types  of  activities. 2.  factors  a f f e c t i n g the amount of n a t u r a l ,  h i s t o r i c and  resource d e g r a d a t i o n a c c e p t a b l e to the u s e r s , and  cultural  - 13 3.  factors  determining the  pairment t o l e r a t e d  by t h e  Because of the d i f f e r e n t were n e c e s s a r y involved  area  determine  procedure  o f l i m i t a t i o n s two s e p a r a t e  the  The  resource  One  procedures  procedure  c o r r i d o r which are  characteristics  can s u p p o r t ; h e n c e ,  i n v e s t i g a t i n g the  completely  resource  of a  the  particular  second  characteristics  r e m a i n i n g a r e a s t o d e t e r m i n e e a c h a r e a ' s maximum a c c e p t a b l e f o r each e x p e r i e n c e .  C h a p t e r Two e x p l a i n s t h e  estimate  carrying capacities  Ideally,  social  possible  experiences  nately, the  there  are  Yukon R i v e r  stage  to  goals  realistic  development  Corridor.  of  procedure  feasibility  of  carrying  i d e n t i f y which capacity  for the  Therefore,  there  that  a screening that  are  used t a k e s  use  used  of the  estimates.  Yukon T e r r i t o r y  it  was e s s e n t i a l  number o f e x p e r i e n c e s w h i c h m e r i t  experiences  those experiences The  require  procedure  of  the level  to  detail.  and p r e f e r e n c e s  number, because  of t o u r i s t  in  no s u c h g o a l s  reduce the  im-  a p a r t i c u l a r t y p e and e l i m i n a t i n g them f r o m  how much use i t  involved  and i n t e r p e r s o n a l  carrying capacities.  f o r any use o f  consideration.  social  users.  types  to analyse  of  i d e n t i f y i n g areas w i t h i n  unsuitable further  level  are  let at  irrelevant  i n t o account  to the all  the  an  of  opportunities.  a  thousands the  eliminating Corridor.  that  These  for  early  led to  Yukon R i v e r factors  alone  study to  This  p r o c e d u r e w h i c h was c a p a b l e  supplying different  Unfortu-  h u n d r e d s , p o s s i b l y even  an a r e a m i g h t s u p p l y .  numerous  affect  the  - 14 f a c t o r s were i d e n t i f i e d from a r e v i e w o f t h e One)  In  and a r e  described in Chapter  c o n c l u s i o n , the a n a l y t i c a l  sis:  a screening stage to  the next  stage,  carrying  capacity  suitability suitable  for  analysis  analysis  framework  for different  Appendix  i n v o l v e d two s t a g e s  of  analy-  i d e n t i f y t h e e x p e r i e n c e s t o be s t u d i e d carrying capacity involved the  to eliminate those  use l e v e l  (see  Two.  analysis.  f o l l o w i n g two  procedures:  analysis  to  s p e c i f i c areas of the c o r r i d o r could  experiences.  in  Furthermore,  p o r t i o n s of the c o r r i d o r  p a r t i c u l a r e x p e r i e n c e s , and u s e l e v e l  mine t h e a c t u a l port  the actual  literature  un-  detersup-  - 15 CHAPTER TWO:  2.0  ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK  INTRODUCTION The purpose of t h i s f o r the a n a l y t i c a l  chapter  i s t o d e s c r i b e and present the  framework  based on both t h e o r e t i c a l  used i n t h i s  and p r a c t i c a l  study.  rationale  The r a t i o n a l e  considerations.  Because  the c o m p l e x i t y a s s o c i a t e d with t o u r i s m and c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y cepts much of t h i s  chapter  s i d e r a t i o n s ; the a n a l y t i c a l  is  con-  i s devoted t o e x p l a i n i n g t h e o r e t i c a l framework  is  of  con-  presented i n the f i n a l  sec-  tion.  As e x p l a i n e d i n Chapter One the o v e r r i d i n g t h e o r e t i c a l t h a t the a n a l y t i c a l  framework adhere t o accepted t h e o r y ;  s i t a t e d an e x t e n s i v e and the t h e o r i e s  concern this  study of the c u r r e n t t o u r i s m a n a l y s i s  and assumptions u n d e r l y i n g them.  is neces-  methods  Theoretical  i s s u e s and concepts were i n v e s t i g a t e d at the f o l l o w i n g two l e v e l s detail: gional  the system l e v e l , which covers a l l tourism p o t e n t i a l s ;  and the subcomponent l e v e l  t r a t e s on the f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g literature tify  regional  theoretical  works developed as a r e s u l t  issues.  of t h i s  procedures used i n the  These two conceptual the v a r i a b l e s  carrying capacities.  The two conceptual  The iden-  frame-  review are the b a s i s f o r  the  study.  frameworks a r e :  and r e l a t i o n s h i p s  re-  which c o n c e n -  review d e s c r i b e d i n Appendix One was undertaken t o  the p e r t i n e n t  analytical  components a f f e c t i n g  of  a general  c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of  responsible for regional  tourism  - 16 -  potentials  and a s p e c i f i c c o n c e p t u a l  interactions alizations the  affecting  are  C h a p t e r One  Figure  carrying capacity. conceptual capacity  frameworks,  concept.  conceptual  1-1),  as a r e  This chapter  This chapter  PART ONE:  this  is  this  detailed carrying  conceptual  for the  A preliminary  described  factors  rationale  investigating all  capacity  the  factors  that  study conform t o the  The s e c o n d p u r p o s e f o r  i s to develop a general  conceptual  review  of the  factors  affecting tourism  tem,  has  of  context  studying framework  potential  i n A p p e n d i x One f o r  (see  F i g u r e Al-1  t h e ways t h e y Second,  interact  and a f f e c t  accurately  fac-  examples);  one a n o t h e r a r e all  extreme-  these  fac-  e x p l a i n s and p r e d i c t s t o u r i s m p o -  E x i s t i n g models o n l y c o v e r  having t y p i c a l l y  an e n o r m o u s number o f  no c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n i n t e g r a t e s  i n t o a model t h a t  tentials.  it  analysis.  involved  tors  carrying  affect  larger  tors  complex.  both  t h e c o n c e p t s and m e t h o d s  First,  ly  for  FRAMEWORK  two d i s c o n c e r t i n g f a c t s .  moreover,  affecting  because o f t h i s  revealed are  in  parts.  assessments.  level  screening  lengthy,  i s to ensure that  of tourism potential  is  in  TOURISM POTENTIAL CONCEPTS  purpose f o r  tourism potentials  some o f t h e  provides the  RATIONALE FOR GENERAL CONCEPTUAL The p r i m a r y  c o n s t r u c t s were found framework  and  Both c o n c e p t u -  and c o m p l e t e s t h e e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e  been d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e  2.1  no s a t i s f a c t o r y  The g e n e r a l  (see  o f t h e components  resource carrying c a p a c i t i e s .  original,  literature.  framework  f o c u s e d on t h e  certain following  elements aspects:  of the  sys-  -  - 17 -  flows of people f l o w s o f goods and s e r v i c e s f l o w s o f c a p i t a l and e x p e n d i t u r e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of r e g i o n consumer b e h a v i o u r i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements ( i . e . the o r g a n i z a t i o n , a u t h o r i t y and p o l i c i e s o f p r i v a t e c o m p a n i e s , g o v e r n m e n t c i e s and e n t r e p r e n e u r s i n v o l v e d i n t o u r i s m ) .  Even c o l l e c t i v e l y it  is  images ideas in the  t h e s e m o d e l s do n o t  l i k e t r y i n g to of  its  arm, eye,  from a wide gaps.  tourism,  picture foot  variety  of  The p r i n c i p a l  psychology,  s o u r c e management,  The o b j e c t i v e  l o o k s and b e h a v e s  and s t o m a c h .  Hence,  fields  literature  review  identify  cal  p o r t i o n of the  and why c e r t a i n proaches their the  factors  tourism potentials. review  basis  scale  i n f l u e n c e d the  included:  recreation, re-  an  under-  e f f e c t i n g tourism po-  Consequently,  the  destinations.  Only the  were i n v e s t i g a t e d . framework  are  reviewed  significant  The l i t e r a t u r e elaborated  travel  The c u r r e n t  were a l s o factors  that  theoreti-  f o c u s e d on two i s s u e s , why p e o p l e  examined.  conceptual  fill  key c o m p o n e n t s and r e l a t i o n s h i p  a r e a s become t o u r i s t  conceptual  help  was t o d e v e l o p  used t o a n a l y z e t o u r i s m p o t e n t i a l  regional  tion.  the  from  and p l a n n i n g .  tentials  regional  reviewed  thus,  unsynthesized  s o c i o l o g y , commerce and m a r k e t i n g ,  complete system of  determine  picture,  how an a n i m a l  standing of the and t o  the whole  f i e l d s were s o u g h t t o  geography,  of the  give  agen-  findings  in the  next  ap-  and at which sec-  - 18 -  2.1.1  Relevant  Literature  The i m p o r t a n t Table  2-1.  f i n d i n g s from the academic  This  section explains these  ing the t h e o r e t i c a l current  analytical  ings are are  approaches.  l i s t e d i n Table  publications  is  Cannel  1976).  is  This  role  Yet  the absence  of theory  recreation  unaware t h e y  p e r f o r m s an  important  F i e l d and B u r d g e understood,  plausible social  and t o u r i s m p l a n n i n g i s  1 9 7 6 ; Mac-  furthermore, and  psychological  o n g o i n g , based  1976).  So f a r  psychological  Therefore,  needs,  in  fre-  travel  these studies  needs, motivations  c a n be c o n c l u d e d i s t h a t  complex.  are  assumption i s that  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  that  and s a t i s f a c t i o n s a r e  The u s u a l  i s m o t i v a t e d by t h e d e s i r e t o s a t i s f y  1975, J u b e n v i l l e  All  it  imperfectly  h a v e made.  have not c l a r i f i e d t h e satifactions.  they  theoretical  on a h e r o i c a s s u m p t i o n w h i c h p l a n n e r s  n e e d s and i t  (Verberg  (Cheek,  as t o t r a v e l ' s  functions.  needs  find-  same o r d e r as  often considered a luxury pastime  role  fulfills  the  2-1.  and p s y c h o l o g i c a l  quently  i n the  in  as e x a m i n -  The c o n c e p t s and t h e o r e t i c a l  unanimously conclude that  disagree  f i n d i n g s as w e l l  following text  social  theorists  are contained  c o n c e p t s and a s s u m p t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g many o f  discussed in the  Although travel  literature  and  motivations  o v e r s i m p l i f y i n g assump-  t i o n s a b o u t t h e m , s u c h a s t h o s e c u r r e n t l y made by t o u r i s m p l a n n e r s , are  suspect,  accuracies  a l t h o u g h not enough i s  and  known t o e v e n a n t i c i p a t e t h e  biases.  D u r i n g one h o l i d a y a t o u r i s t may p a r t i c i p a t e ties,  in-  i n hundreds of  r a n g i n g , f o r example, from barbecuing a f r e s h l y  caught  activifish  to  - 19 (see  T a b l e 2-1 Synopsis of Relevant L i t e r a t u r e F i n d i n g s A p p e n d i x One f o r numerous p u b l i c a t i o n s r e l a t e d t o e a c h  Subject  Area o f  Causes f o r people travel 1ing  general  Causes f o r certain regional areas d e v e l o p i n g as t o u r i s t areas  Investigation motivations  the t h i n g s people from t r a v e l  seek  macro p a t t e r n s - destination attractiveness - market f o r c e s - t o u r i s t flows  Theories/Empirical  finding) Findings  hypothesized: people t o s a t i s f y needs  travel  e x p e r i e n c e s - these are d e r i v e d from c o m b i n a t i o n o f : - activity participation - environmental s e t t i n g - social interactions a t t r a c t i v e n e s s - a m e n i t i e s draw p e o p l e , t h e i m p o r t a n t draws a r e : n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s and man-made r e s o u r c e s Market f o r c e - p s y c h o l o g i c a l needs push p e o p l e f r o m home t o d i s t a n t areas. Understanding market c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s emphasized. Flow c o n s t r a i n t s - t h e s e i m pede f l o w s , key ones a r e c o s t , i n s t i t u t i o n s , time  individual decision making behaviour  numerous i n d i v i d u a l i t e m s found to e f f e c t d e c i s i o n s (eg p e r c e p t i o n , & i n f o r m a t i o n ) socio-economic c o r r e l a t i o n s travel patterns correlate with t o u r i s t s ' e d u c a t i o n , age, i n come, e t c . decision model-destination c h o i c e e x p l a i n e d on b a s i s o f 3 i n t e r - a c t i n g components, g o a l s , antecedent c o n d i t i o n s and i n t e r v e n i n g f a c t o r s .  - 20 -  gambling in a c a s i n o .  Clearly,  supply of a c t i v i t i e s .  What t h e n  potential  and a c t i v i t i e s ?  interested specific  A p p e n d i x Two, experience,  Studies  (Meyersohn  activity  the  results  setting with  Individual  particular  experiences  rather  than  part  involved are:  the  social  is  the term experience  is  by  are in  As e x p l a i n e d  o f w h a t makes surrounding In  i n an a c t i v i t y  the  tourism  participating  interactions.  an  envir-  short,  in a  in  an  ex-  particular  people.  gained from p a r t i c i p a t i n g experience.  outdoor recreation  context  Yukon R i v e r  experience.  u s e d t o mean o v e r a l l  t e r m u s e , when u s e d i n t h e  i n an a c t i v i t y  com-  F o r e x a m p l e , two weeks  c a m p i n g , f i s h i n g and h i k i n g a l o n g t h e  c o m b i n e i n t o an o v e r a l l  affected  most p e o p l e  1978).  only  from p a r t i c i p a t i n g  p r o v i d e an o v e r a l l  canoeing,  have found t h a t  participation  and t h e  is  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  1969, Roberts  other elements  onment and a m e n i t i e s ,  bine to  i s the  i n o b t a i n i n g an e x p e r i e n c e  activities  perience  tourism potential  would  Hereinafter  experiences.  of t o u r i s t  of  Also,  u s e , means t h e  the  same  as  experience.  Clawson  (1963)  identified  tion experience:  (1)  (4)  and  travel  back,  five  anticipation, (5)  is  the  services  (2)  recreation;  a l s o made up o f t h e s e  The t o u r i s t  phases  recollection.  ered a s p e c i a l i z e d form of ience  distinct  i n d u s t r y cannot and f a c i l i t i e s  five  o f an o v e r a l l  travel Tourist  therefore,  (3)  on-site,  travel  is  consid-  a tourist's  exper-  phases.  produce e x p e r i e n c e s , tourists  to,  recrea-  use.  it  just  Progressive  provides  tourism  - 21 -  planners, ence t h e  however, setting  (Gunn 1 9 7 9 ) . ning,  the  services  he has  five  is  experience  all  phases,  anticipated  services  Recalling  rather  times  that  includes  create  can  than  is  on  a tourist the  entire  as  the  uses  while  experience range  of  f r o m t h e moment a t r i p  when he o r she  recalls  plan-  individual  defined  a tourist  influ-  experiences  used i n t o u r i s m  and f a c i l i t i e s  u s e d by t h e t o u r i s t the  is  A t o u r i s m product  a tourism product  until  and f a c i l i t i e s which  context  on t o u r i s m p r o d u c t s  an e x p e r i e n c e .  and f a c i l i t i e s  is  this  services  of circumstances  and f a c i l i t i e s .  combination of or  aware t h a t  and s e t  If  focus  are  the  is  trip  she covers  services first after  it  over.  Both t o u r i s t  experiences  potential  assessment;  tentials.  Experience  supply  of  what t h e  Since t o u r i s t  the  is  one o f t h e  the  describe  the  resources  the  is  not  influences  factors  they  is  usually  po-  determining  the  must  and p u b l i c are  is  supply.  service  most u s e f u l  in  studies.  with  the  and f a c i l i t y  the  focus  tourism  supply,  tourism potential.  o f t o u r i s m come f r o m s e l l i n g  tourism industry  of t o u r i s m  an e x p e r i e n c e  resources  synonymous  effecting  of  because  industry  service  during a tourism  aspects  b e s t means  s u c h as c o s t - b e n e f i t  industry  benefits  analysed  different  i n c o m e and c o s t s  tourism potential  dustry;  ties,  is  are  c o n s u m e r w a n t s and t h e  with  economic a n a l y s e s ,  economic  reveals  analysis  products  goods a s s o c i a t e d  only  each  and demand f o r t o u r i s t  ultimately  Note t h a t  and p r o d u c t s  services  in-  which  Because and  of t o u r i s m  the  facilipotential  - 22 studies  and d e v e l o p m e n t  this  study  - it  would only  fulness  for  reasons:  assess  economic  studies  mic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . as c o n s e r v a t i o n  - its  This  related  Various  factors  travel  the  services  literature  are  because  not the o n l y  patterns,  tional,  national tourist's  studies  choices  to a l t e r n a t i v e specific  chooses  of travel  flows  halls,  main  a particular  and  not a l l  of  etc.)  national  a r e a s become t o u r i s t at  and a t  patterns  on t h e  that  of  cost,  micro-level  destination.  the  and  of direc-  proximity  studies  by w h i c h  A p p e n d i x One  in d e t a i l ; only the  indi-  Macro-  basis  effect  of  interna-  the micro-level  or f a c t o r s  des-  the macro-level  modes and d e s t i n a t i o n s .  contrast  in-  etc.  s u c h as d i s t a n c e , In  if  sewer s y s t e m ,  f o r or the d e c i s i o n process  t h e m a c r o and m i c r o l i t e r a t u r e  such  from non-  relationships within  areas;  opportunities. factors  econo-  services  p r o v i d e most  two l e v e l s :  attractiveness  t i o n and s i z e o f t o u r i s t  individual  s u p p l i e r of  primarily explain tourist  destination  to  benefits  information bureaus,  and s p a c i a l  and r e g i o n a l  use-  often the  the e f f e c t s  q u e s t i o n why c e r t a i n  flows  other  for  development;  roads, a i r p o r t ,  s u c h as p a r k s ,  the  results  analysis  o p p o r t u n i t i e s are  of government  (i.e.  i s wrong  ignored;  has been a d d r e s s e d a t  tourist  on t h e  serious  p r o m o t i o n s , museums, c o n c e r t  tinations  either  is  levels  infrastructure  and key  level  is  p r e d i c t i o n s c o u l d be w r o n g b e c a u s e  dustry.  vidual  l i m i t i n g the  c h o s e n as a r e s o u r c e  - the tourism industry  In  values,  s u c h as c o s t - b e n e f i t  and l i f e s t y l e  tourism is  industry  the  Such a narrow a p p r o a c h  several  in future  reasons  plans.  focus  an  reviews  theoretical  - 23 -  points c r i t i c a l ly  discussed  to understanding the conceptual  is  hold t o u r i s t s . drawn t o an a r e a  their  this  The d e f i n i t i o n because  features  (eg.  brief-  (eg.  cultures,  products  both f e a t u r e s  are  to attract  (Gearing,  needs d r i v e  S w a r t and V a r  a l t h o u g h most t o u r i s m the  attractiveness  scenery,  people  surveyed  from  1976). planners, More-  and s k i  both hills)  unique  s u c h as E s k i m o c a r v i n g s ) .  usually  theory  t o d e p e n d upon  festivals,  and are  theory.  good f i s h i n g ,  historic sites,  people  An a l t e r n a t i v e  consider attractiveness  and man-made f e a t u r e s  quently,  attributes.  accept  climate,  and s p e c i a l  o f an a r e a  psychological  site  or unknowingly,  tourism planners  natural  of i t s  contending that  ability  i m p l i c i t y assumes t h a t  p r e m i s e has been p r o v e n  knowingly over,  d e f i n e d as t h e  homes t o a t o u r i s t  Neither  are  below.  Attractiveness  refutes  framework  Conse-  in preplanning  inven-  tories.  Tourist  flow  studies  typically  conceptualize the C 0 N S T R A I N T S  p r o b l e m as  follows:  -  They as  emphasize flow c o n s t r a i n t s  secondary.  and r e l a t i n g areas  These  -  24  and t r e a t  studies, therefore,  constraint  factors  s u c h as  s u p p l y and demand are  useful  cost,  for  time,  factors  identifying  competitive  and i n s t i t u t i o n s .  Analysis  of  institutional  constraints  tourism planning since these people's  vacation  time,  are  s t i m u l a t e more t o u r i s m . agency mandates governments example,  less  is  fixed;  Institutions  unlike cost they  important  laws,  of the  Tourism  t o s t i m u l a t e economic g r o w t h ; other  to  various For  Department's objectives  such  e c o n o m i c s t a b i l i t y , j o b d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n and e n h a n c e m e n t  of  recreation  only  ventures  o p p o r t u n i t i e s are  unconsidered.  compatible with t h i s  subsidized,  choice of t r a v e l  destination.  mulation choice, choice. factors are  anticipation travel  the  are  p r o m o t e d and p l a n n e d .  have been i d e n t i f i e d t h a t  ing:  As a r e s u l t  as  resident  s i n g l e minded economic o b j e c t i v e  Numerous f a c t o r s  i n g the  of  policies,  can l i m i t t o u r i s m .  Government  for  and l e n g t h  can be a l t e r e d  i n c l u d e the  structure  in t o u r i s m ; a l l  t h e Yukon T e r r i t o r i a l  objective  particularly  constraints  and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  involved  is  Research  p h a s e has  r e l a t i o n s h i p b e tw een of mental  and t h e  maps, the  influence  of  influential  factors  individual's at  play  e x p l o r e d many a v e n u e s  personality  social  g r o u p s on an i n d i v i d u a l ' s  of  has c o n c e n t r a t e d factors  other travel  dur-  includ-  and d e s t i n a t i o n , t h e  and e f f e c t s  number o f  during the  on t h e  the  nature  A l t h o u g h most r e s e a r c h a substantial  effect  have been phases.  perception  on  for-  on travel  anticipation  identified  that  - 25 -  In view of the number of v a r i a b l e s tourist will  i n v o l v e d , p r e d i c t i n g where a  d e c i d e t o go i s an extremely d i f f i c u l t  been attempted using t h r e e d i f f e r e n t duces the number of f a c t o r s  approaches.  task.  It  has  One approach  re-  by some r a t i o n a l e t o a few supposedly  key ones, which are then used t o make p r e d i c t i o n s . the Bovy-Baud and Lawson method (1977),  An example  is  a p o p u l a r European t o u r i s m  p l a n n i n g approach t h a t s t r e s s e s the image of a r e a s .  An image d e -  pends upon p e r c e p t i o n s , t h e r e f o r e , t h i s method emphasizes p e r c e p t i o n s t o the e x c l u s i o n of o t h e r  factors.  Another approach uses s u r r o g a t e socio-economic i n d i c e s i n p l a c e of the a c t u a l tion,  factors  (Burton 1971).  I n d i c e s such as age, s e x , e d u c a -  income, o c c u p a t i o n , and f a m i l y or m a r i t a l  s t a t u s are known to  c o r r e l a t e with the type of t o u r i s t s who use s p e c i f i c f a c i l i t i e s as n a t i o n a l grounds.  p a r k s , l u x u r y c r u i s e s h i p s or r e c r e a t i o n  However,  v e h i c l e camp-  user p r o f i l e s are unknown f o r many of the  t i e s contained within  a region.  Therefore, i f  this  such  facili-  approach i s  f o r a r e g i o n , numerous assumptions have t o be made about  used  tourist  characteristics.  The f i n a l  approach i s to t i e  all  the f a c t o r s t o g e t h e r i n t o a model  of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . the  recreation  cause o f i t s  model  ( D r i v e r and Tocher 1970) i s  t h i s model.  behaviour;  tionists, tourists.  Figure  The model was developed t o e x p l a i n  but i t  can be a p p l i e d t o a subset of  A c c o r d i n g t o the model a t o u r i s t ' s  study  best b e -  s i m p l i c i t y and use of the e x p e r i e n c e c o n c e p t .  2-1 i l l u s t r a t e s reationists'  utility  For the purpose of t h i s  rec-  recrea-  c h o i c e of  F i g u r e 2-1:-  D r i v e r and T o c h e r ' s (1970) Model o f the R e c r e a t i o n D e c i s i o n Process  Antecedents  (a)  Satisfaction  D e c i s i o n Process  C o n d i t i o n s and Behavioural  '  Personal Benefits  ( a f t e r J u b e n v i l l e 1976)  Directions  I f  (feedback)  h> antecedent c o n d i t i o n s CM  Personal  "7 V a r i a b l e s  Components of the M o t i v a t i o n - U t i l i t y Motivational  r  Intervening  Motivators  Environmental stimuli Physiological drives Heredity Prior learning Maturity (stability) Cognitive style  —  —  ->  -intervening conditions —  L- ->  Conditions encountered in pursuit of the goal which contribute to learning and induce changes in the behaviour of the recreationist  goal  object—  L  Attractiveness before pursuit was started and value (utility) or approached  Observable Responses  Selectivity of performance (including routes of pursuit), substitutability of goals and/or persistence and vigour of behaviour until goal is reached. (b)  The Model o f D e c i s i o n P r o c e s s - R e c r e a t i o n Behaviour  (from D r i v e r and Tocher 1970)  - 27 travel  experience  d e p e n d s on t h r e e  i n t e r v e n i n g c o n d i t i o n s and g o a l conditions minants,  are  considered to  as t h e y  the  s o u r c e o f and d e c i d e t h e  tions  reveals  tors.  This  haviour that  is  the  2-1  stimuli)  a result  goal  of  object  them t o  and demand  integration  is  different  (ie.  it  d e f i n e d as t h e  recreation  tion that  travel  undertaken to s a t i s f y  earlier model  this  is  quate  it  for this there  tentials.  be-  Finally,  note  individual  is  As p o i n t e d  i n which case the  assumpout entire  was  stated  study. is  Design no e x i s t i n g c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n was  Moreover,  it  does,  apparent  however,  and some s p e c i f i c v a r i a b l e s  for  is  from the  no s i n g l e u n i f y i n g t h e o r y t h a t  The l i t e r a t u r e  principles work;  f o r Study  outset  review,  iples  a s s u m p t i o n c o u l d be e r r o n e o u s  tourist  b a s e d on t h e  needs.  fac-  incorrect.  Implications At the  is  the  (ie.  drives)  implies that  u t i l i t y model  of  condi-  supply  experience the  Thus, the  deter-  antecedent  b o t h s u p p l y and demand f o r c e s .  is  antecedent  strength(s)  physiological  significant,  conditions,  behaviour  be a m i x t u r e o f  seeking.  is  Of t h e s e ,  be t h e most i m p o r t a n t  Examination of the  in Figure  antecedent  objectives.  need(s) to t r a v e l .  environmental  2.1.2  are  elements:  and v a r i a b l e s instance,  from the  identify  the  criteria  were d e r i v e d  of the  literature.  framework's  part  of the  framework's  Theoretical  the  some g e n e r a l  princ-  phenomenon. conceptual  These frame-  c o m p o n e n t s were  c r i t e r i a were used  unknown c o m p o n e n t s and l i n k a g e s ;  from general  literature  explains tourism po-  provide  were used t o d e v e l o p  several  directly  for  ade-  taken to  these  p r i n c i p l e s accepted w i t h i n  the  - 28 literature. conceptual .  They  framework; these  Use a h o l i s t i c A systems  criteria  are  rationale as  for  follows.  approach i s  attempts  t o deal  r e q u i r e d because  with the  it  i s the  S u c h an a p p r o a c h possible.  variables  is  needed t o e n s u r e  An a l t e r n a t i v e ,  the  frequently  i n which d e c i s i o n makers  are  m a k e r s want i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t e f f e c t s levels  or other economic, s o c i a l  The v a r i a b l e s tive  indicators  evident for  that  arrive is  causal  projecting  new j o b s at  are  d e c i s i o n makers  accurate it  m a k e r s want f r o m  Therefore, projections is it.  easy  are  are  are  interested.  of  different  accurate is  concerned about.  It  the  descripis  demand, are s u c h as t h e  Once t h e  self  useful number  must be u s e d  information  use  conditions. the  variables  to  pollution  than  potential.  to derive  as  Decision  on e m p l o y m e n t ,  indicators  causal  underlying  used a p p r o a c h  s u c h as m a r k e t  p o t e n t i a l s whereas  not.  established  variables,  results  and e n v i r o n m e n t a l  causing a potential  only  complexity.  B a s e t h e f r a m e w o r k ' s c o m p o n e n t s and l i n k a g e s on t h e f o r c e s and f a c t o r s w h i c h c a u s e t o u r i s m p o t e n t i a l s .  as  the  approach.  analysis  method t h a t  .  provide the t h e o r e t i c a l  to  potential  decision  of  - 29 -  .  F o c u s t o u r i s m p o t e n t i a l a s s e s s m e n t s on e x p e r i e n c e s and p r o d u c t s ; express resource p o t e n t i a l s i n terms of e x p e r i e n c e o p p o r t u n i t i e s and s e r v i c e / f a c i l i t y p o t e n t i a l s i n t e r m s o f p r o d u c t o p p o r t u n i ties. Experiences  and p r o d u c t s a r e t h e  s o u r c e s and t o u r i s m s e r v i c e s fore they  .  and f a c i l i t i e s  A n a l y z e b o t h s u p p l y and demand f a c t o r s tentials.  and p e r s o n a l  for tourism  respectively;  characteristics  C o n s t r a i n t s can  to determine  rethere-  resource  d e p e n d upon t o u r i s t s , b o t h r e s o u r c e affect  Include c o n s t r a i n t s , e s p e c i a l l y work. reduce t o u r i s t  mates p r o j e c t e d s o l e l y  Because the  units  s h o u l d be u s e d .  Tourism p o t e n t i a l s  .  natural  conceptual  tourist's  institutional  attributes  destination  ones,  choices.  in the  numbers s i g n i f i c a n t l y f r o m  frameesti-  by s u p p l y and demand.  framework  is  b a s e d upon p a r t i a l  theories  u n c o n n e c t e d p i e c e s , a s s u m p t i o n s had t o be made a b o u t how t h e ent  pieces  link together  po-  i n t o an o v e r a l l  ceptual  framework  i s , therefore,  retical  model; i t  contains  system.  This  n o t b a s e d on a w e l l  s i g n i f i c a n t assumptions.  differ-  study's  accepted  and  contheo-  -  Two key a s s u m p t i o n s assumption  relates  underlie to the  30  the  -  conceptual  linkages  considered  between  ply  and demand a r e  for  generating  for  s u p p l y and demand comes f r o m t h e  a region's  Thus, the  is  adopted  by t h i s  fy  personnel  the  framework,  This  namely,  as  is  Sup-  responsible  conceptualization  u t i l i t y model  (RUM);  RUM's a n t e c e d e n t  recreation  travel  first  and d e m a n d .  and j o i n t l y  recreation  same f a c t o r s  The  utility  undertaken  to  con-  model satis-  needs.  relates  and p r i v a t e  enterprise.  and c h a n n e l  the  type of  use.  In  businesses  tion  as  Although t h i s  standing of the  as  forces  institutions  that  constrain  by s u p p l y and demand i n t o a  other words,  never  assigned to  generate  it  is  assumed t h a t  func-  factors.  system  study  par-  agencies  t o u r i s m p o t e n t i a l , they  f o c u s e d on s u p p l y and demand f a c t o r s ,  entire  needed t o d e s i g n the  role  viewed  generated  constraining  study  to the  Both are  potential  and p r i v a t e solely  interconnected  a s s u m p t i o n made by t h e  The s e c o n d a s s u m p t i o n  ticular  supply  tourism potential.  s u p p l y and demand d e s c r i b e ditions.  framework.  responsible  and i n t e r p r e t  an  under-  for tourism potentials the  results.  By  was  relating  - 31 -  supply and demand quality concerns to the overall issue of tourism p o t e n t i a l , the study was designed so i t s results would be useful for other analyses; problems of too narrow a focus, incorrect study orientation and results not giving the information subsequent analyses required were avoided.  S i m i l a r i l y , the study's results  could only be used for evaluating tourism potential when they were interpreted in relation to a l l the determinants of tourism potential and t h e i r significance within t h i s context.  Therefore, the overall  conceptual framework should be kept in mind as the carrying capacity concept is discussed in the next section.  PART TWO: 2.2  CARRYING CAPACITY CONCEPTS  INTRODUCTION Carrying capacity analysis is a useful approach for estimating supply and demand q u a l i t y , the primary task of t h i s study.  This sec-  tion describes the concept, how i t is used, and the conceptual approach on which the analytical framework is based.  2.2.1 Overview of the Carrying Capacity Concept Carrying capacity is a concept which relates resource use to the a b i l i t y of a resource to sustain that use without undergoing an unacceptable amount of degradation.  B a s i c a l l y , the concept contends  that resource use is limited by the amount of degradation the r e source can t o l e r a t e .  The concept is only concerned with continual  types of use such as an annual f i s h e r y , in contrast to one shot exp l o i t a t i o n s which consume the entire resource (eg. f i s h ) at one  - 32 time. level  Carrying capacity a resource  standard,  has  h i s t o r i c a l l y meant t h e maximum u s e  can s u s t a i n w i t h o u t  o r amount o f  resource  e x c e e d i n g t h e minimum q u a l i t y  destruction permitted.  e x p r e s s e d as a number o r amount p e r a r e a example, t o u r i s t per  season  The c o n c e p t  (or  carrying  capacity  day, month, y e a r ,  o r i g i n a t e d i n the  is  per u n i t  the  It  is  of t i m e .  number o f  For  people  per  etc.).  fields  of  range  and w i l d l i f e  manage-  ment and was d e f i n e d as t h e maximum number o f a n i m a l s  a given  tat  The  c o u l d s u p p o r t on a c o n t i n u a l  implication level  of  within  of t h i s  biological  productivity,  related  basis  concept to the  (Wagar 1 9 6 4 ) . is  that  lands  habi-  management  have a  natural  r a t e of biomass p r o d u c t i o n ,  w h i c h use must be c o n t r o l l e d .  Economists  also  a  stock  resource  have a c o n c e p t and i t s  of a product of  constant  cases  product  where t h e  grizzly However,  bears if  difference quality  of amenity  biological by p e r s o n a l  depends  (Fisher  capacity  a renewable  but  they  resource  instead  think  and K r u t i l l a  a non-consumptive  p a i n t i n g , camping) quality  resources  productivity preferences.  recreation  quality  is  landscape its  resource  depends  stock  such  involves  relationship. Amenity  upon much more t h a n  is  terms In  as diverge.  use  then there  of  (ie. a  resources.  The  s u b s t a n t u a l l y more t h a n j u s t For  resources  and t o u r i s m , t h e r e f o r e ,  resource  upon a m e n i t y  in  (1972).  t h e two c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s do not  product  because  for  maximum s u s t a i n e d y i e l d  is  or c a t t l e  the  scenic tours,  to  area  instance, are  it  obviously  tourism carrying  simple b i o l o g i c a l  is  effected important  capacity  characteristics.  a  - 33 -  In  fact,  three  different  ing capacity: gical tors  factors  biophysical  affect  characteristics,  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and management acts  like a link  a resource's  Several  actions.  links,  Each o f t h e s e  d e f i n e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y by s e v e r a l  The f o c u s h e r e i n psychological levels  is  on t h e  however,  may h a v e  capacity  by b i o p h y s i c a l  Biophysical  prevent  golfing,  features  and  limit  o r by m a k i n g a r e a s s e n s i t i v e  and t h u s o n l y a b l e t o h a n d l e a c e r t a i n being destroyed. area's  Socio-psychological  number o f p e o p l e characteristics  s u i t a b i l i t y and maximum u s e l e v e l s . tolerance  onment,  lack  of such t h i n g s a s :  soci-  use  as f o l l o w s :  of comfort, and, d e c l i n i n g  standard.  used h e r e i n a f t e r  basis without For b r e v i t y  set  or use  without  also affect limits for  an  peo-  envir-  attractiveness.  used i n t h i s  t h e maximum number o f t o u r i s t s t h a t  p o r t on a c o n t i n u a l quality  They  to  c r o w d i n g , changes t o the  The d e f i n i t i o n o f t o u r i s m c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y  is  the  by m a k i n g a r e a s u n s u i t a b l e f o r u s e , as f o r e x a m p l e b o g s  steep c l i f f s  ple's  the  factors.  l i m i t a t i o n s set  characteristics.  fac-  l i n k determines  same minimum s t r e n g t h , i n w h i c h c a s e t h e t o u r i s m c a r r y i n g is  carry-  user or s o c i o - p s y c h o l o -  i n a c h a i n ; the weakest  tourism carrying capacity.  tourism  thesis  a r e s o u r c e can  b e i n g d e g r a d e d b e l o w an  purposes, the term c a r r y i n g  t o mean t o u r i s m c a r r y i n g  capacity.  is sup-  acceptable capacity  - 34 -  2.2.2  O p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g the Concept - Approaches f o r C a l c u l a t i n g  Carrying  Capacity From t h e  foregoing discussion i t  follows that  the  functional  t i o n s h i p t o use f o r c a l c u l a t i n g c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t i e s Carrying Capacity Put  = f(1imiting  in words, carrying capacity  which l i m i t use.  To c a l c u l a t e  one n e e d s t o know t h e n a t u r e factors; factors  both are are:  of the  biophysical  and management  lowest  value of a l l  values  previous  section.  t h e use l e v e l s  set  o f an a r e a  by t h e  factors  therefore,  f u n c t i o n and o f t h e  The f u n c t i o n i s  t o know f o r w h i c h e x p e r i e n c e ( s ) This  are a f u n c t i o n of the  limiting The  conditions, socio-psychological  actions.  carrying capacity  simply:  factors)  carrying capacity  i d e n t i f i e d in the  istics  fore the  values  is  rela-  limiting character-  simply to take  the  limiting factors.  Be-  c a n be c a l c u l a t e d one a l s o  the c a l c u l a t i o n s  requires another type of i n f o r m a t i o n :  s h o u l d be m a d e .  society's  area which s p e c i f y the type of experience(s)  the  has  area  goals  for  the  is to  pro-  vide.  Unfortunately ience,  an a r e a  known i s the  society's  goals  f o r the type of use, or t o u r i s t  should provide are  the a r e a ' s  history,  p o l i c i e s and r u l e s  Frenkel  1975).  general  goal-related  often undefined.  present  u s e d by i t s  Moveover,  Pfister  use,  relevant  What i s  information is  inadequate  use i n d e v e l o p i n g s p e c i f i c management  goals.  usually  legislation  p r e s e n t management and F r e n k e l  exper-  (1975)  (Pfister state  and  that  e v e n as a b a s i s Specific  and  goals  such to  re-  - 35 q u i r e d e c i s i o n s and v a l u e j u d g e m e n t s provide, social  and t h e s e  with  taining  objectives  society's  If  all  r e q u i r e much more p r e c i s e  preferences  ficulty  t h a n what i s  o p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g the  the  carrying  capacity  the  quality  perience area the  standards  resource  of  greatest  concept  correctly  dif-  is  ob-  express  theory, for  for  area  standards  therefore,  for  estimat-  carry-  be m a d e ;  biophysical, socio-psychological are  determined  number o f  f o r each  people  ex-  per u n i t  of  time;  the  for  carrying  capacity  of  accurate  carrying  existing  f a c i l i t i e s ; the d a i l y  to these  standards  area  are  unsuitable  eliminated; an e x p e r i e n c e a r e  one w h i c h  carrying  people per u n i t  related  and p o r t i o n s o f t h e  experiences  area's  procedure  i d e n t i f i e d f o r which  characteristics  f o r the  quality  comes t h e  are  characteristics  remaining area,  numbers  about  straightforward:  and e x p r e s s e d as t h e  for different  In  capacity  known t h e  calculations will  per u n i t  analysed  the  is  s p e c i f i c experiences  and management  Fourth,  Thus, the  use t h a t  information is  ing capacity  Third,  carrying  f o r the type of  requisite  i n g an a r e a ' s  Second,  available.  information  to  wishes.  the  First,  a b o u t what e x p e r i e n c e t y p e  i s the  capacity  capacity area  estimates  for that  analysis  per u n i t are  capacity  lowest  related  to  use l e v e l  the be-  experience.  can  provide  of t i m e .  t h o s e made f o r  precise  The most single,  o f a campground h a s ,  for  - 36 instance, been calculated with relative success by numerous analysts (Verberg and Rees 1974).  Accuracy decreases  substantially  when the exercise is attempted for areas having several t o u r i s t use or for future developments.  types of  Because of this  carrying  capacity calculations are rarely done for regional tourism potential assessments.  The reasons i t is d i f f i c u l t to calculate  carrying  o capacities for regions and for future developments merit elaboration. Determining precise carrying capacity values for a region is impossible.  There are never goals defining the type of t o u r i s t  experience(s)  every tourism area in the region should provide.  Furthermore, information is usually lacking on use level for some of the opportunities.  Therefore, analysts determined to  quantify a region's carrying capacity either goals and use level  limitations  values needed, or (2)  (1)  formulate the  resort to general  medium, low) capability ratings (Pfister and Frenkel 1975).  (high, Neither  approach is very s a t i s f a c t o r y ; the f i r s t approach is extremely tedious and frought with so many assumptions i t s results  are  questionable, while the second is so general i t s results are virtually  useless.  As a result carrying capacity is seldom  calculated for regions.  Calculating carrying capacities for potential matic.  uses is also proble-  Another variable enters the equation once the focus is on  potential  vs. existing uses:  future change.  Specifically,  change  - 37 -  in the  ability  The a b i l i t y  of d i f f e r e n t  are themselves  use l e v e l  Changes i n t h e  support  tourists.  use l e v e l  actions.  not change be j u s t  20 y e a r s  a feature  unless the  as s e n s i t i v e  f r o m now as  it  is  can s u p p o r t a r e  F o r e x a m p l e , management  disturbing i t .  be known t o c a l c u l a t e rarely  are.  be b e c a u s e t h e r e  Therefore, potential  Moreover, are  it  to a  hundred  today.  brought about  can put a b o a r d  f u t u r e management  d i f f i c u l t to  by  walk bog  actions  carrying capacities. is  to  features  a b o g , thus a l l o w i n g hundreds of people t o c r o s s the  without  they  will  a l t e r e d ; a bog w i l l  people s l o s h i n g through i t  across  to  o f b i o p h y s i c a l , and s o c i o - p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n d i t i o n s  support a p a r t i c u l a r  management  characteristics  need  Unfortunately  p r e d i c t what t h e y  s c o r e s o f p o s s i b l e management  to  actions  for  may  most  uses.  Clearly,  the approach of q u a n t i f y i n g c a r r y i n g  able  regional  for  potential  b o d i e d by t h e c o n c e p t , tentials; ferent  they  studies.  however,  The q u a l i t y  have a p o t e n t  area every ment  are  v a l u a b l e when g o a l s  lacking.  feasible goals.  effect  on t o u r i s m p o -  use,  Thus, a  dif-  Approach  s u g g e s t e d a way t o c o n s i d e r q u a l i t y  c a l c u l a t i n g a region's actual especially  unsuit-  needed.  2 . 2 . 3 O p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g the Concept - the Stankey (1974)  is  c o n s i d e r a t i o n em-  s h o u l d be a d d r e s s e d by t o u r i s m s t u d i e s .  approach i s  Stankey  capacities  It  involves  carrying capacity.  factors  without  His approach  s p e c i f y i n g the type of  use f o r  is an  c a l c u l a t i n g the c a r r y i n g capacity  instead of j u s t  the use(s)  s p e c i f i e d by  for  manage-  - 38 -  S t a n k e y ' s approach estimates vidual  uses,  hence,  its  region could support use.  Since regions  carrying  capacity  values  tials  actual  Actually,  are  useful  less  useful  carrying  capacity  results  capacity  values  density  quality  characteristics.  useful  for  developing  rather  than the  These q u a l i t y  values  the  rying capacity  calculations  each  of  facility  of  characteristics a  development  evaluate t h e i r  (1974)  properly approach  presented, is  can  partic-  environmental are  it  designed to  all  character-  pros  and  o f use  background i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i r e d is  of  themselves  D e c i s i o n makers can examine t h e  Thus,  The S t a n k e y  were  associated with  and u s e them t o h e l p d e c i d e w h e r e and w h a t t y p e s  tool.  they  poten-  area.  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each e x p e r i e n c e ,  if  carrying  tourism  w o u l d be i f  should  for  c a n be a provide  caruse-  such a  tool.  The S t a n k e y lists  the  "tool"  quality  is  simply a table  levels  a  Stankey's  o f how c o n d i t i o n s w o u l d be i f  o f u s e and l e v e l  be d e v e l o p e d .  ful  actual  for evaluating  For example, degree  change,  cons,  a region's  indi-  particular  a mixture of uses,  values  f o r an  for  number o f t o u r i s t s  d e v o t e d t o one  however,  t o p o l i c y makers.  u s e was d e v e l o p e d .  istics  are  capacities  the  characteristics  be u s e d t o c r e a t e a s c e n a r i o ular  contain give  i s the q u a l i t y  Stankey's carrying that  was e n t i r e l y  p o l i c i e s and g o a l s  it  carrying  represent  do n o t  are  Stankey's  management  it  invariably  Thus, they  available.  estimates  if  capacity. than  regional  s i m i l a r to Table  o f key c a r r y i n g  capacity  2-2  factors  which for  dif-  - 39 -  Quality Level of Key Factors  Experience  Family Canoe trip on Yukon River  T a b l e 2-2?:  Factor 1 Density of Use  Factor 2 Environmental Change Tolerated  range low (less moderate (less than than 3 groups/ 10 signs of man per day) to moderate day) (3 to 10 groups -- expect to see roads, per day) bridges, abandoned - generally want homes, flattened some privacy at campsites, etc. campsite, but while canoeing satisfied seeing more people  Factor 3 Level of Managerial Investment in Facilities low (20 people per campground) -only need to provide rustic campsites  Example of the carrying capacity information provided by Stankey's Approach. The example is for illustration purposes only, it does not represent real conditions.  - 40 ferent  experiences.  interests tified,  The key f a c t o r s  of d e c i s i o n makers.  for  instance,  limitations,  they  environmental  are  The f o u r f a c t o r s  are  density  of  use,  ties.  Although Stankey  and l e v e l does  f o r each e x p e r i e n c e  use l i m i t s  The f i n a l ards  bases  his q u a l i t y (Hendee,  sently  effect  cause the  factor  carrying  of  of  interventions.  fore  gives  when and i f  the  are  d e t e r m i n e d by  standards  are  capacity  Having the  conditions  Stankey's table  is  1.  a general  provides  ciated with  useful  that  irrespective  values.  levels  developed.  complete  facilifactors  of  key  Stankey  o f campground  and  The  the  quality  of whether  reason  range of  predict  standthey  for this of  standards  carrying  is  prebe-  managethere-  capacities  change.  t o p o l i c y makers  for three  d e s c r i p t i o n o f what t h e  each e x p e r i e n c e  image o f what an a r e a  in  1971).  T a b l e 2-2 i s given  vs.  environmental  research.  on s t u d i e s  G a l e and C a t t o n  i n f o r m a t i o n needed t o  future  social  investment  The q u a l i t y  iden-  management  c o n d i t i o n s l i m i t i n g use may c h a n g e as a r e s u l t  ment  It  degree  the  (1974)  not c o n s i d e r them, b i o p h y s i c a l  p o i n t t o note about  o f e v e r y key  weight  of managerial  c o u l d a l s o be i n c l u d e d i n t h e t a b l e .  park  relative  components o f e x p e r i e n c e ,  users t o l e r a t e ,  primarily  Stankey  e m p h a s i z e s o c i o - p s y c h o l o g i c a l and  change  factors  defined according to  are.  This  w o u l d be l i k e  if  is  reasons:  conditions  useful  for  a particular  asso-  creating use  is  an  - 41  2.  It  c a n be u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e a r e g i o n ' s  individual analysed 3.  It  -  uses.  To do t h i s  region's  p o s s i b l e management  l i m i t i n g conditions allows  k i n d s o f management use l e v e l s  actions that  o r , more g e n e r a l l y ,  be  table.  actions.  analysts  to  Knowing  identify  w o u l d most e f f e c t i v e l y  alter  for  r e s o u r c e b a s e must  and u s e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h S t a n k e y ' s  can h e l p i d e n t i f y  range of  the  carrying capacity  use l e v e l s  the  the increase  i n some  desired  way.  The a p p r o a c h S t a n k e y three  suggests  purposes from the t a b l e  c o n d i t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s are standards  carrying capacity  Finally,  the  straightforward.  o b t a i n e d by s i m p l y r e a d i n g t h e  quality  from the t a b l e .  2 . 2 . 2 are  steps  resources)  actions.  are  Once t h e  Second, the  followed to calculate  for calculating carrying  a l s o undertaken to  standards  identify  either  and  o r by r e s e a r c h i n g t h e  which have s i m i l a r c o n d i t i o n s .  region's  actions actions  analysing  management  r e s o u r c e c o n d i t i o n s w h i c h l i m i t use a r e  T h e s e p o s s i b l e management  intuitively  a  capacities  possible  b l i s h e d a range o f a c t i o n s which c o u l d upgrade t h e s e be i d e n t i f i e d .  same  use.  ( d e f i n i n g e x p e r i e n c e s , d e t e r m i n i n g use l e v e l the  these  general  for a single  f i r s t three  is  information for First,  f o r each e x p e r i e n c e  steps o u t l i n e d in Section  f o r d e r i v i n g the  esta-  c o n d i t i o n s may  c a n be used at  developed other  areas  - 42 A problem with cities  is  it  done f o r sifying lating  Stankey's  requires  every  a tremendous  feasible  experiences  approach towards  use.  the  N o r m a l l y t h e work  capacity  or not depends  used the  (1971). related that plete  In  This  (Holbrook  summary, t h e  Moreover,  1980, R i t c h i e  Stankey  use are  objectives. carrying  objectives;  regional  carrying this  a p p r o a c h does  Obviously,  experiences  in a  Whether t h i s  is  classified.  Therefore,  to the  only  for  overall  the  case  approach.  recent  c a m p i n g and n a t u r a l  research  is  categories  More i m p o r t a n t l y ,  Such g o a l s capacity goals  are  suggest  are  d e f i n i n g the Thus, is  it  incom-  Moreover,  they  a  the main purpose of t h e  the  a kinds  its  step to goals  Stankey  however,  it  is  region's  are  k i n d s and p a t t e r n s  to define  of  t o u r i s m p o l i c y and m a n -  a prerequisite  such g o a l s ,  provides  needed t o c a l c u l a t e  accurately.  capacities  not d e r i v e  findings  park  1974, 1975).  for deciding regional  always i n c o m p l e t e .  region's  group.  calcu-  approach produces a crude assessment  capacity.  information useful  available;  are  clas-  g r o u p s and t h e n  the  c a m p i n g and p a r k e x p e r i e n c e  carrying  potential  critical  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n is  even t h e s e  agement  a  experiences  r e d u c e d by  are  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n d e v e l o p e d by Hendee G a l e and C a t t o n  experiences.  region's of  upon how t h e  all  capa-  calculations  is  f o r each  requirements.  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n method i s  Stankey  value  a s s u m p t i o n i s made t h a t  g r o u p have t h e same r e s o u r c e  the  amount o f w o r k ;  i n t o a l i m i t e d number o f  a single carrying  t o do t h i s  calculating carrying  and  never  of  future  calculating management  approach. only a tool  The de-  - 43 -  c i s i o n - m a k e r s c a n use t o h e l p them c h o o s e g o a l s . Stankey's analysis tential  does not c o n c l u s i v e l y d e t e r m i n e t h e t o u r i s m p o -  of a region's  t h e management a region's  the  is  at  once  estimates  of  Study study's  factors  and e x p e r i e n c e c a t e g o r i e s  study covers  outdoor r e c r e a t i o n  analytical  used,  however;  are d i f f e r e n t  T h e s e c h a n g e s w e r e made b e c a u s e  f i n d i n g s and b e c a u s e t h i s not j u s t  needed  capacity.  O n l y t h e c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n was  used.  is  accurate  based.  those Stankey  ences  analysis  a p p r o a c h i s t h e model on w h i c h t h i s  capacity  search  Subsequent  goals are d e f i n e d , t o a r r i v e  2 . 2 . 4 A p p r o a c h Used i n T h i s  framework  resources.  resource carrying  The S t a n k e y  Furthermore,  all  of  from  recent  tourist  re-  experi-  ones.  PART THREE: STUDY REQUIREMENTS and ANALYTICAL 2.3  The t h e o r e t i c a l tions; are  the  related  2.3.1  practical  explained here.  volved:  (see  study  FRAMEWORK  requirements  to these  Two t y p e s  of p r a c t i c a l  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s as w e l l  2.1.2)  in the  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s which a f f e c t e d  b u d g e t c o n s t r a i n t s and p r o d u c t  Section  are the  rationale  Practical  C o n s i d e r a t i o n s - Budget  As i n any  study the  and c o s t  are covered  research  c o n s t r a i n t s , these  the  previous study  design  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s are  requirements.  in-  The  criteria  as t h e t h e o r e t i c a l  criteria  f o r the a n a l y t i c a l  framework.  Constraints  had t o be c o m p l e t e d w i t h i n c e r t a i n were:  sec-  time  -  - data  c o l l e c t i o n t i m e was  - the  time allowed  - the  budget  - the  money a v a i l a b l e  for  for  -  44  l i m i t e d to  analysis  was  weeks,  one t o two m o n t h s ,  f i e l d work and d a t a for analysis  six  c o l l e c t i o n was  r o u g h l y $1000  and p r e s e n t a t i o n was a  few  hundred d o l l a r s .  As a r e s u l t sources,  2.3.2  of these  and o n l y  c o n s t r a i n t s , methods emphasized s e c o n d a r y  one month l o n g f i e l d t r i p  Practical  C o n s i d e r a t i o n s - Product  A general  commitment was made t o  useful  in subsequent  related - the  to this  results  goal  These  in with  the t i m e ,  economic impacts  two c r i t e r i a  At the  time t h i s  provide  research  require  s t u d y was made t h e  project  of t h e  Management  carrying  f o r t h e Yukon R i v e r  i n t h e Yukon  and  Westwater Research  capacity  Yukon T e r r i t o r y .  W e s t w a t e r c o u l d use t o d e r i v e systems  criteria  Westwater Research  Centre  assessments  This  as w e l l  levels analysis  was  A high  perspective for  on  the  the  provided  as a f r a m e w o r k  a broad p e r s p e c t i v e  Territory.  Centre  project.  was t o g a i n an o v e r a l l  and e n v i r o n m e n t a l  levels  two  some e x p l a n a t i o n .  of that  capacity  the  be  of t o u r i s m .  priority  systems  which would  i n economic analyses  i n a Yukon W a t e r R e s o u r c e  aquatic  results  and,  involved  perceptual  Requirements  Specifically,  p r o d u c t s h o u l d be u s e a b l e  of the  area.  were:  would t i e  was c o n d u c t i n g a t - the  studies.  to the  data  on t h e  which  aquatic  such  - 45 -  Undoubtedly economic analysis will be conducted in future to evaluate the major development proposals the Yukon River is facing.  To  properly evaluate the opportunities foregone by various proposals decision-makers need to know the potentials of alternative uses such as tourism.  Carrying capacity results provide estimates of the op-  timum visitation numbers for different types of tourism development in the Yukon River corridor.  These results can be combined with  other demand assessments to give the kind of economic evaluation of tourism potentials which decision-makers require (Perchal 1981).  2.3.3 Overview of Analytical Framework An analytical approach comprised of two sequential steps was developed on the basis of the foregoing practical and theoretical ia.  criter-  These two steps are:  - a screening step to select the experiences for which carrying capacity should be calculated, and - carrying capacity analysis to determine the resource's capacity for each experience identified by the f i r s t step.  The specific reasons for using these two steps are given in Appendix Table Al-4.  Both analyses take a holistic perspective to the pro-  blem, whether "the problem" is overall tourism potentials as in the case of screening analysis or a resource's capacity for tourism. For instance, carrying capacity analysis involves a thorough examination of biophysical, socio-psychological and management conditions  - 46 and t h e i r resource  i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; thus potentials  Both steps  are  fully  identify  considered  a l s o conform to another  emphasize e x p e r i e n c e s ; the  while  carrying capacity  factors  of the the  capacity  is  Finally,  the  consider  s u p p l y demand r e l a t i o n s h i p s as w e l l  that  useful  economic  carrying  analysis  final  of  Screening  Also  satisfies as  is  activities  screening  criteria.  the  requirement  providing  purposes  results  and  future  were d e v e l o p e d  s c r e e n i n g a n a l y s e s was a l i s t not e x p e r i e n c e s  from the  activities  s c r e e n i n g by c o m b i n i n g t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s environmental analyses  i n v o l v e d two d i f f e r e n t identify  feasible  possible a c t i v i t i e s ,  - c l a s s i f i c a t i o n to develop and s o c i a l  of  screened.  selected  through  information  about  c o n d i t i o n s and s o c i o - p s y c h o l o g i c a l  - screening to  onmental  with  were  conditions.  Thus  procedures:  activities  from the  enormous num-  and  experience types  information.  to  involves  Analysis  product of the  experiences,  Experiences  ber of  analysis  and b u d g e t  f o r Westwater Research Centre  Framework  Although the  the  they  analyses.  2.3.4 Analytical  possible  capacity  of time  criterion,  screening analysis  of e x p e r i e n c e s .  basis  affecting  ( F r e e m a n and Brown 1 9 7 4 ) .  analysis  are  j u s t i f i e d on t h e  the  key t h e o r e t i c a l  objective  possible experiences  c a l c u l a t i n g the  all  from a c t i v i t y ,  envir-  to  - 47 -  Instead of screening a l l environments f o r the rather  and s o c i a l  constraints  only  most f e a s i b i l i t y overall  e x p e r i e n c e components  conditions)  following reasons. than three  Third,  three  First,  decreases  only a c t i v i t i e s analysis  the e f f o r t  permitted analysis  o f one  were  required for  screening.  o f one d e t e r m i n a n t .  or t o environmental  and s o c i a l  by i n t e g r a t i n g d a t a a b o u t e n v i r o n m e n t a l  Time  Second,  r a t h e r than  to  conditions.  t h e e x p e r i e n c e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each a c t i v i t y  derived  screened  determinant  information pertains to a c t i v i t i e s  experiences  (activites,  c a n be  easily  and s o c i a l  condi-  tions.  Figure  2-2 o u t l i n e s t h e  actual  screening process involved t e s t i n g a large  activities  against  steps  followed in screening analysis.  feasibility criteria  A c t i v i t i e s were t e s t e d a g a i n s t first that  supply of  resources  p a r t i c u l a r set  one s e t  set  of  The  possible  f o r s u p p l y and demand. of c r i t e r i a at  and t h e n demand)  and t h o s e  a time  (ie.  f a i l i n g to  o f c r i t e r i a were e l i m i n a t e d from f u r t h e r  meet  consid-  eration.  The a c t i v i t i e s  i d e n t i f i e d by s c r e e n i n g as f e a s i b l e w e r e u s e d  develop experience types. 1980, R i t c h i e  A c c e p t e d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n methods  and s o c i a l  and s o c i a l  conditions.  with  The d a t a  c o n d i t i o n s came f r o m p u b l i c a t i o n s ,  v i e w s w i t h m a r k e t e x p e r t s , and a f i e l d t r i p t o t h e ridor.  (Hplbrook  1 9 7 5 , 1974) were used t o combine t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s  i n f o r m a t i o n about environmental environmental  to  on  inter-  Yukon R i v e r  Cor-  - 48 -  Figure 2 . 2  Analytical Framework of Screening Analysis  E  Activity  i  Pass Supply Criteria? Screening Procedure  L  NO  I  Yes  M  Pass Demand Criteria?  I  NO  N  I  A  Yes List of Feasible Activities  E  Research Environmental and Social Conditions  Classi f i c a t i o n Procedure  T  Experience ^_ Classi fication  \  L i s t of Possible Experiences  i  I  Possible Environmental I Conditions T Possible Social Conditions  -49 -  2.3.5 Analytical Framework of Carrying Capacity Analysis As explained in Section 2.2.4 the analytical framework followed Stankey's (1974) approach; a table similar to Stankey's was generated and carrying capacity values were calculated on the basis of the corridor being entirely committed to a single use.  Furthermore,  carrying capacities were not calculated for individual experiences but for experience groups.  Figure 2-3 illustrates the steps i n -  volved in the analytical framework.  Two basic assumptions underlie  this framework, they are: - every activity and associated experience within a given group has the same resource requirements, and - there is sufficient information to establish biophysical and socio-psychological quality standards and to determine the composition and distribution of the Corridor's resources.  -  STEP NUMBER AND  PURPOSE  50 -  PROCEDURE AND  I d e n t i f y s u i t a b i l i t y and use l e v e l f a c t o r s f o r each e x p e r i e n c e / special activity  EXAMPLES  Experience Types, S p e c i a l i z e d A c t i v i t i e s (defined i n screening a n a l y s i s )  BIOPHYSICAL FACTORS  SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL  - i n s t a n t a n e o u s , d a i l y and a n n u a l factors - terrain, wildlife,vegetation, season l e n g t h  Define standards f o r s u i t a b i l i t y and use l e v e l s f o r each experience  BIOPHYSICAL STANDARDS  SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL STANDARDS  number o f a n i m a l s / a r e a , depth of s o i l , p e r c e n t v e g e t a t i o n cover, e t c .  Determine s u i t a b l e a r e a s i n c o r r i d o r f o r each e x p e r i e n c e  BIOPHYSICAL  number o f p e o p l e / a r e a  SUITABILITY  SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL STANDARDS  resource inventory of c o r r i d o r compare s u i t a b i l i t y s t a n d a r d s w i t h i n v e n t o r y and e l i m i n a t e u n s u i t a b l e areas  Determine use l e v e l s o f s u i t a b l e a r e a s f o r each e x p e r i e n c e  BIOPHYSICAL USE-LEVELS  carrying experience  i n v e n t o r y of c o r r i d o r ' s a t t r a c t i v e f e a t u r e s , use p a t t e r n s compare i n v e n t o r y w i t h s t a n d a r d s and e l i m i n a t e unsuitable areas  SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL USE LEVELS  - convert b i o p h y s i c a l standards ( i . e . "X" b e a r s / h e c t a r e ) t o use l e v e l s ( i . e . " Y " h u n t e r s / hectare) - determine s i z e of s u i t a b l e area - m u l t i p l y a r e a by s t a n d a r d and season l e n g t h  Determine o v e r a l l c a p a c i t y f o r each  - determine s i z e of s u i t a b l e areas - m u l t i p l y a r e a by s t a n d a r d and season l e n g t h  COMPARE BIOPHYSICAL and SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL USE LEVELS  • BIOPHYSICAL VALUE LOWEST ?  ' SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL « VALUE LOWEST ?  Figure 2-3:  FACTORS  i n s t a n t a n e o u s d a i l y and a n n u a l f a c t o r s crowding, a e s t h e t i c s , incompatable  Steps Followed i n Carrying Capacity Analysis  - 51 CHAPTER THREE:  THE YUKON RIVER CORRIDOR:  RESOURCES, U S E S , POTENTIALS AND PROBLEMS  3.0  GENERAL SETTING From i t s  headwaters  in the  s o u t h e r n Yukon T e r r i t o r y ,  f l o w s more t h a n 3 , 6 8 0 km t h r o u g h t h e Yukon T e r r i t o r y the Bering of the  3.1  Sea.  The s e c t i o n  Yukon R i v e r ,  is  736 km ( 4 6 0 m i l e s )  long.  The l a n d b o u n d a r i e s o f t h i s  by w h a t t h e  river  u s e r can see o r hear  BIOPHYSICAL  RESOURCES drains  (Figure  in a northwesterly  Pacific (Kendrew  Within  c o r r i d o r are  and K e r r  times 1980).  in a total  greater  is  a  delineated  3-1).  d i r e c t i o n , and i n d o i n g s o Yukon T e r r i t o r y , from  the climate  1955).  both c l i m a t i c a r e a s ,  result  to  portion  p o r t i o n w h i c h has a c o n t i n e n t a l  the  Yukon R i v e r  s i m i l a r t o most " n o r t h e r n " r i v e r s : flow  and A l a s k a  a r e a w h i c h has m o d e r a t i n g m a r i n e i n f l u e n c e s  O c e a n , and a c e n t r a l  River  The s t u d y a r e a  p a s s e s t h r o u g h two m a j o r c l i m a t i c a r e a s w i t h i n t h e southwestern  Yukon  s t u d i e d , the Whitehorse-Dawson  narrow c o r r i d o r .  The Yukon R i v e r  the  great  exhibits  seasonal  summer d i s c h a r g e w h i c h i s  than the t o t a l  winter  discharge  characteristics  fluctuations  approximately  in ten  ( A l f o r d p e r s . comm.  a  -52-  FIGURE  3.1  The Yukon River Corridor  Study Area National Park  o Settlement D Abandoned settlement ighway 1• 2,500,000  - 53 -  - 54 The river channel i t s e l f is typical of a large northern r i v e r .  The  upper stretches, above Hootalingua, have l i t t l e sediment and the river is contained within meander patterns.  These S-shaped meanders  are continually s h i f t i n g , undercutting outer banks and building up inner banks.  The lower Yukon, especially below the White River con-  fluence, contains braided channels with numerous islands and bars, and a continually s h i f t i n g flow pattern over the wide flood p l a i n .  The vegetation communities adjacent to the river are predominatly typical  riparian (or r i v e r valley) associations.  The exact  composition of riparian plants changes depending upon the serial stage of the community.  In addition, non-riparian vegetation occurs  on bordering landforms which are not flood p l a i n .  There are two  different climax plant communities found in upland areas: facing slopes have a grassland climax and conifer climax.  dry, south  a l l other areas have a  Again, the exact species composition of these  communities depends upon t h e i r serial stage (Herrick 1977).  Waterfowl and raptors are numerous along the c o r r i d o r .  This area  supports many important staging areas for waterfowl as well as important raptor species such as bald eagles (Haliaeetus  leucocephalus),  ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) and peregrine falcons (Falco (Mossop pers. comm. 1979).  peregrinus)  - 55 -  The c o r r i d o r i s wildlife  reputedly  game f o u n d i n t h e  bears  (Ursus americanus),  valley  Finally,  the  Yukon R i v e r  of the t r i b u t a r i e s  i n c l u d e moose  grizzly  and t h i n h o r n s h e e p  (Ovis  has  which migrate  from the B e r i n g  one-year  residence  Sea  northern pike  sportsfish,  the  and t h e  are  the  resources.  habitat  for  salmon  The Yukon R i v e r  (Walker 1976).  the  (Coregonus  dursig-  or  acticus)  both a l s o sought  catotomus),  humpback w h i t e f i s h (Prosopium  (Thymallus  is  Other  u s e d f o r s u b s i s t e n c e and  (Catotomus  all  chum  f o r c h i n o o k salmon f r y  the A r c t i c g r a y l i n g  round w h i t e f i s h  (Canus  Almost  tshawytscha)  (Walker 1976).  widely  longnose sucker  black  wolves  spawning s i t e s  (Esox l u c i u s ) , which are  (Stenodus l e u c i c h t h y s ) , mis)  fishery  in freshwater  species which are a l l  domestic purposes i n c l u d e :  (Ursus a r c t o s ) ,  for  bearers.  (Alces a l c e s ) ,  (Oncorhynchus  a l s o suspected of being c r i t i c a l  and t h e  good h a b i t a t  nivicola).  o f t h e Yukon R i v e r  k e t a ) and c h i n o o k  ing t h e i r  bears  important  (Oncorhynchus  nificant  comm. 1 9 7 9 )  r a n g i n g f r o m u n g u l a t e s t o s m a l l mammals and f u r  Large  lupus)  (Hoefs p e r s .  as  inconnu clupeafor-  cylindraceum).  HISTORICAL RESOURCES The r i c h human h i s t o r y o f t h e numerous p u b l i c a t i o n s  Yukon R i v e r  has been d e s c r i b e d  in  ( S e r v i c e 1907, 1940; McGuire 1977; Berton  1 9 7 3 ; M o r r o w and Hume 1 9 7 9 ) .  1955,  - 56 -  The Klondike Gold Rush of 1897 - 1898 which resulted in 30,000 fortune seekers travelling down the Yukon River from Lake Bennett to Dawson in search of gold has been the single most recorded event in the history of the Yukon Territory.  Many abandoned buildings,  machinery and boats along the route from Whitehorse to Dawson are visible reminders today of this past era.  Figure 3-2 illustrates  representative historical features of the Corridor.  Friesen (1978) outlined many other less well known but s t i l l significant historic themes associated with the Yukon River.  According to the  results of a recent study (Beaudoin pers. comm. 1979), one of these, native history may be a resource of major significance.  To support  their land claims the Council of Yukon Indians conducted extensive interviews  with the older members of the Indian communities, they have  compiled a wealth of information about past settlements, fish camps and other native activities along the Yukon River.  Thus far, none of these  findings have been published.  3.3  PRESENT USES OF THE YUKON RIVER CORRIDOR  3.3.1 Hydroelectric The Yukon River is entirely free flowing except for one hydroelectric dam near Whitehorse.  This dam is relatively minor, the reservoir is  small and the flooding has mainly resulted in removal of the renowned rapids at Miles Canyon (upstream of Whitehorse) and Whitehorse. flow regime of the Yukon River downstream from the dam has been altered to a minor degree; the resulting channel depth and gravel  The  Figure 3-2  - 57 -  w. -  S p i r i t Houses at L i t t l e Salmon  Abandoned Sternwheeler at Hootalingua Islan  Figure  3-2  (continued)  - 58 -  G o l d Dredge a t  Dawson  - 59 would,  a c c o r d i n g t o an o l d s t e r n w h e e l  sternwheelers Taylor  3.3.2  pers.  more d i f f i c u l t now t h a n  tion  was  historically  (Innis-  comm. 1 9 7 9 ) .  1952, sternwheelers between  river  is  1979);  Whitehorse,  still  equipment  and f o r  tourist  traffic  River  (approximately  now.  isolated  boats  r o a d s were t h e  The L i t t l e  homesteads  connec-  communities. mining  (Burian pers.  account  The  comm.  f o r most o f  the  Salmon t o M i n t o p o r t i o n o f t h e  100 km) p a r a l l e l s  portions  and K l o n d i k e H i g h w a y s ; h e r e t h e  and a b r i d g e s p a n s t h e  only  for barging placer  and c a n o e s  i n many l o c a t i o n s , t r a f f i c  river,  haul  Dawson and i n t e r m e d i a r y  reaching  river  river  and w i n t e r  used t o a m i n o r e x t e n t  however,  Campbell  highway  sounds are  river  at  of the  Yukon  Robert  is  visible  from  the  clearly  audible  from  the  Carmacks.  Mining A coal  mine a t  Tantalus  c a n be s e e n f r o m t h e Duncan C r e e k (tributary three  3.3.4  it  by  Transportation Until  3.3.3  w o r k e r , make n a v i g a t i o n  Butte,  river.  (tributary  near Carmacks  Placer  of the  is  mining along the Klondike  Stewart River)  and L i v i n g s t o n e  o f t h e B i g S a l m o n R i v e r ) may a f f e c t  important t r i b u t a r i e s  of the  t h e o n l y one  which River, Creek  the water q u a l i t y  Yukon R i v e r  (Westwater  of  1980).  Settlements C a r m a c k s , 325 km d o w n s t r e a m f r o m W h i t e h o r s e , between  Whitehorse  and D a w s o n .  In  is  1979, eight  the  only  community  homes betw een  Minto  - 60 -  and S t e w a r d I s l a n d w e r e i n h a b i t e d  3.3.5  (personal  observation  1979).  F i s h i n g , H u n t i n g and T r a p p i n g Fish  resources  are  u s e d by t h r e e  user types:  s p o r t s f i s h e r i e s , and s u b s i s t e n c e u s e r s . C a r m a c k s , makes up t h e harvest  is  $108,000 are  bulk of the  conservatively  Salmon, taken  commercial  In  i n Lake Laberge  and M a r i n e  S e r v i c e 1978); g r a y l i n g are caught  lake trout  the  known s p e c i f i c a l l y a b o u t t h e  visitors  sports  lakes accessible  $5 m i l l i o n  Even l e s s that  whitefish  Grayling  i n the mainstream  i n Lake Laberge.  fishery  i n the  Little  and 4 , 9 7 0  from t h e A l a s k a Highway economic  is In  foreign  f i s h i n g l i c e n s e s ; however,  angler  of while  study area.  $195 p e r  and  (Fisheries  small t r i b u t a r i e s  f i s h i n g e x p e n d i t u r e s averaged  the m u l t i p l i e r for i n d i r e c t  least  species  contributes substantial  a n g l e r and $184 p e r n o n - r e s i d e n t  income g e n e r a t e d  The 1978 s a l m o n  number o f  ( i n c l u d i n g Yukon r e s i d e n t s )  The s p o r t s f i s h e r y  in 1975, d i r e c t  If  caught  p u r c h a s e d Yukon T e r r i t o r i a l  f i s h i n g occurs at 1980).  sports fishery  confluence of a l l  and n o r t h e r n p i k e a r e  1978, 9,642 Canadians  from below  (Boland 1973).  a r e t h e most i m p o r t a n t  u p p e r Yukon and a t  catch.  a d d i t i o n , a small  lake trout  the  fisheries,  e s t i m a t e d t o h a v e been w o r t h a t  (Westwater 1980).  netted commercially  commercial  most  (Westwater returns;  resident  (Fisheries  and Oceans  1978).  and i n d u c e d e f f e c t s  i s 2, then  the  by t h e T e r r i t o r y ' s  s p o r t s f i s h e r y was  approximately  i n 1975.  is  known a b o u t t h e n a t i v e  17% o f t h e  status  food f i s h e r y .  One e s t i m a t e  Indian population p a r t i c i p a t e s  in  is  subsistence  fishing timate  (Eby the  their  1977).  amount t h a t  basic  Wildlife  However,  natives  f o o d needs  was  - 61 this is rely  (Westwater  once v e r y  plentiful  thought to  on t h e  seriously  fish  resource  underes-  to  meet  1980).  i n the  Yukon R i v e r  Valley:  " B r o w n and b l a c k b e a r , c a r i b o u , m o o s e , l y n x and w o l v e r i n e s a r e numerous t h r o u g h t h i s s e c t i o n ( L a k e L i n d e m a n t o 40 M i l e ) . . . B l a c k and s i l v e r - g r e y f o x e s a r e n o t uncommon; m a r t e n a r e a b u n d a n t . " (Moore 1888 p. 497) The c a r i b o u , h o w e v e r , Fort  Selkirk  i n 1938 ( C r u i k s h a n k  moose h u n t i n g i s Dawson C i t y  (food).  In  c l o s e d between  consumers are  The e n t i r e cent  study area  of which are  p a n t s make t h e i r tary  source of  accessible  resources: subsistence  non-consumptive  d i v i d e d i n t o t r a p p i n g t e r r i t o r i e s , 75 or non-status  utilized  Indians.  regard  it  Few  uses  p o r t i o n s and some a r e  as a s u p p l e m e n -  c o n c e n t r a t e d on a n i m a l s  all.  Most  w h i c h have h i g h p e l t  low p r i c e s  are  rela-  only trapped  not used at  per-  partici-  hobby ( H o e f s 1 9 7 5 ) . Hence,  p r o p e r l y , most are  l y n x and f o x ; a n i m a l s w i t h  utilized.  for  is  viewing.  i n c o m e o r a weekend  easily  s u c h as  important  and  that  and  wildlife  fisheries  at  now  confluence  (hunting)  l i v i n g from t r a p p i n g , most  few a r e a s a r e  is  is  h e l d by s t a t u s  tively  ping e f f o r t  is  sport  for  seen  so s c a r c e  Nevertheless  same as  t r a p p i n g and g u i d i n g ) ,  s u c h as p h o t o g r a p h y and  h e r d was  the Stewart River  the  addition, wildlife  last  1 9 7 4 ) ; moose a r e  ( H o e f s p e r s . comm. 1 9 7 9 ) .  u t i l i z e d Major commercial  have d i s a p p e a r e d , t h e  in  the  trap-  prices  particularly  under-  - 62 -  H u n t i n g use o f t h e dents;  study area  is  p r i m a r i l y r e s t r i c t e d t o Yukon  resi-  n o n - r e s i d e n t s demand more p r i s t i n e , c h a l l e n g i n g h u n t i n g  t h e c o r r i d o r can o f f e r  (Hoefs p e r s .  and g r i z z l y ) h u n t i n g i s hunting occurs  relatively  upstream of the  so d e p l e t e d t h a t  participants  comm. 1 9 7 9 ) .  S p r i n g bear  than (black  common t h r o u g h o u t t h e a r e a .  Stewart R i v e r ,  but t h e  have l i m i t e d s u c c e s s  Moose  population  (Jack  is  p e r s . comm.  1980).  3.3.6  Tourism The R . C . M . P .  i n Dawson  people t r a v e l l i n g the  in a total  summer o f 1 9 7 9 .  The R . C . M . P .  feel  that  river  Connelly  (pers.  used t h e  river  (Kennedy  pers.  1974.  percent.  At the  Canada  Estimates  season  study  ( P a r k s Canada  A study  o n l y 650 p e o p l e u s e d t h e  1 9 7 4 , l e s s t h a n one h a l f t h e most c o n s e r v a t i v e 1974 and 1 9 7 9 , t h e  1979).  at  and  1978b).  u s e has i n c r e a s e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y s i n c e  N o r t h Group 1975) e s t i m a t e d t h a t  destination  2,500 people per  u s a g e i n 1978 was 1 , 3 0 0 p e o p l e  o f Renewable Resources  register-  considerable.  i n b o t h 1978 and 1979 w h i l e a P a r k s  Yukon D e p a r t m e n t  in  people a r r i v i n g  comm.  numbers v a r y  comm. 1979) e s t i m a t e d t h a t  estimated the t o t a l  River  r i v e r without  of the  1,426  Yukon R i v e r  h a v i n g Dawson as t h e i r  85 p e r c e n t  use o t h e r t h a n R . C . M . P .  reported that  used t h e  p e o p l e use t h e  or without  Dawson s t a r t e d a t W h i t e h o r s e for  p e r s . comm. 1 9 7 9 )  o f 303 p a r t i e s  However,  ing with the R.C.M.P. point.  (Kennedy  number o f v i s i t o r s t o t h e  same t i m e v i s i t o r use o f t h e  (Lombard river  1979 n u m b e r .  Yukon o n l y  in  Between  increased  Yukon R i v e r  more  11  than  - 63 doubled.  Compared t o t h e t e r r i t o r y  Yukon R i v e r  has d r a m a t i c a l l y  Most t r a v e l l e r s patterns 3-1.  Fort  Selkirk  almost visitor in the  are  of the t o t a l all  the  .  Renewable Resources  following  - the  historic sites  - the  relative  only  Table 35-65  and A u g u s t ,  i n June o r S e p t e m b e r .  Canada, the  are  author  Overseas  T a b l e 3-1 and 3-2)  and  couldn't  Yukon D e p a r t m e n t (personal  presently  access  the  trip  is  river  of  observation  attracted  to the  river  trip,  river,  travel;  the t r i p ,  and e g r e s s  less  people with  to the  by f l o a t  groups c u r r e n t l y  use t h e  traffic,  are  limited  and river  expensive than a t r i p  only accessable  river  of a r i v e r  along the  can e n j o y  easy  i n g most o f t h e  for  Peak m o n t h s a r e J u l y  and t h e  features  ease of  - the  Two m a r k e t  in  reasons:  wilderness  is  the  (Lammers p e r s . comm. 1 9 8 0 ) .  travellers  - the  experience  given  accounting  1975 a n d 1979 ( s e e  Parks  (1978b)  1979) c o n c l u d e d t h a t the  use.  river."  (1980),  of  visitation  . " u n l e s s y o u c o u l d s p e a k German y o u  on t h e  S u r v e y s by M o t h e s  for  despite  r e m a i n i n g use o c c u r s  1980 s e a s o n .  popularity  sign a r e g i s t e r ;  1975 a n d 1979 a r e  revealing  use d o u b l e d b e tw e e n  t o anyone  Selkirk  between  river  the  increased.  v i s i t i n g Fort  The p a t t e r n s  percent  talk  at  as a w h o l e ,  by r o a d , w h i c h  means  a l o n g a waterway  which  plane.  Yukon R i v e r . recreationists  The f i r s t ,  compris-  who o r g a n i z e  their  Table 3-1 Yukon River: Jan. May  J  J  1979 Sept. - T A Dec.  Origin of Travellers and Seasonal Use Pattern %  Jan. - J May  Yukon  16  79  44  44  6  167  18.0  15  Canada  7  24  102  85  20  238  25.6  United States  2  109  112 115  12  Other  0  12  15  Total  64  82  J  1978 A Sept. Dec.  ~~~%~  T  1977 %  T  1976 %  1975 T %  52 78 49  24  218  22.8  145  23.1  106  18.5  86  17.6  5  38  91 141  20  295  30.9  160  25.5  184  32.1  144  29.5  350 37.7  0  59 146 76  31  312  32.7  240  38.2  222  38.7  216  44.3  173  0  13 44 67  3  130  13.6  83  13.2  61  10.6  42  8.6  18.6  928  955  Source:  628  573  488  Fort Selkirk V i s i t o r Book, Parks and Historic Resources Branch, Whitehorse (see Appendix Table A3-] for a complete breakdown from 1967 to 1979.)  - 65 -  Table 3-2 Origin Breakdown of 'Other' Category i n Table 3--1  Germany Switzerland  1979  1977  1975  ~r~  ~r~ ~~%  65.3 10.4  45.8 12.1  38.1 0  Sweden/Finland  9.2  26.5  14.1  Other Western Europe  4.6  12.1  33.3  10.8  3.6  14.5  Norway/Denmark/  ° er t n  Table 3-.3 Yukon Territory: T Canada  1979  Origin of Travellers  1978 %  J  83,300  23.0 83,468  States  249,900  Other  28,974  Total  362,174  1977 %  1  1976 %  23.0 78,040  1  1975 %  1  %  22.6 65,653  21.4 64,885 20.4  69.0 257 , 662 71.0 215,511  71.8 229,787  7 4.9 244,27 2 7 6.8  8.0 21 ,774  16,809  5.6 11 ,351  300,154  306,792  United  362,905  6.0  Source:  Tourism Yukon 1980  3.7 8,906 318,063  2.8  - 66 own t r i p the  and use c a n o e s  organized tour  ments  or s i m i l a r  group which depends  and p r o v i d i n g a l l  motorboats  small  and c a n o e s  services  are  use  o f 746 c a n o e s ,  68 m o t o r b o a t s  The t o u r i s t from those viewed  Rafts,  1979 R . C . M . P .  and 19 r u b b e r  medium s i z e d  The  canoe  figures  rafts  arrange-  is  by  report  (Kennedy  the  pers.  as  patterns f o r the  it  YUKON TERRITORY  for the T e r r i t o r y  Yukon R i v e r ;  provides  to the  economy  (Tourism stay  visited  context  the  A substantial  d i d not  Alaska.  The o p e n i n g o f t h e A l a s k a H i g h w a y  steadily  between  reached.  The e n e r g y  over  1977 i n  level  for  Table  A3-2 f o r  tourist  crisis  declined  services  demand.  in  be b r i e f l y  re-  insights.  p o r t i o n of  1948 has Numbers  slightly.  See  been  way  to  increased was  t o u r i s m between  Tourism increased  approximately the Table  these  respons-  325,310 people  affected  1978 a n d r e m a i n e d a t  further  different  p a s s e d t h r o u g h on t h e i r  growth.  adversely  1979 ( T o u r i s m Yukon 1 9 8 0 ) .  Accommodation, the  Yukon b u t  1948 a n d 1 9 7 4 when a h i g h o f  a n d 1 9 7 7 , and v i s i t a t i o n percent  use w i l l  and t r e n d  visitors  f o r much o f t h e Y u k o n ' s  substantially  Yukon and c o n t r i b u t e d $36 m i l l i o n  Yukon 1 9 8 0 ) .  in the  are  territorial  a regional  1979, 362,174 people  with  making the  is  1979).  PRESENT TOURISM IN THE  ible  The s e c o n d  u s e d by o r g a n i z e d g r o u p s .  t h e most common mode o f t r a v e l ,  In  on o t h e r s  (Mothes 1 9 8 0 ) .  far  comm.  watercraft.  1975 21  same  3-3 and A p p e n d i x  details.  and t o u r i s t  Services  are  opportunities  severely  have n o t  l a c k i n g o u t s i d e the  kept  pace  major  - 67 communities.  Perhaps  in  tour-  ist  t h e u s e o f s e l f - c o n t a i n e d m o b i l e homes by h i g h w a y  trav-  patterns,  ellers  has  its  recognizes the development consider Yukon  of t h i s ,  i n c r e a s e d over the y e a r s  The Yukon T e r r i t o r i a l outlining  because  Government  development importance  to a system of  'other'  types  of changes  (Smale 1 9 7 8 ) .  has a t o u r i s m p l a n  strategy of  or because  for the  "rubber t i r e  highway  Yukon.  (Wolman, This  1978)  strategy  t o u r i s m " and d i r e c t s  corridors.  The s t r a t e g y  most  does  o f t o u r i s m o r c o r r i d o r s s u c h as t r a f f i c  not  on  River.  3.5  POTENTIAL USES  3.5.1  Hydroelectric The h y d r o e l e c t r i c  potential  well  1975, Westwater 1980) a n d , a d e c i s i o n t o b u i l d a  known  (Sigma  mid-Yukon h y d r o e l e c t r i c  of  various  sites  along the  dam c o u l d be made i n t h e  early  involve  d i v e r s i o n o f a p o r t i o n o f t h e Yukon R i v e r ' s  some 20 m i l e s a b o v e C a r m a c k s r e j o i n t h e Yukon R i v e r  Rapids. Nest  A 4 0 - 7 5 megawatt  Bluff  into a higher level a b o u t 20 m i l e s  (MW)  plant  and a 2 5 0 MW p l a n t ,  w o u l d be b u i l t created  The M i d - Y u k o n p r o j e c t  at  behind the  Rink  Rapids  dam."  .  .  ".  .  .  flow  would from  c h a n n e l , which  s o u t h of Carmacks at  w o u l d be c o n s t r u c t e d a t  with a potential  capacity  V-6).  would Rink  Eagles  o f 5 0 0 MW,  . A n a r r o w 64 km l a k e w o u l d  ( W e s t w a t e r 1980 p .  is  1980's  pers.  the  comm. 1 9 8 0 ) .  Yukon R i v e r  (MacPherson  then  the  be  - 68 -  3.5.2  Klondike Gold Rush I n t e r n a t i o n a l An i n t e r n a t i o n a l  Historic  Park  park commemorating the h i s t o r i c  K l o n d i k e Gold Rush i s Canada and the U.S.  phenomena of  being advocated by s e n i o r o f f i c i a l s  National  Park S e r v i c e .  The p a r k , i f  the  i n Parks created  would have f o u r main elements:  1.  the C h i l k o o t and White Pass t r a i l s Lake  2.  l e a d i n g from Skagway  to  Bennett;  the Yukon R i v e r water route l e a d i n g from Lake Bennett  to  Dawson C i t y ; 3.  the towns of Skagway,  the s t a r t i n g p o i n t of the journey  and  Dawson C i t y , the e n d p o i n t ; 4.  the K l o n d i k e g o l d f i e l d s along the K l o n d i k e R i v e r  upstream  from Dawson.  At the present t i m e , the assessment and p l a n n i n g of the Yukon R i v e r unit  i s being j o i n t l y  Resources Recreation  undertaken by the Yukon Department of  (Yukon T e r r i t o r i a l and C o n s e r v a t i o n  t e c t i o n and use g u i d e l i n e s Renewable tual calls  Government) (ARC)  Renewable  and by the Agreement  Branch, Parks Canada.  for  Interim pro-  (Parks Canada and Yukon Department of  Resources 1978) have been e s t a b l i s h e d and a d r a f t  plan has been produced ( T u r i c k  p e r s . comm. 1979).  concep-  The concept  f o r a r e c r e a t i o n c o n s e r v a t i o n c o r r i d o r t o extend from Skagway  to Dawson C i t y ,  a d i s t a n c e of over 960 km (600 m i l e s ) .  - 69 -  .3 Other Resource Uses Little is known about the potential of other resource uses for the Yukon River and can be summarized below. Transportation  - no new highways are being planned close to the Yukon River although access roads, mining roads and forestry roads could be constructed (Parks Canada and Yukon Department of Renewable Resources 1978).  Mining  - potential mining operations have been discussed for sites near Minto and Eagle Bluff (Westwater 1980).  Fish and Wildlife - the size of the salmon population is unknown, therefore, no estimation of potential is possible. - the sustained harvest of furbearers can increase substantially, especially yields from lower priced furs (Hoefs 1975). Tourism  - although much is known about the historical and natural features within the Yukon River corridor nothing is known of their overall significance to tourism or of the number and type of tourists which these resources can be expected to sustain. This thesis addresses these two issues.  - 70 3.6  TOURISM POTENTIAL FOR THE The demand p o t e n t i a l  for  NORTH n o r t h e r n t o u r i s m i n Canada  unknown; o p i n i o n s about  northern  b a s e d on t h e  shift  and d i f f e r e n t  noticeable  experiences  W h i l e a gloomy p i c t u r e 1980,  Sun News D i s p a t c h e s  inflation (except the  and t h e  decline  Alaska-Yukon)  next 5 - 1 0  in travel  prices,  and c h a n g e s  positive  envisaged  long term  other  is  fully  is  factors  hard to  in Chapter  3.7.1  E x i s t i n g and F u t u r e Use  grees  of  uses  each o t h e r  every  effect  of  other  such f a c t o r s  of the d o l l a r ,  Some o f t h e s e  the  high  The demand p o t e n t i a l  factors is  demand p o t e n t i a l .  i n s u c h as t e c h n o l o g i c a l  i n amount o f  leisure  time.  over  as  gasoline are associOver  inventions,  A g a i n , the  Demand p o t e n t i a l s  are  previous  have v a r y i n g  com-  e x a m i n e d more  Conflicts  o u t l i n e d in the  compatibility.  have v a r i a b l e  costs,  Four.  RESOURCE PLANNING PROBLEM  resource  predict  enter  predict.  3.7  The  net  comm.  i n a d d i t i o n , so much u n c e r t a i n t y  hard t o  p o p u l a t i o n a g i n g and c h a n g e s bined e f f e c t  destination.  remote  and Ash 1 9 7 5 ) .  virtually  marketing, devaluation  and some n e g a t i v e ,  towards  (Lammers p e r s .  i n 1979 v i s i t a t i o n a t  upon t h e  is  s p i r a l l i n g energy  in d i s p o s a b l e income.  it  preference  by o t h e r s  practically  Optimism  1975, Turner  1 9 8 1 ) who c i t e  long-haul  tastes,  a t e d w i t h each t h a t  in t o u r i s t s '  (Miechzhowski  y e a r s depends  changes  the  is  prospects vary.  is  resource  and t o o t h e r  Furthermore,  sections  t o u r i s m developments  demands, c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e i r resource  uses  also d i f f e r .  de-  themselves  compatibility One s t u d y  of  to  - 71 tourism c o n f l i c t s with C o o k e 1975 c i t e d  i n Small  o f t o u r i s m use which high density  other  consumptive consumptive  consumptive  (cultural  consumptive  (nature  have i n t h e The m a t r i x  is  Resource  if  in Figure  Allocation  some o f  state  of the  categories are:  (1)  resorts),  (2)  high density  non-  low d e n s i t y  non-  (4)  few u s e c o n f l i c t s  potential  resources  and Eedy  now,  are  it  Phillips  may  developed.  t h e c o m p a t i b i l i t y between  of Depape,  sections.  and C o o k e  the  The  (1975  cited  (1978).  Yukon R i v e r  Pressure  issue  is  resources.  Before i t  C o r r i d o r cannot  i s mounting f o r major  project  as w e l l  as  campsites  for  decision-makers  expected  developments  small,  localized comm.  decisions  involve  Yukon R i v e r ' s  limited  issues.  how t o b e s t is  be  (Karpes pers.  The i m p e n d i n g d e v e l o p m e n t  allocation  The c e n t r a l  scheme,  its  s u c h as g o l d r u s h s t y l e  resource  and  and  Problem  and h o m e s t e a d s .  typical  casinos),  (3)  uses d e s c r i b e d i n p r e v i o u s  s u c h as t h e m i d - Y u k o n power  1979)  fishing),  3-3 i l l u s t r a t e s  t o p e r s i s t much l o n g e r .  developments  separate  c o m p a t i b i l i t i e s , these  C o r r i d o r has  b a s e d on t h e work  The u n d e v e l o p e d  Phillips  photography).  i n S m a l e 1 9 7 9 ) and S c h i e f e r  3.7.2  (Depape,  or other outdoor sports  centers,  e x i s t i n g and p o t e n t i a l matrix  (ski  uses  i d e n t i f i e d four  (hunting,  Yukon R i v e r future  1979)  have d i f f e r e n t  low d e n s i t y  Although the  resource  u t i l i z e the  p o s s i b l e to develop need v a r i o u s  types  the  best  allocation  of i n f o r m a t i o n , such  as:  - 72 -  -O i f rt<<  T VI T  0.3  *? ^  2 (ft r* *<  3 » rt-  X  X  "  »  Subs-1 stence F1sh<sry  II  dps ei? o o -•• — o —' ^ E. C 3 IO «0 5  Trapi  is  TJ *< rt-  o  Sporl Hunt;  —- o o  o sr -i to rt Wt  = 2. £  a  X  *  X  »  X  »  *  X  X  #  »  X  X  *  X  X  X  X  S  rt ft O 73  2  X  -v)  X  X  X  Hydro Power Non Consumptive Tourism-low density  x  Non Consumptive Tourism-h1gh density  X  »  X  2  X .  X  X  4  »  Consumptive Tourism-low density Consumptive Tourism-high density  X  Klondike Int. Gold Rush Park X  »  »  *  •>>  X  X  Subsistence Hunting Sports Hunting  Trapping  Subsistence Fishery Sports  Fishery  Commerc"»1 Fishery Dispersed Homestead  Placer Mining  (Subsurface Mining Large River Boat Transportation  - 73 -  (1)  society's  growth v s .  g o a l s and p r e f e r e n c e s  environmental  o p t i o n s and t h e  preservation),  potential  relevant  to  of t o u r i s m developments  3.7.3  Tourism P o t e n t i a l  (2),  in the  study  its  corridor's the  river's  the  or  the  This  is  (ie.  range o f  (3)  chosen.  since l i t t l e  economic viable  opportunities  study  provides  known o f t h e  viability  area.  Problem  The u n i q u e s p a t i a l , and t e m p o r a l affects  (2)  o f each o p t i o n ,  f o r e g o n e when a p a r t i c u l a r o p t i o n i s information  f o r the c o r r i d o r  tourism potential.  characteristics The k e y s p a t i a l  736 km l e n g t h and w i d t h  of the  study  features  include  r a n g e o f 1/10 and 1/16 km;  w i d t h r a n g e o f 100 t o 2500 m; and t h e c u r r e n t ' s  w h i c h a v e r a g e s 3 t o 7 k n o t s but can range between  area  the  speed  0 and 10 k n o t s .  The s h o r t s e a s o n i s t h e o v e r r i d i n g t i m e c o n s t r a i n t ; m i d - J u n e t o end o f S e p t e m b e r  i s the b o a t i n g season w i t h the  mid-June t o September  1st.  developments, the turnover of  These  factors  affect  rate of t r a v e l l e r s  the  best time the  the  being  physical  and t h e a n n u a l  size  of  number  travellers.  The s i t u a t i o n a l  factors  l i s t e d a b o v e h a v e a b e a r i n g on t h e m i x o f  activities  and e x p e r i e n c e s  Additional  factors  a l s o l i m i t the  activities  Yukon R i v e r  s u c h as l i k e l y d e m a n d , and r e s o u r c e  range of p o s s i b l e a c t i v i t i e s  Chapter Four these feasible  p o s s i b l e in the  l i m i t a t i o n s are and e x p e r i e n c e s  Corridor. capability  and e x p e r i e n c e s .  d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r and a l i s t for the  study area  is  In of  developed.  - 74 -  CHAPTER FOUR:  4.0  SCREENING METHODS and RESULTS  INTRODUCTION The p u r p o s e o f s c r e e n i n g i s  to select  from out o f the whole  c o n c e i v a b l e t o u r i s t experiences those which are Yukon R i v e r  Corridor.  range  possible in  As C h a p t e r Two e x p l a i n e d a c t i v i t i e s  of  the and  not  e x p e r i e n c e s w e r e s c r e e n e d ; e x p e r i e n c e s w e r e d e v e l o p e d by c o m b i n i n g the a c t i v i t i e s tion  selected through the  about environmental  u t i l i z e d two d i f f e r e n t  and s o c i a l  types  informa-  conditions.  analysis  Thus, the  of methods:  - screening procedures to i d e n t i f y merous p o s s i b l e a c t i v i t i e s ,  screening process with  suitable activities  from the  and  - c l a s s i f i c a t i o n procedures to develop the experience types ated with these  4.1  associ-  activities.  The methods and r e s u l t s following  nu-  o f t h e s e two p r o c e d u r e s a r e  presented  in  the  sections.  OVERVIEW OF METHODS The s c r e e n i n g p r o c e d u r e was c o m p r i s e d o f two s c r e e n i n g l e v e l s ,  a  preliminary  iden-  tified ing. bility  level  and a d e t a i l e d  the a c t i v i t i e s Detailed criteria  level.  t o be u s e d i n t h e  Preliminary  subsequent d e t a i l e d  screening involved testing a c t i v i t i e s for  s u p p l y and d e m a n d .  The i d e a l  fying experience types  i s t o use m u l t i v a r i a t e  tivities,  and s o c i a l  environments  screening  against  feasi-  method f o r  analysis  classi-  to relate  c o n d i t i o n s t o each o t h e r  1 9 7 5 b , H o i b r o o k 1 9 8 0 ) ; t h i s was n o t done b e c a u s e  screen-  ac-  (Ritchie  o f b u d g e t and  data  -  constraints. several  classification.  As e x p l a i n e d  and  in Chapters  the  product  -  supply,  of three  for  induced.  To do  similar activites,  were a n a l y s e d ; t h e y  Thus, the  preliminary  -  c l a s s i f i c t i o n was  characteristics  method a r e  ly  the  existing classifications  and s o c i a l the  Instead,  75  experience  environments  form the  types  this  basis  p r o d u c e d by  for  this  hypothetical.  One and Two t o u r i s m p o t e n t i a l interacting  is  essential-  factors:  - demand, - institutions  (broadly public  Thus,  the  effects  feasibility analysis of  of  knowledge  out  evaluation  i n g any  activities.  tional  constraints  clusions and t h e  drawn realted  i n the  was  from the  that  screening  they  analysis.  useful  services  analysis  is  what t h e  and  conditions  But, it  are  and  resulted in  the  of  discussed  the  general  not  institu-  general  con-  conclusions  in Section 4 . 5 .  and f a c i l i t i e s , was a l s o  because,  such  eliminatwere  assessment  lack  in  considerations  reaffirmed  the  screening  found u n c e r t a i n t y  r e s u l t s ; these  ones  private  were i n e f f e c t i v e  because  screening  supply,  was  institutional  institutional  A subcomponent o f cluded  Hence,  screening  it  This  institutional  criteria  include  be c o n s i d e r e d t o d e t e r m i n e  activities.  future  general  here t o  structures).  must  to do; however,  about  i n the  sector  three  of d i f f e r e n t  set  included  all  defined  as C h a p t e r One  not  in-  explained  - 76 -  present services and f a c i l i t i e s were not considered to be a limitation to the area's potential, and because the type and capacity of future f a c i l i t i e s will depend, to a large extent, upon demand.  Therefore, the following factors were used to identify  activities  which have a tourism potential: - the resource's suitability for the activity; - the presence of features that attract tourists; - the existence of a market demand for the activity under the conditions provided by the area. During the detailed screening each activity was tested in the foregoing sequence against each of these factors.  Once an activity was  rejected by one factor it was eliminated from further consideration. The f i r s t two factors are related to supply, their rationale is discussed in Section 4.3, while the rationale for the last factor, which is demand related, is presented in Section 4.4.  The screening process identified 61 possible activities; the number of experiences associated with all these activities was s t i l l far too many for carrying capacity calculation purposes.  As a result,  activities were grouped into categories according to the benefits they provide tourists.  To the tourist, benefits from activity par-  ticipation are inseparable from experience benefits.  Hence, the ac-  tivity categories from various experience classifications were used  - 77 to  group a c t i v i t i e s .  t i m e as t h e a c t i v i t i e s  Experience  t y p e s were a l s o d e r i v e d at  were b e i n g g r o u p e d .  Thus, a c t i v i t y  and e x p e r i e n c e t y p e f o r m u l a t i o n was an i t e r a t i v e w e r e i n i t i a l l y a s s i g n e d t o g r o u p s and t h e i r and s o c i a l  conditions i d e n t i f i e d , with  t i v i t i e s w e r e moved f r o m one c a t e g o r y social  c o n d i t i o n s were r e f i n e d .  m e t h o d w h i c h was u s e d t o d e r i v e section of t h i s  process;  general  the  same  grouping activities  environmental  subsequent a n a l y s i s  some  ac-  t o a n o t h e r and e n v i r o n m e n t a l /  More s p e c i f i c experiences  is  i n f o r m a t i o n about given  in the  the  final  chapter.  PRELIMINARY SCREENING METHODS AND RESULTS The i n i t i a l review  list  of possible a c t i v i t i e s  o f p u b l i c a t i o n s and a f i e l d t r i p t o t h e  publications  used were t h e o r e t i c a l  tourism studies of other accounted f o r the 4-1;  was i d e n t i f i e d t h r o u g h a  this  table  regions.  papers,  screening i d e n t i f i e d .  The  principle  Yukon t o u r i s m s t u d i e s  The s p e c i f i c p u b l i c a t i o n s  s e l e c t i o n o f each a c t i v i t y  also l i s t s the  area.  101 a c t i v i t i e s  are  l i s t e d in  which the  and  which  Table  preliminary  -  78  -  Table 4-1 Range of Possible Tourist A c t i v i t i e s Number A I  Activity RESOURCE BASED Water Uses day-use canoeing slow/flat water fast/white water natural area developed area  5,6,7,8  canoe-tripping same categories as l i s t e d above  9,10,11,12  rafting-day-use same categories as l i s t e d above  13, 14,15,16  r a f t tripping same categories as l i s t e d above  Source Canada Land Inventory 1969 (CLI) CLI Chubb and Bauman 1976 (C&B) C&B CLI and C&B Resource Analysis 1976 (RA) RA  17 18  kayaking slow/flat water fast/white water  19 20  sa i 1 i ng day cruising  TORPS T0RPS  21 22 23  day-use motor boating waterskiing small c r a f t power boating  C&B C&B C&B  24 25  motor boat tripping small c r a f t (sleeping onshore) CLI cruising (sleeping onboard) RA  26 27 28  swimming and beach swimming skin and SCUBA diving sunbathing  C&B C&B CLI  fishing game f i s h - bank fishing - boat fishing coarse f i s h - same 2 categories l i s t e d above  C&B C&B Gorman, Height, Mullin and Walsh 1977 (ISCID)  29 30 31,32  Ontario Recreation SUSDIV Inventory Task Force 1975 (T0RPS)  -  79  -  Table 4-1 (continued) 33 34  Activity winter ice fishing ice skating  II  Land Uses  35 36 37  hunting-wetland-waterfowl -upland-big game -small game  CLI CLI Tourism and Outdoor Reereation Study 1977  38  trapping  Baker 1973 (B)  Number  Source RA RA  undeveloped trails-day use 39 40 41 42 43 44,45,46,47,48  49  hiking and walking cross-country skiing dog sledding snowmobiling snowshoeing t r a i l tripping same 5 categories as l i s t e d above camping  55 56  p r i s t i n e , no f a c i l i t i e s viewing vegetation landforms geologic features w i l d l i f e and f i s h waterfalls/hydraulic features h i s t o r i c sites archeologic features  57  miscellaneous c o l l e c t i n g and gathering  50 51 52 53 54  59 60 61  FACILITY AND SERVICE BASED accomodation camping primitive-picnic tables and pit toilets f u l l service lodges cottages  62 63  motel hotel  B 58  CLI CLI B TORPS CLI  C&B RA RA RA RA RA RA RA CLI  TORPS TORPS B.C. Research T977 Beaubier and Pierce 1974 (B&P) B.C. B.C.  - 80 -  Table 4-1 (continued) Number 64 65 66 67 68 69 70,71,72,73,74,75  76 77 78 79 80  81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92  Activity developed t r a i l s horseback riding recreation vehicles biking-motor -cycle cross-country skiing snowmobiling  Source CLI CLI TORPS TORPS TORPS TORPS  t r a i l tripping same 6 categories as l i s t e d above cultural and t r a d i t i o n a l events festivals, fairs TORPS displays of local handicraft Wolman 1978 (W) salmon f i s h i n g , native foods, smoking salmon W art g a l l e r i e s , museums ISCID shows of native dances, a r t and l i t e r a t u r e W educational events workshops, s k i l l improvement (eg. c r a f t s , job s k i l l s ) special courses (eg. Outward Bound) conferences built f a c i l i t y activities vacation camps conventions sports competions sports/health complexesswimming pools, bowling a l l e y s , spas gambling entertainment-theatres, movies, cabarets dining out shopping for personal goods and services shopping f o r s p e c i a l i t y items, handicrafts etc.  ISCID ISCID ISCID TORPS TORPS W ISCID ISCID ISCID Baud-Bovy and Lawson 1977 (B&B) B&B  guided tours/interpretation 93 94 95  natural history historic/archaeologic cultural/ethnic  Herrick 1977 Clarke 1978 W  - 81 -  Table 4-1 (continued) Number 96  ' Actiyity technical developments-rdams, industrial plants  97 98 99 TOO 101  'Source  miscellaneous gold panning picnicing downhill skiing tobogganing pleasure car driving  B&B W CLI CLI CLI C&B  - 82 4.3  SCREENING METHOD FOR RESOURCE FACTORS Resources, as defined in Chapter One, comprise the biophysical and man-made features which provide tourists with opportunities.  The  conceptual framework presented in Chapter Two established the two resource factors, suitability and attractiveness, which the screening analysis used.  These factors were considered independently in  the analysis; different standards were set for each andthe activities were tested separately against the two sets of standards.  4.3.1 Method for Assessing the Resource's Suitability for an Activity Basically, the process involved the comparison of the Corridor's resource characteristics with the resource requirements of each activity.  Thus two types of information were i n i t i a l l y inventoried:  the  resource requirements of every activity selected in the preliminary screening step, and the resource characteristics of the Corridor.  An activity's resource requirements determine which resource characteristics need to be known; therefore, each activity's resource requirements were identified before the Corridor's resources were i n vestigated.  Activity resource requirements may be defined at any  level of detail from general to very specific.  Moreover, authori-  ties commonly disagree as to which resource features are most important for some activities.  As a result, the following guiding prin-  ciples were used to select the variable which define the activity requirements:  - 83 - variables must be accepted by the majority of recreation and tourism authorities; - variables should be appropriate for features distinguishable at 1:50,000 or small map scales, and for the baseline information presently available; - specific variables are to be used only i f they are absolutely critical for a particular activity; - variables which are sensitive to the special characteristics of northern ecosystems the Yukon River Corridor exhibits should be used.  In Table 4-2 the variables which are used to determine whether the resource base is suitable for specific activities are listed as well as the corridor's resource characteristics for each of these variables.  The biophysical resource variables are generally based on  Baud-Bovy and Lawson (1977), Christiansen (1977), Jubenville (1976) and Forbatha (1967) while the man-made resource variables are based on Baud-Bovy and Lawson (1977) and Synergy West (1975).  Specific  sources which explain why a given variable was deemed applicable to a particular activity are included in Table 4-2.  Not all variables are equally important to each activity.  Also, a  factor such as the number of months of ice cover is detrimental to canoeing but a benefit to ice fishing.  Hence, for each activity the  significance of every factor has to be rated and it has to be deter-  Table 4-2 Resource S u i t a b i l i t y Variables and Resource Information Used to Screen the A c t i v i t i e s Listed in Table 4-1 Resource S u i t a b i l i t y Variables Resource Information (column 4 i d e n t i f i e s the s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s to which each variable pertains) CLIMATE Whitehorse Fort Selkirk Dawson precipitation - rain April-Nov-8days/ May-0ct.-10days/ April-0ct-8days/mo month month month - snow Sept.-May Sept.-AprilSept-May-136.4cm 127.8cm 110.2cm temperature-range -23.1 to 20.1°C -35.2 to 22.1°C -32.2 to 22.2°C n  sunshine -annual average wind TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS texture, s t a b i l i t y , thickness, permafrost  drainage, r e l i e f  attractiveness  VEGETATION cover composition attractiveness  Whitehorse -1825hrs/yr, June-271hrs, Dec.-21hrs Whitehorse -ave. speed 8mph, calm 7% in summer Dawson -ave. speed 6mph, clam 15-20% in summer s o i l texture highly variable, scattered discontinuous permafrost in climax forests throughout, generally thick a l l u v i a l / c o l l u v i a l deposits thorughout v a l l e y , slumping along 5% of banks generally good drainage but boggy areas and wet s o i l s not uncommon surrounding h i l l s generally less than 300m; cut banks up to 70m high range 11/40 to 23/40, range very high scenic value to low - highest interest values: 30 mile, 5 finger rapids, Pelly basalt generally suitable for camping, adequate cover spruce forest, grassy south facing slopes, a l l u v i a l succession species range 22/25 to 17/25; very high scenic value to low interest  Principal Source(s) of Resource Knowledge  A c t i v i t i e s from Table 4-1 to which Variables  Source(s) from which A p p l i c a b i l i t y of Variables to A c t i v i t i e s was Determined  Atmospheric Envir. Service 1971  but 62-63, 76-92,96  Baker 1973 Bennett 1977  Atmospheric Envir. Service 1971 Yorke and Kendall 1972 Yorke and Kendall 1972  Ronstad t al 1977, Personal observations e  Crowe 1976 Webber 1974 Crowe et al 1979 5-8,13-16,24,58r 63,65-67,71-73, 76,79,80,84-90  Ronstat et al 1977, 5-8,13-16,24,49Oswald and Senyk 1977, 52,54,58-76,79, Personal Observation 80,84-92,99,100  ELUC 1978 Resource Analysis Br. 1976  Way 1978  Beaubier and Pierce 1974, Lombard North Group 1975  3,4,7,8,11,12,15, 16,39-56,58-61,64, 67,68,70,73,74,93, 94,101  McKenzie-Grieves 1979  Donaldson 1971  49,53,58-61  Stanek 1979  Oswald and Senyk 1977  3,7,11,15,50,57,93  Jubenville 1976  Beaubier and Pierce 1974, Lombard North Group 1975  3,4,7,8,11,12,15, 16,39-56,58-61,64, 67,68,70,73,74,93, 94,101  EPEC 1978  Table 4-2 (continued) HYDROLOGY ice break-up and freeze up water quality and temperature hazards and flooding  bank access and quality FISHERIES e d i b i l i t y (species)  catch effort WILDLIFE viewing probability (abundance) species composition ^ (uniqueness) 00  hazard/nuisance  break-up early May to June; freeze up mid Oct.-Dec. Lake Laberge, 30 mile section clear Upper Yukon moderate s i l t , heavy s i l t below White River, entire r i v e r c o l d , some back bays of Lake Laberge up to 14 C in July currents 3-7knots/hr, most of valley is flood p l a i n , expect frequent break-up flooding i n Lower Yukon and winter flooding i n Upper Yukon beach a c t i v i t y on Lake Laberge, islands and sand bars common from Carmacks downstream River - grayling, whitefish, pike, chum and and chinook salmon Lake Laberge - lake trout, pike, grayling, whitefish i l l e g a l to catch salmon, grayling in Upper Yukon and in t r i b u t a r i e s in Lower Yukon common l i k e l y to see eagles, waterfowl, bears i n spring, and small furbearers Dall sheep (rare), furbearers (common), moose (infrequent), bears (common in spring), bald eagle (common), waterfowl (common) moose closed in Yukon River v a l l e y , bear easily shot in spring l i t t l e insect or bear problem  Fenco 1974 Herrick 1977 Weagle 1979 Donaldson 1971, Fenco 1974 Beaubier and Pierce 1974, Donaldson 1971  1-35,38-49,5861,97-100 1-33,49,58-61 , 97  Resource Anal. Branch 1976,1977 Chess 1979  1,2,5,6,9,10,13,14*. 17,18,19-27,30,32, 34,54,58-63,76,77, 79,80,84-92,96,101 5-8,13-16,20,22-29, 3'.49,58-61,84-92  Welch 1979  Hooper 1979  Walker 1976, Tourism Yukon 1976  29-33,53,78,93  Platts 1979  Donaldson 1971, Fisheries and Marine Service 1978  3,7,11,15,29-33,53, »93  Meyer 1978b, Resource Anal. Br. 1976,1977  Personal observation  Bastedo 1979  Hoefs pers.comm. 1979  3,7,11 ,15,38,53, 93,101 35-38, 53  Hoefs pers.comm.1979  35-38,78  Personal observation  1-18,24-32,35-37,39, 44,49,50-61,64,67, 70,73,93,94  78  Dept. of Indian and North. A f f . 1973 Canada Land Inventory 1969  Table 4-2 (continued) HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGIC state of repair h i s t o r i c a l value/ uniqueness  a c c e s s  . * . . ,. . private/public ownership  out of 11 s i t e s , 2 very good, 4 good, 3 poor, and 2 very poor 11 s i t e s : 1 20/20, 2 16/20, 2 12/20 6 8/20  most s i t e s only accessible by water, see Table specific locations of road or plane a<- ess land claims unsettled; most abandoned Indian villages s t i l l owned by Indians eg. L i t t l e Salmon, 5 - 4  f o r  Upper LaBerge, Big Salmon  00  C  Synergy West 1976, Lisoway 1973 Synergy West 1976, Friesen 1978, Parks Canada, Yukon Dept. of Renewable Resources 1978 Personal observation, Synergy West 1976 George 1979, Beaudin 1979  55,56,77-80,94,95, 101 4,8,12,16,55,56,7780,94,95,101  55-57,77-80,94,95, 101  Baud-Bovy and Lawson 1977 Synergy West 1976  - 87 mined whether  each  is a benefit  o f Chubb and B a u m a n ' s ( 1 9 7 6 ) detrimental rived  values.  of the  the m a t r i x of weighted  ties  literature.  activities  provide certain resources  to attract  attractiveness o f two t y p e s activities features  tourists  for different  of  features:  s u c h as  capability  is  hence,  of  for camping.  attractiveness  a l s o has t o activities  activi-  to  activities be  to  Tourists  to  support  of  needed  for  s u c h as assess  all  the  features  Unfortunately  no s i n g l e m e t h o d c o u l d i d e n t i f y  eral  associated with a l l  can  the A  d e p e n d s upon t h e  features  Therefore,  need t o  weightings  be c o n s i d e r e d .  and a e s t h e t i c  features  ability  g o l d p a n n i n g , and g e n e r a l  for different  the  knowing the C o r r i d o r  not e n o u g h , the  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h most a c t i v i t i e s ,  surroundings  de-  contains  only those  resources  However,  specific  gold for  were  t o s u i t a b i l i t y were e l i m i n a t e d .  was e x a m i n e d .  activities  all  used t o e v a l u a t e  of F e a t u r e s A t t r a c t i v e  preceding s e c t i o n the  various  version  A4-1  Most of t h e  were s u b j e c t i v e ,  having absolute c o n s t r a i n t s  the  Appendix Table  and t r a n s f o r m e d v a l u e s  4 . 3 . 2 Method f o r A s s e s s i n g P r e s e n c e In  f o r each a c t i v i t y  s u i t a b i l i t y f o r each a c t i v i t y .  found i n the l i t e r a t u r e  A simplified  a p p r o a c h was u s e d t o t r a n s f o r m  Variable weightings  from a review  resource's  or d e t r i m e n t .  region's  abundance specialized  aesthetic  natural  the  Corridor's  pertinent  specific  inventoried.  the  the a c t i v i t i e s  s p e c i f i c and listed in  gen-  Table  - 88 -  4-1  A c c o r d i n g l y , the  combination of (1)  (2)  four  used i n t h i s  analysis  came f r o m a  approaches:  s p e c i f i c feature  visual  features  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n - e g . Canada Land  attractiveness  - eg. L i t t o n pard  Inventory  (1969),  Beaubier  and  (1974),  Resource  Analysis  Branch  (1976)  (1968),  (1977),  T e t l o w and  Z u b e , B r u s h and  Pierce  ShepFabos  (1975) (3)  (4)  demand m o d e l s - e g . R o s s  river  recreation  (1973),  Nuttall  S w a r t and V a r  (1976)  evaluations  - eg. Leopold  (1969),  The d e s c r i p t i o n s o f g e n e r a l  and Lawson of  (1977)  and V a r  natural (1978),  and T e t l o w  s p e c i f i c natural  features  Resource  A n a l y s i s Branch  (1977a),  a n d Chubb and Bauman  described in Forbatha Synergy  West  (1978),  ing,  (1977a),  studies of Nuttall  and V a r  features  were t a k e n  Christiansen  and S h e p p a r d were t a k e n  (1976),  (1967),  Chubb and Bauman  (1977).  from the  Beaubier  (1976)  (1977), The  Hooper (1976)  from  the  Baud-Bovy description  s t u d i e s of  and P i e r c e  Gear-  the  (1974),  Hooper  and t h e man-made f e a t u r e s  B a u d - B o v y and Lawson  (1977),  where  and  (1975).  Evaluating  the  c o n t r i b u t i o n each  activity's  overall  attractiveness  f a c t o r makes t o a is  problematic.  particular For  screening  - 89 purposes i t was only necessary to determine what a c t i v i t i e s should be eliminated because either essential attractiveness features were lacking or very destructive features were present.  Therefore, a  simple scoring procedure based on the presence or absence of factors that were required or detrimental to each a c t i v i t y was used (Urban Research and Development Corporation 1978).  The determination of  which features were required or detrimental to each a c t i v i t y was based on many sources, the p r i n c i p l e ones are: canoeing, r a f t i n g , kayaking - Hooper 1977b, Chubb and Bauman 1976, Canada Land Inventory  (CLI)  1969  motor boating - above plus Chess 1979, Jaakson et al 1976 s a i l i n g - Supply Inventory F e a s i b i l i t y Study Task Force 1973 fishing - Chubb and Bauman 1976, Bryan 1979, CLI 1969 hunting - Resource Analysis Branch 1976, CLI 1969 undeveloped t r a i l s - Hendee, Marlow, Catton, Brockman 1968, Ontario Recreation Inventory 1971 camping - Hooper 1977a, Chubb and Bauman 1976, Hendee, Marlow, Catton and Brockman 1968, Canadian Government Office of Tourism 1980 viewing - CLI 1969, Resource Analysis Branch 1976 cottages/lodges  - CLI 1969, Epec 1977  developed t r a i l s - Forbatha 1967, Supply Inventory F e a s i b i l i t y Study Task Force 1973 man-made attractions - Synergy West 1975, Baud-Bovy and Lawson 1977, Forbatha 1967  - 90 The f e a t u r e s which were i n v e n t o r i e d t o determine each attractiveness  are presented with the r e s u l t s  activity's  i n S e c t i o n 4.5  The  i n f o r m a t i o n i n T a b l e s 4-2 and 4-3 about the abundance o f each o f these features  i n the C o r r i d o r was used t o e v a l u a t e  attractiveness  for  the C o r r i d o r ' s  activities.  SCREENING METHOD FOR DEMAND FACTORS The purpose of t h i s a n a l y s i s  i s to f i l t e r  out those a c t i v i t i e s  C o r r i d o r c o u l d supply which are i n f e a s i b l e because o f market tions.  The term market i s  used i n t h i s  people who seek a s i m i l a r t r a v e l  limita-  study t o mean a group o f  experience.  C o n c e p t u a l l y , the  means f o r r e l a t i n g market demand t o resource c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s straightforward 1977), i t  (Crandall  the  is  1980), London, C r a n d a l l and F i t z g i b b o n s  i n v o l v e s the f o l l o w i n g s t e p s :  - Group people i n t o market types a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r demographic, economic, s o c i o l o g i c a l and t r a v e l  behaviour  characteristics.  - D e f i n e each g r o u p ' s p r e f e r r e d v a c a t i o n types i n terms o f general e x p e r i e n c e s or i n terms of s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s  and t h e i r  as-  s o c i a t e d s e t t i n g and s o c i a l c o n d i t i o n s . - Compare these v a c a t i o n types with the a c t i v i t i e s  or general  ex-  p e r i e n c e s a region c o u l d p r o v i d e and i d e n t i f y those markets whose v a c a t i o n p r e f e r e n c e s might be s a t i s f i e d by the p a r t i c u l a r  re-  sources o f the r e g i o n . - I d e n t i f y the f a c t o r s which might c o n s t r a i n these p o t e n t i a l from v i s i t i n g the r e g i o n .  markets  - 91 -  TaMe 4-3 Inventory of Known A t t r a c t i o n s , A c t i v i t i e s and Events in the Study Area Activity  Description  Source(s)  canoeing-day-use -tripping  slow water - Lake Laberge slow water/natural arear i v e r ; some development L i t t l e Salmon - Minto  Beaubier and Pierce 1974 Beaubier and Pierce 1974  rafting-day-use  slow water/developed-1 tour in Dawson entire river-2 tour companies  Minister Economic Minister Economic  Lake Laberge entire r i v e r Lake Laberge and entire r i v e r Minto and Pelly Crossing Ft. S e l k i r k , Whitehorse Lake Laberge  Burton 1977  -tripping motorboating -day-use -waterskiing -small c r a f t -power boating -boat tours motorboat tours -sleep on shore swimming and beach -swimming -SCUBA diving  1 tour Whitehorse-Dawson Lake Laberge, L i t t l e Salmon Lake Laberge  of Tourism and Development 1980 of Tourism and Development 1980  Minister of Tourism and Economic Devleopment 1980  Minister of Tourism and Economic Development 1980 Canadian Gov. Office of Tourism 1976 Burton 1977  fishing-game f i s h  1 fishing tour-upper Yukon  Minister of Tourism and Economic Development 1980  ice fishing  r i v e r and Lake Laberge  Walker 1976  hunting  waterfowl-entire r i v e r big game-entire r i v e r  Mossop 1979 Hoefs 1979  trapping  entire river  Hoefs 1979, Roberts 1979  day t r a i l s  hiking-entire r i v e r Lammers 1979 cross-country s k i i n g ! dog-sledding / r e s t r i c t e d Burton 1977 snowmobiling T to access snowshoeing J points  t r a i l tripping  cross-country skiing^)entire dog sledding, /river snowmobiling, j snowshoeing J.  Roberts 1979  camping  no f a c i l i t i e s - e n t i r e r i v e r primitive f a c i l i t i e s - see Table 4-6  Donaldson 1971 Parks Canada, Yukon Dept. of Renewable Resources 1978  -  92  -  Table 4-3 (continued) Activity  Description  camping  f u l l f a c i l i t i e s - see Table 4-6  viewing  vegetation ion T Lake Laberge, landsca pe ^ 30 mile, confluence of Pelly River hydraulic-30 m i l e , 5 Finger Rapids h i s t o r i c s i t e s : numerous sites-abandoned prospectors cabins, wrecked paddlewheelers, old Indian v i l l a g e s , old machinery archaeological s i t e s : numerous s i t e s , l i t t l e v i s i b l e evidence  collecting and gathering  entire r i v e r length-but i l l e g i a l to c o l l e c t historic/archaeologic artifacts  lodges cottages motel/hotel  see Table 4-6 Lake Laberge see Table 4-6  developed t r a i l s -day-use  horseback riding-Whitehorse cross-country skiingWhitehorse  Source(s)  Lombard North 1975 Donaldson 1971 Clarke 1978 Berton 1973 Beaudin 1979  Beaubier and Pierce 1974  Beaubier and Pierce 1974 Canadian Gov't Office of Tourism 1976 Canadian Gov't Office of Tourism 1976  festivals  Whi tehorse-Sourdough Rendezvous-February Dawson-Spring Carnival: c- - March -Break-up FestivalMay -Discovery DaysAugust  Minister of Tourism and  handicrafts  c raf t stores in Dawson and Whitehorse  Minister of Tourism and Economic Devleopment 1980  salmon f i s h i n g / native foods  along entire r i v e r  Wolman 1978  art g a l l e r i e s / museums  Dawson and Whitehorse  Minister of Tourism and Economic Development 1980  workshops/ Whitehorse educational upgrading  and Economic Development 1980  McPherson 1980  -  93  -  Table 4-3 (continued) Activity  Description  Source(s)  conferences/ conventions  Whitehorse  outdoor skUV; courses sports competitions  entire r i v e r  Cormie 1980  Whitehorse-Arctic Games, Cross-country Ski Championships Dawson - Gold Panning Champ ionship, Dome Race, Outhouse Race  Minister of Tourism  sports complex  Whitehorse  Minister of Tourism and Economic Development 1980  gambl ing  Dawson  shows/theatres/ shopping  Whitehorse and Dawson  Wolman 1978  and Economic Development 1980  eating out  Whitehorse, Carmacks and Dawson  gold panning  Whitehorse and Dawson  Minister of Tourism and Economic Development 1980  downhill skiing  Whitehorse  Canadian Gov't Office of Tourism 1976  pleasure car driving  Klondike Highway  Wolman 1978  guided tours  natural history-1 tour of upper Yukon historic/archaeologicWhitehorse, Dawson and Ft. Selkirk  Minister of Tourism and Economic Development 1980  picmcmg  access points to r i v e r Whitehorse, Lake Laberge, Carmacks, Minto, Dawson  Personal observation 1979  - 94  -  Table 4-3 (continued) Attraction  Description  Source(s)  land-form aspect  valley wall orientation: 0-201 km and 583-740 km east or west; 201-583 northeast or southwest  Map Interpretation  exposure  r i v e r opening generally means at least one side of bank gets sun  Personal Observation 1979  s u i t a b i l i t y for activities  cottaging family boating, canoeing, camping  Beaubier and Pierce 1974  canyons  30 mile section  Donaldson 1971  rock formations  Pelly Basalt, 5 Finger Rapids  Herrick 1977  hoodoos  30 mile section  Personal Observation 1979  viewpoints  5-Finger Rapids, Lake Laberge  Beaubier and Pierce 1974  hydrology attractiveness  range 9/35 to 25/35  Beaubier and Pierce 1974  beaches  12 beaches Whitehorse Dawson  Beaubier and Pierce 1974  large surface waters  Lake Laberge  Beaubier and Pierce 1974  currents/river junctions  30 mile section, confluence of Teslin and White Rivers  Donaldson 1971  site specific rapids  5 Finger Rapids, Rink Rapids  Donaldson 1971  f i s h runs  Whitehorse Dam  Walker 1976  marshes, f l a t landscape  Whitehorse to Laberge, White River-Dawson  Donaldson 1971  air/water pollution  no a i r p o l l u t i o n , water unpotable Whitehorse Lower Laberge  Donaldson 1971  l i v e reconstructions  Dawson City  Personal Observation 1979  h i s t o r i c a l towns with old architecture  possibly Dawson City  Personal Observation 1979  - 95 -  Table 4-3 (continued) Attraction  Description  Sdurce(s)  technical spectacles  no s i g n i f i c a n t buildings, dams, mines etc.  Personal Observation 1979  folklore  native t r a d i t i o n s , gold rush, Robert Service, exploration and fur trade history  Berton 1973 McGuire 1977  traditional dwellings  NWMP posts, telegraph l i n e cabins, roadhouses, Indian settlements  Berton 1973 Batchelor 1975  resorts  none, possibly Takhini Hotsprings for locals  Minister of Tourism and Economic Development 1980  art/cultural events  Whitehorse, some in Dawson  Minister of Tourism and Economic Development 1980  land use scars  coal mine - Carmacks hydro dam - Whitehorse road - 100 km L i t t l e Salmon to Minto  Parks Canada and Yukon Department of Renewable Resources 1978  litter  evident at major sites along river  Parks Canada and Yukon Department of Renewable Resources 1978  other  Whitehorse garbage dump  Donaldson 1971  -  - 9 6  - Determine the e f f e c t  the c o n s t r a i n i n g f a c t o r s are l i k e l y  on each m a r k e t ' s demand, and i n t u r n on the f e a s i b i l i t y vacation  It  f o r each  type.  i s easy to see how one would screen a c t i v i t i e s  this  t o have  conceptual approach.  First,  all  activities  on the b a s i s of which do not c o r -  respond t o the p r e f e r r e d v a c a t i o n types would be e l i m i n a t e d . all  activities  after  not i n c l u d e d i n the types of v a c a t i o n which remain  c o n s t r a i n t s are c o n s i d e r e d would be e l i m i n a t e d .  was used t o determine which a c t i v i t i e s the a n a l y s i s  T h i s approach  had market f e a s i b i l i t y .  Thus  i n v o l v e d two s e p a r a t e s c r e e n i n g e v e n t s :  - elimination of a l l  activities  p r e f e r r e d by p o t e n t i a l  and v a c a t i o n types except those  m a r k e t s , and  - e l i m i n a t i o n of preferred a c t i v i t i e s u n f e a s i b l e because of p r a c t i c a l  and v a c a t i o n types which  are  constraints.  4.4.1 Method f o r A s s e s s i n g the P r e f e r r e d V a c a t i o n A c t i v i t i e s Particular  Then  of a  Market  The i d e a l way t o i d e n t i f y t o u r i s t s markets f o r the Yukon R i v e r r i d o r would be t o conduct a market survey t h a t psychographic v a r i a b l e s  and t o a n a l y s e the data u s i n g c l u s t e r  a n a l y s i s t o a r r i v e at general graphic variables  groupings of t o u r i s t s .  include a t t i t u d e ,  p r e f e r e n c e , and personal  stresses  lifestyle,  Psycho-  vacation  i n t e r e s t s as well as socio-economic  Cor-  - 97 and d e m o g r a p h i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 1980).  Moreover,  travellers latter  only y i e l d s  than at  the  to the  potential  area,  corridor  potentials  those derived  Yukon R i v e r  the  Ragheb  potential  reasons  1974).  from p s y c h o g r a p h i c surveys  for-  popula-  why more  As t h i s  the a p p r o p r i a t e market  the  whereas the  m a r k e t s , what t h e  and t h e  (Boerjan  1975,  C o r r i d o r because  i n f o r m a t i o n on e x i s t i n g m a r k e t s  knows and t h i n k s o f t h e  cerned with  s h o u l d be c o n d u c t e d a t  i n f o r m a t i o n about  do not t r a v e l  are  survey  home r a t h e r  mer p r o v i d e s tion  the  (Hawes 1 9 7 7 , R i t c h i e  people  study  is  con-  grouping f o r the conducted at  study  people's  homes.  Not  s u r p r i s i n g l y , a s p e c i f i c market  ridor  has  never  been c o n d u c t e d a t  t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o r i n any o t h e r travellers,  thus the  the  C o r r i d o r are  was  completely  Even t h e user  data  survey  potential  largely  unknown.  (Parks Canada, reveal  for  Yukon R i v e r  tion of  the  origin,  1978 T e r r i t o r i a l  1  i n f o r m a t i o n the had t o  *But the (Turick,  r e g i o n of o r i g i n of  Yukon  groups or market  Furthermore,  segments  constraints is  is  1979).  experience types  scant  of t h i s  survey study.  Resources  s i z e and p u r p o s e o f detailed  (Department  Because of t h i s  and m a r k e t  for  a l t h o u g h a 1978  of Renewable  available  be o b t a i n e d by an a l t e r n a t i v e  segments  t o do s u c h a  and a r e l a t i v e l y  visitors  Cor-  Canada,  sex, party  users ,  Yukon R i v e r  homes i n E u r o p e ,  Yukon D e p a r t m e n t  i s m and E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t  study  likely  market  on e x i s t i n g m a r k e t  f o r the  people's  b e y o n d t h e t i m e and f i s c a l  1 9 7 8 b ) does present  survey  segments  lack  descripof  Tour-  of  used i n  means.  r e s u l t s a r e s u s p e c t and s h o u l d be u s e d w i t h p e r s o n a l communication 6 J u l y 1979)  travel  caution  the  - 98 -  This alternative approach was to extrapolate market segmentation findings from studies of other regions to the Yukon River Corridor. The best segmentation findings for this purpose were ones for Canada which were based on surveys conducted in countries from which Yukon tourists are likely to originate.  As Chapter Three explained, most travellers to the Yukon River and Yukon Territory come from four places:  the Yukon Territory, the  rest of Canada, the United States and Europe.  The overall composi-  tion of overseas visitors to Canada is slightly different:  travel-  lers from the United Kingdom, France and Japan are much more common (Statistics Canada 1979).  The conclusion drawn from the above was  that this analysis should examine markets from the Yukon, Canada, the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom and France.  The  Japanese market was not studied despite its phenomenal growth in Canada (267% between 1972 and 1977) because Japanese employees are expected to have 5 days or less vacation time for the foreseeable future (Savard 1978), while overseas visitors to the Yukon stay an average of 33.3 nights in Canada (Statistics Canada 1979).  The findings of three different marketing studies were used to define the market segments and preferred vacation types for people from Canada, Germany, France, United Kingdom and the United States (Air Canada 1974, 1975; Canadian Government Office of Tourism 1974). These segments are summarized in the results section.  The potential  demand these market segments could generate for the activities and  - 99 vacation sis  types the  no s t u d y  Yukon T e r r i t o r y .  results the  analy-  o u t l i n e d i n the Appendix 4.  Unfortunately, the  c o r r i d o r c a n s u p p l y was c o n c l u d e d f r o m t h e  (Air  Moreover,  Since  p e r i o d s as w e l l segmentation short (2)  be u s e d as a b a s i s  demand f o r two  resident  as m a j o r  Yukoners are whole; they  corridor is vacations,  has t o encompass periods;  ization  of d i f f e r e n t  which covers population  all  Yukon's  segmentation  types  of  s i m i l a r to the  lations  f o r example D i t t o n ,  (Burton  behaviour  for  both  from Canadians in outdoor  as  a  pursuits,  1977).  potential  demand r e q u i r e d from a  and w h i c h  have been d e r i v e d  util-  study  surveyed  and c o m p r e h e n s i v e  for  Goodale and Johnson  various 1975;  and F i t z g i b b o n s 1 9 7 7 ;  D a r d e n and D a r d e n 1 9 7 7 ; a n d Duncan 1 9 7 8 ) .  other  short  and  behaviour  Romsa 1 9 7 3 ; L o n d o n , C r a n d a l l  similarity  estimating  a  Yukon.  leisure typologies  1971;  for  market  results; ideally,  leisure  Many o v e r a l l (see  leisure  a r e y o u n g e r , more a c t i v e  estimation of the  segmentation  possible for  the  substantially different  and more l i k e l y t o be m a l e Therefore,  within  reasons:  use o f t h e  and l o n g t i m e  segments  the Canadian v a c a t i o n  Canada 1 9 7 5 ) c a n n o t  Yukon r e s i d e n t ' s (1)  has been made o f t h e m a r k e t  coverage  of  In  population  behaviour,  c r i t e r i a were used t o chose a s u i t a b l e t y p o l o g y :  s h o u l d be b a s e d on p s y c h o g r a p h i c m e a s u r e m e n t s ,  Burton  Perreault,  addition to  leisure  popu-  two  groupings  and c l u s t e r  analysis  - 100 s h o u l d be t h e m e t h o d u s e d t o d e v e l o p g r o u p i n g s  (Beaman 1 9 7 5 ) .  No  t y p o l o g y c o u l d be f o u n d w h i c h had been d e v e l o p e d f o r a p o p u l a t i o n s i m i l a r to the  Yukon's.  tion  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n met t h e o t h e r c r i t e r i a and was  lifestyle  to describe the  Southeastern  thus,  the  by P e r r e a u l t ,  and G r e a t L a k e s  D a r d e n and D a r d e n  Yukon's.  It  the  same f o r t h e Yukon a s t h e but t h a t  was assumed t h a t  the  was d i f f e r e n t .  percentage  (1977)  the general  Perreault, of the  leisure  present  and  hypothesizing the  present  trends. these  (see  leisure  Table 4-4), patterns  categories  Some r a t h e r  e s t i m a t e s , they  prefer. are the  group  from outdoor relationship Darden's  popualtion  vacation  at  Four.  o f C o n s t r a i n t s on Demand  c o n s t r a i n t s s u c h a s amount o f  change p e o p l e ' s  (1977)  h e r o i c a s s u m p t i o n s had t o be made t o a r r i v e are e x p l a i n e d i n the Appendix  than  potential  D a r d e n and  and e x t r a p o l a t i n g p r e s e n t  4 . 4 . 2 Method f o r A s s e s s i n g t h e A f f e c t Practical  patterns  and P e r r e a u l t ,  from  States;  p o p u l a t i o n w i t h i n each  E s t i m a t i o n o f Yukon r e s i d e n t  findings  were  D a r d e n and D a r d e n  recreation  leisure  chosen  g r o u p i n g s were  leisure  (1977)  vaca-  are c o n s i d e r a b l y d i f f e r e n t  demand was done by s u r m i z i n g o v e r a l l  between  (1977)  s e c t i o n s of the United  population characteristics  the  study  D a r d e n and D a r d e n ' s  p o s s i b l e s e g m e n t s o f t h e Yukon m a r k e t .  The p e o p l e s u r v e y e d the  Perreault,  patterns  free t i m e , or cost  greatly  f r o m what t h e y  can  ideally  The most i m p o r t a n t c o n s t r a i n i n g f a c t o r s t o t o u r i s m demand following according to Mcintosh (1977),  1 9 8 1 ) and A r c h e r  (1976 c i t e d i n MTB 1 9 8 0 ) :  Burton  (pers.  comm.  - 101  -  Table 4-4 Summary of Yukon Resident P r o f i l e and Outdoor Recreation Demand (from Burton 1977) Population P r o f i l e - young -  50% of the population 15-35 years old 57% male 70% married English-speaking Occupation (%) 16.4 Sales and Service 12.1 11.9 9.7 7.7 7.6 4.4  -  Construction Home-makers and Processing Clerical Scientists Managerial Unemployed  Education 8.2 32.0 35.0 9.4 9.4  (%)  Grade 1 - 8 Grade 9 - 1 1 Grade 12 Or 13 Non-university Diploma Bachelors Degree  1.7 Masters, Ph.D.  75% have lived 3 or more years in the Yukon 41.7% have lived over 10 years in the Yukon mobile population - 60% own or use cars, 40% own or use pick-up trucks 77.3% own or have access to fishing tackle 61.5% own or have access to camping equipment 58.5% own or have access to hunting equipment  Outdoor Recreation Demand Summer:  -generally more involved i n outdoor recreation than the Canadian population as a whole, but the majority of Yukoners do not participate; a small percentage of the population participates intensively, accounting for the bulk of demand -over 50% participation i n : f i s h i n g , sightseeing/nature study/photography, and driving for pleasure/picnicking -50-85% did not participate in other a c t i v i t i e s such as: camping, hunting, canoeing, hiking, t r a i l biking -67% of recreationists participate with the same people every time -except for camping, hunting and motorboating over 50% of the of the participation is day-use  Winter:  -trends as above; participation rates low, people who do participate do so regularly -participate alone in a c t i v i t i e s , especially snowshoemg -over 70% participation is day-use  Vacation:  -lower participation rates i n winter than summer -25% primary 50% of 52% secondary vacations taken in the Yukon -25% of taken in theand winter, in summer -60-75% vacations each year — - of .Yukoners _ . itake I- r\rJ _ _C „.J-„.. A-.4-4nnr t i L a n i n t r i o V l l k n n -43% take 1 vacation, 15-19% take 2/year -almost i the primary vacations are longer than three weeks  - 102 -  price  - of  using the  service  or obtaining the  - o f c o m p e t i n g g o o d s and a c c e s s - each personal time  in getting to  take lack  destinations  destination  limitation - health,  - length of time to  family  stage  r e a c h d e s t i n a t i o n and r e q u i r e d t o  about the  study area  of  information  pertinent  to these  compiled in Table 4 - 5 ; time c o n s t r a i n t s are No p r i c e s  are given  scope of t h i s  five  factors  i n c l u d e d under  f o r competing d e s t i n a t i o n s  were c o n s i d e r e d beyond t h e  4.5  under-  experience  o f k n o w l e d g e - amount and a c c u r a c y  Information  experience  is  access.  and p r o d u c t s ,  they  study.  RESULTS OF SCREENING A N A L Y S I S The a c t i v i t i e s t i o n s are  e l i m i n a t e d because  of resource  presented in Table 4 - 6 .  ated.  In  specific For  having e i t h e r  a  •  or  Q  f o r each  activities  areas o f the C o r r i d o r r a t h e r than from the e n t i r e activities  around the three The a c t i v i t i e s  settlements  dispersed outdoor recreation  culture  eating native  of Whitehorse,  ones  and a c t i v i t i e s  (eg.  viewing  foods).  eliminfrom  Corridor.  r e q u i r i n g w i l d e r n e s s were e x c l u d e d from Dawson a n d C a r m a c k s .  i d e n t i f i e d as h a v i n g t h e most a t t r a c t i v e  i n g and f i s h i n g )  matrix  activity.  i n t h e m a t r i x were  g e n e r a l , the m a t r i x e l i m i n a t e d c e r t a i n  instance  local  considera-  Table 4-7 i l l u s t r a t e s the  used t o e v a l u a t e t h e C o r r i d o r ' s a t t r a c t i v e n e s s Activities  suitability  sites  (eg.  appeal  were  canoeing, camping, t r a i l  u t i l i z i n g the and e x h i b i t s ,  historical  sites  gold panning,  Although the C o r r i d o r p r e s e n t l y  hikand  and  has v e r y  few  - 103 -  Table 4-5 The Type of Constraints and Information Used to Evaluate the Affect of Constraints on Demand Constraints to Demand  Known Information on Constraints  Cost (1)  to get to Yukon  1981 Fares Regular Charter (Cdn $) (Cdn $) " 340 221 854 457 389 646 1159 2216 1  A i r to Whitehorse from Vancouver/Edmonton Toronto San Francisco Amsterdam Ferry  1981 Fares Cabin/Person Car (Cdn$) (CHn$)  Deck  Port HardyPrince Rupert Prince RupertSkagway3(US$) SeattleSkagway (US$) 2  3  (CcfnT)  45  9-20  82  51(+82)  138  95(+138)  Bus . Vancouver-Whitehorse Edmonton-Whitehorse  1981 Fares (Cdn$) 110.60 95.35  Train Skagway-Whi tehorse Toronto-Vancouver  1981 Fares (Cdn$)  4  148 (day coach) 208-230 (berth)  Car Edmonton-Whitehorse (2)  to travel in Yukon  75  Vancouver-Whitehorse Air  7  motorhome(mh)-240, big car (bc)-95, small car(sc)-55 mh - 320, be - 125, sc - 75 1980 Fares (Cdn$)  o  Whi tehorse-Dawson Road car rental/day^ gas-Whi tehorse-Dawson^  239 (return) 1981 Fares (Cdn$) ?3.50 15*/km 15(sc) - 65(mh)  - 104 -  Table 4-5 (2)  (continued)  to travel in Yukon (continued)  Boat canoe rental 14 days shipping canoe from Dawson-Whitehorse  l n  11  (3)  services and a c t i v i t i e s in Yukon  Motel/hotel  11  30-45  1980 Rates (Cdn$) usually 35-60/night for 2 people f a s t foods-hamburger/ Chicken 3-5 f u l l course dinner i n Dawson 15 and up 40-65/day/person  12  Restaurants '  1980 Rates (Cdn$) T76  12  Guided canoe/ r a f t tours Guided boat tours 160 approx/day/person Guided fishingboat and -.j horseback 175 approx/day/person Horse t c a i l riding 5/hour/person Gold panning 12 0-5/person Museum 0-3/person Camping 0-6/day/site H hour r i v e r 12 ]i  (4)  examples of package tours  a) 14 days f e r r y , bus, a i r . - Seattle, Whitehorse, Fairbanks, Anchorage, Juneau, Seattle 14  b) 8 days ship,bus,airVancouver, Whitehorse, Juneau, S i t k a , Vancouver'^  1980 Rates  1350 (US$)  1155-1256 (US$)  c) 14 days a i r , b u s , ship - Vancouver, Yellowknife, Inuvik, Dawson, Whitehorse.,. Skagway, Vancouver'  1700 (Cdn$)  d) 16 days bus Calgary, Alaska Hwy, Whitehorse, Dawson, Fairbanks, Anchorage, Valdez, Skagway, Whitehorse, f l y to Edmonton'  995 (Cdn$)  5  6  - 105 -  Table 4-5 (4)  (continued)  examples of package tours (continued)  e) 22 days bus, camping Calgary, Whitehorse, Dawson, Fairbanks, Skagway, Prince,-, Rupert, Calgary ' 1  (5)  construction  Service r o a d Water mainl9 Motel/hotel/ resorts^  18  Type Air Road Ferry/ Train Watercraft on Yukon River Road: Whitehorse to River Access Points  Personal Limitations (1)  poor health  (2)  family lifestage  1980 Rates (Cdn$) 70/m 365/m  1640-2150/m  2  Distance (km) Vancouver-Whitehorse 1487 Toronto-Whitehorse 4218 Amsterdam-Whitehorse 8468 Vancouver-Whitehorse 2647 Edmonton-Whitehorse 1975 Seattl e-SkagwayWhitehorse  Travel Ti me 3 hr 5-8 hr 11-18 hr 3-7 days 2-5 days 3 days  Whitehorse-Carmacks 325 Whitehorse-Dawson 740 Lake Laberge L i t t l e Salmon Carmacks Yukon Crossing Minto Dawson  740 (Cdn$)  generally high capital costs (up to 90% fixed assets) and long pay-back time  House/ Condominium  Access  1980 Rates  34 196 164 200 238 536  see Table 4-10 see Table 4-io  7 days 10-16 days 0.5 hr 2 hr 1.5-2 hr 2-2.5 hr 2.5 hr 1 day  - 106  Table 4-5  -  (continued)  Lack of Knowledge USA  knowledge of Canada limited and regional; most l i k e l y people to know of the Yukon are those l i v i n g nearest (ie. Alaska and Pacific Northwest States). In 1974 study only 3% of U.S. population knew of the Yukon.21  Canada - Yukon ranked 8th out of 10 Canadian regions and the USA as a possible vacation destination, but 26-31% of the people in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto and Halifax do know about and have an interest i n the Yukon and ranked i t as 1st or 2nd.22 Sources: (1)  C P . A i r , Sales O f f i c e , Vancouver, personal communication, 14 February 1981 (2) B.C. Ferry Corporation, Passenger Information, Vancouver, personal communication, 14 February 1981 (3) Alaska Ferry Corporation, Passenger Information, Seattle, personal communication, 10 March 1981 -(4) Greyhound Bus Lines, Bus Information, Vancouver, personal communication, 14 February 1981 (5) Whitepass Transportation L t d . , Rates and Schedules, personal communication, 19 February 1981 (6) Via Rail Canada Inc., Passenger Information, personal communication, 14 February 1981 (7) Calculated Using: - Gas consumption values for different vehicles from Ministry of Transportation Information - Yukon gas price of $0.39/1 (Lammers pers. comm. 1981) - B.C. gas price of $0.35/1 (pump price March 1981) (8) (9) (10) (11)  Atlas Independent 1980 Budget Rent-A-Car System, Out of Town Reservations and Information, personal communication, 19 February 1981 Goldrush River Tours Inc. 1980 Personal observation 1979  (12)  Tourism Yukon 1980  (13) (14) (15) (16) (17)  Minister of Tourism and Economic Development 1980 Knightly Tours 1980 Horizon Holidays 1980 Wiebe Tours 1980 Canadian Camping Adventure 1980  (18)  Brian L a i r d , personal communication 1980  (19)  Baud-Bovy and Lawson 1980  (20)  MacArthur, personal communication, 9 June 1980  (21)  Canadian Government Office of Tourism 1974  (22)  P r i s c o l l 1979  - 107 Table  4-6,  Activities  E l i m i n a t e d and A c t i v i t i e s o f H i g h e s t P o t e n t i a l on the B a s i s o f R e s o u r c e S u i t a b i l i t y (See A p p e n d i x 4 f o r R e s o u r c e C r i t e r i a A c t i v i t y S u i t a b i l i t y Matrix) Prime  Activities  Eliminated  Whitewater kayaking  canoeing/rafting/  Reason(s)  Require frequent sections rated class II and I I I by t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Whitewater R a t i n g System (Hooper 1 9 7 7 ) . Entire Y u k o n R i v e r i s c l a s s I, e x c e p t f o r 5 Finger Rapids which i s c l a s s II.  S a i l i n g everywhere but Lake Laberge  C u r r e n t , shallowness of r i v e r , narrowness o f c h a n n e l and poor w i n d s . Possible in Lake Laberge.  Swimmimg/sunbathing/ waterskiing  Cold water, currents throughout. be p o s s i b l e i n b a c k b a y s o f L a k e i n mid-summer.  Skin/SCUBA  T u r b i d w a t e r , c u r r e n t and c o l d ; r i v e r r e j e c t e d but i t i s p o s s i b l e i n Lake Laberge.  diving  Viewi ng-waterfalls  A c t i v i t i e s with Problems  May Laberge  No n o t a b l e h y d r a u l i c . f e a t u r e s e x c e p t 5 F i n g e r R a p i d s ( w h i c h w o u l d be c l a s s 3 or 4 i n the CLI R a t i n g ) .  Serious  Built t r a i l s for tripping: r e c r e a t i o n v e h i c l e s , motorcycles  S h o r t n e s s o f s e a s o n , low t o l e r a n c e of construction d i f f i c u l t i e s .  Built facility activities i e . #76,79,80,84-92 l i s t e d i n T a b l e 5-1  Flood hazard, c o n s t r u c t i o n d i f f i c u l t i e s .  A c t i v i t i e s with Potential  land,  Some  Day-use motor b o a t i n g  Cold water,  currents reduce  potential  Motor boat t r i p p i n g - l a r g e boat  D i f f i c u l t t o have p e r m a n e n t p i e r s , o r a n c h o r a g e b e c a u s e o f c u r r e n t s and f l o o d hazard. Shallow water i s a problem f o r large c r a f t .  - 108 Table  4-6  (continued). Prime  A c t i v i t i e s w i t h Some Potential (continued)  Reason(s)  Hunting - waterfowl - b i g game  S h o r t s e a s o n r e d u c e s p o t e n t i a l , moose b u t b e a r common i n s p r i n g .  Accomodation - p r i m i t i v e and f u l l s e r v i c e c a m p i n g , l o d g e s and cottages  Flood hazard, c o n s t r u c t i o n d i f f i c u l t i e s , shortness of season. Flood hazard, c o n s t r u c t i o n d i f f i c u l t i e s , s h o r t n e s s o f s e a s o n i f d e p e n d e n t on m a r k e t s a t t r a c t e d by r e s o u r c e b a s e d activities.  -motel/hotel  Activities Potential  with  Highest  C a n o e i n g and r a f t i n g - , s l o w / f l a t w a t e r (dayuse and t r i p p i n g ) natural area  Naturalness and f l a t w a t e r a t t r i b u t e s of c o r r i d o r .  prominent  Small  tripping  Accessible banks, navigable  by s m a l l  types  Species abundant, catching.  craft  Fishing-all  rare;  relative  ease-in  craft. •  Wilderness t r a i l activities ( d a y - u s e and t r i p p i n g ) hiking, cross-country s k i i n g , dog s l e d d i n g , snowmobiling, snowshoeing  L a n d s u i t a b l e , l o n g d a y s i n summer, abundance of w i l d a r e a s . Winter a c t i v i t i e s b e n e f i t from extended season.  Wilderness  Abundance o f w i l d  areas.  Viewing-vegetation, land forms -wi1dlifewaterfowl -historic sites  Abundance of w i l d  land.  Interpretation-natural history -historic/ archaeologic  Same r e a s o n s  C u l t u r a l events -salmon f i s h i n g , native foods, smoking salmon  Abundance o f salmon and h i s t o r i c a l  camping  Waterfowl r e l a t i v e l y Numerous s i t e s .  •  as g i v e n  numerous, above  sites.  - 109 -  T a b l e 4-7:  R e s o u r c e F e a t u r e S c o r e s Used t o E v a l u a t e Attractiveness for-Activities. S  r e s o u r c e and a t t r a c t i o n ana 4 - 3 . co UJ cc  >-  CULTURAL AND BXIITACZ RESOURCES  O O U <  o o Ul  (J  u &  CC  _ o < oy cc J2 "3 H 2 W I. tn  < £ S  e a  -•  u  as  •93 $2  -  - CROSS COCNTIT SKI INC - DOC SLEDDING - SNOWHOBILINC - 5NOWSBOEINC  CAKPINC: - PRISTINE - HDOim  •o •  \\ •  - FULL SERVICE  A-  VIEWINCl -  VEGETATION LANDFORMS CEOLOCIC FEATURES VILDLIPE/FISB BISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOCIC SITES ATTENDINC: • 3ANEICRAFT EXHIBITS - NATIVE FOODS AND SALMON riSBINC - ART CALLER!ES AND MUSEUMS - NATIVE SHOW - WORKSHOPS - SPECIAL COURSES  -  • A  _ _  A  _  o o  •  a • • • • • •  • a • • -  O O  --  B-  BBBBB-  - -- ~--  •-  BB BB •B • • •B •B  —  •B  a*  mm UM mm mm  BBBBAA  m  - VACATION CAMPS - CONVENTIONS' - SPORTS COMPETITIONS - SPORTS COMPLEXES GAMBLING THEATRE SBOUS DIHINC OUT  AT A  A -  AA A AA A -  *  _ _ _  —  ACTIVITIES ELIMINATED PROM CERTAIN PARTS OP COR1HWB ESSENTIAL FACTOR ABSENT MAJOR NEGATIVE FACTOR PRESENT  ACTIVITIES WITH DRAWBACKS LN CERTAIN PARTS OF COKKXDOt BENEFICIAL FACTOR ABSENT MINOR NECATIVE- FACTOR PRESENT  ACTIVITIES MOST SUITED TO CERTAIN PARTS OF CORRIDOR • A •  ESSENTIAL FACTOR PRESENT BENEFICIAL FACTOR PRESENT NEGATIVE FACTOR ABSENT  wanxsoRst ONLT HAS F A C I L I T I E S FOR  i  S < = 3, O 33!  H  o  ::6?::: 16:  B  x S  S<u  BBBB ... B « B BBBB B * B BBBB • • B BBBB B*B BBBB a « a BBBB • « B BBBB B»B BBBB B«B BBBB l « l BBBB B*B BBBB B•B B —B•B»B•  -o  *  •  tn _  • •• ••• - ••  ©-• ••- • •• •-  •••  ••BB*  -•• •••• •• • •• ••• - ••  _  O •  5<8  "  _  _ _ _ _  £3  A  _  - CONFERENCES  U Z </)  --  A -  d  o  - • BB •BB-  b  P  DEVELOPED RESOURCES  33  O  Corridor'  s3 t  BBBB • •••  - BIC CAKE  - SHALL CAKE TRAFPIMC: UNDEVELOPED TRAILS: • BIKING  s  tn i—  J  • • • •  a • • -- • • A  A  e  V% M <  3 H  - DEVELOPED BUNTING: - WATERFOWL  r  8z *t  ACTIVITIES FROM TABLE 4-1 CANOEING AND RAFTING: - FLAT WATER - NATURAL  o  i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m T a b l i s 4-  ?: lei s j 5 " • 2 es < S s 5 t ! 5 2 <•j> 5 " 1 3 i ^ S "Jmt r-  2  c  CROSS COUNTRT S K I C O M P E T I T I O N S .  - 110 -  Table 4-7 ( c o n t i n u e d ) >-  O  F- M  o  ATTRACTION ELEMENTS OP NATURAL RESOURCES  2 He  _i O X  til!  *5  o £ B *-* (-* O  £o  M  < B B C  £  3  < -1 K  fee Se  ?  ?  E  S  CANOEING AND  urraci  - DEVELOPED RAYARINC . FLAT UATEE DAT HOTORBOATINC BOAT CRUISIKC SAILINC (LABERCE)  RANI PISHING BOAT nSBIHC icr FISHINC  ICE SKATING BUKTIKC: - WATERFOWL - B1C CAME - SHALL CAKE TRAPPIHC  UNDEVELOPED TRAILS: - HIK1NC - CROSS COCXTET SKIING - DOC SLEDDINC - SHOVHOBILINC - SNOWSHOEIHC  CAMPING:  - FBISTINZ - FRIHTTIVE - FULL SERVICE  :8:  COLLECTTJtC AMD GATHERING LODCE5 COTTACES DEVELOPED TRAILS: - HORSEBACK UDIHC - RECREATION VEHICLES  - BIKING - MOTOXCTCLINC * CROSS • cororrsT SKIINC  - SSOWHDBILIOC ATTEND TUG: - NATIVE FOOD AND SALMON FISHINC CULDED TOORSs • NATURE - BZRITACt - CULTURAL COLD FANNINC PICNICINC DOVNHILL 'SKIINC TOBOCGAmtmc  CAB DRIVDiC  •O  • -o•-o• -o -  AAA •  >•  3  -  M  a  — —  x  S  U  " r « — S ^ L . S c -SB  < v, 5E «  A OA ••A  O AAAA  AOA- A- AAA-A A- A- . A.-  . . . . .  o  ::86 ::8: ::8:  A-  •  . . . . .  . . . . .  . . . . .  66  •AO-  •-o::8:  O  ::8: ::8:  • -o-  ::8:  •A  AAAA.  • A  . . A O  A-  • --66  A -A -  --T-- T- .  A .  -AA8O  -•. . .  .  - -A. - A-  AAlQ A A AO A A AO  :8  •-o-  A  -AAQO  TT-  A-O-  •-o• iO•»o•*o-  A.  :i:8  • -o• -o• -o-  VIEVmC: - VISITATION - LAtDFOUS - CEOLCCIC FEATURES - WILnLIPE/FlSN - BISTORIC/ ARCBAEOLOGIC SITES  UJ  .. •!! tr  W)  > •<< Q - -  x &S 2 5 ' ' ' '  ACTIVITIES FROM T A B U 4-1  - NATURAL  J  = S : e 23ieS3S5 „  * i i i  - FLAT WATER  i  So3 i |B  u.»o —n **J5 «* uO: * :I/J v, K < Z U X H > (C f  S  &  ea  £2  —  o  — —  o o o  -  ' -A -A 1  -A  AA AA  — AA A # # -AA A0#  - A  AAAA-•  - A  . . .  -o- •  OOOOAi  :::6  • -T-  -o-  :8:  AOA AOA  . . . . . . . .  A A A  A . AA.  -A .-A -A  •  Hi  A • - -A •  - AAQO  -  81::  - -• •- -  . . . . . A  o  -o — o -o •o -o-  AAA AAA AAA  •o . oo -O-  •A  A-  - •• - ••  - Ill r e s o r t d e v e l o p m e n t s and u r b a n a t t r a c t i o n s ties  d e p e n d e n t on t h e s e  features  s u c h as v a c a t i o n  e l i m i n a t e d i n the m a t r i x because they oped i n f u t u r e .  the b u i l t  could,  facility  activi-  camps w e r e  theoretically  not  be d e v e l -  The f e a s i b i l i t y o f d e v e l o p i n g b u i l t a t t r a c t i o n s  pends upon m a r k e t d e m a n d ; t h u s t h e demand s c r e e n i n g s t e p was sible  for eliminating built  Table  4-8 s u m m a r i z e s t h e m a r k e t  for  facility  p e o p l e from Canada, Germany,  United  States;  studies  (Air  ism 1974).  the  f i n d i n g s are  respon-  activities.  s e g m e n t s and p o s s i b l e v a c a t i o n France,  U n i t e d K i n g d o m and  from t h r e e  different  the t a b l e  mand f o r e a c h v a c a t i o n  describes the  present  t y p e i n t h e Yukon R i v e r  mand e s t i m a t e s w e r e c o n c l u d e d f r o m t h e a n a l y s i s  types  the  marketing  Canada 1 9 7 4 , 1 9 7 5 ; C a n a d i a n Government O f f i c e o f Also,  de-  Tour-  and p o t e n t i a l  Corridor.  de-  These  de-  o u t l i n e d i n Appendix  Four.  The A i r Canada s t u d i e s type c o u l d appeal ple.  ( 1 9 7 4 , 1975)  in varying  recognized that  n o t meant t o  line-up with the  mand a s s e s s m e n t s ; c o l u m n t h r e e , to which vacation types Government vacation  c r i b e d f o r each  appeal.  vacation  each people group i s  Instead,  people groupings types  vacation type preference,  O f f i c e o f Tourism (1974)  types  vacation  amounts t o more t h a n one g r o u p o f  A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e C a n a d i a n and E u r o p e a n  T a b l e 4-8 a r e  a given  The  in  and  de-  indicates Canadian  s t u d y does not e x p l i c i t l y  a general  people group; t h u s ,  linked.  peo-  vacation type is  define  des-  information in the vacation  type  a n d demand c o l u m n s f o r t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s p o r t i o n o f T a b l e 4-8 d o e s correspond to the adjacent  people grouping.  Table 4-8 Evaluation of the Corridor's Demand Potential for Different Market Segments from Canada, U.S.A. and Europe. (Market segments and vacation types are from Air Canada (1974,1975) and Canadian Government Office of Tourism (1974) studies). (Key: 0-no potential-resources or cultural features not available, *-possible potential i f f a c i l i t i e s for this type of tourism developed. Need to check f e a s i b i l i t y of building these f a c i l i t i e s , P-def1nite potential based on existing demand, P,*-demand potential for existing types of use, possible additional potential from development of other types of use compatible with Vacation type) L i f e s t y l e Group and % of Population  CANADA Extravagant Customers 18%  Nature People 20%  Description  Are predominantly female, tend to have higher than medium household incomes, and include a l l age groups. An appealing vacation would emphasize luxury, service, pampering and clothes in places like Europe, Hawaii and the Caribbean. Tend to be young, unmarried, and welleducated. They want to go to new and different places to avoid schedules and routine, and to experience the universe generally without the usual concern about the usual comforts.  Vacation Type Preference  Hot Winter  Vacation Type and % of Population to which i t Appeals Aesthetic Appreciation 22%  Vacation Type Descriptions  A broadening,cultural educational experience at historic places; appeals mostly to well- 52% educated people and those 1n professional or managerial occupations.  Present Demand for Vacation Type  Demand Potential for Development of Vacation Type  In 1978 approx. 26,500 bus, r a i l , a i r and auto (noncamping) travellers who were not v i s i t i n g relatives stayed 1n Whitehorse and Dawson 2  Peace and Quiet Aesthetic Appreciation Inexpensively Active  Peace and Quiet 20%  Peaceful, quiet, and 20% of river t r a f f i c relaxing in a country in 1979, 360-650 setting; appeals to people/year', 15% of people in middle age autocampers at provincial and to those with less 69% parks along the river in than average ' 1978, approx. 2,400 discretionary income.. people/year . 2  Inexpensively Active  (see following page)  P.'  Playsters 23%  Cautious Homebodies 39%  Are p r i m a r i l y young males Involved 1n the active pursuit of sensual p l e a s u r e . A v a c a t i o n f o r them would need to be r e l a t i v e l y inexpensive, but s w i n g i n g , modern, and a c t i v e , f e a t u r i n g no s o c i a l v a l u e s other than f u n .  Hot Winter Inexpensively Active  Tend to be o l d e r , l e s s a f f l u e n t , less welle d u c a t e d , and l e s s c o n c e n t r a t e d 1n urban areas. They want s a f e t y , s e c u r i t y and a p e r f e c t l y predictable environment on t h e i r v a c a t i o n without any new e x p e r i e n c e s .  Grand Hotel Relatives and Friends  EUROPE (Germany, F r a n c e , U.Kr (In t o t a l t h e r e are 15 l i f e s t y l e g r o u p s , o n l y those r e l a t e d to v a c a t i o n types t h a t have a p o t e n t i a l are g i v e n below) Germany CautiousLiberated 25%  More f e m a l e , under 3 5 , do not l i k e to take c h a n c e s , job s e c u r i t y i m p o r t a n t .  Outdoor Discovering Possibly Peaceful German H o t e l , and Grand Hotel Luxury  Inexpensively Active 9%  The low c o s t , a c t i v e fun v a c a t i o n good f o r meeting p e o p l e ; a p p e a l s moit to males and young p e o p l e . •  Hot Winter 19%  A v a c a t i o n i n a hot c l imate to get away from w i n t e r s , l i e on a beach and be pampered; appeals both to l u x u r y and to fun seekers.  0  0  Grand Hotel 19%  The l u x u r y v a c a t i o n , providing entertainment, good f o o d , and e x c i t e m e n t ; appeals both to l u x u r y and f u n seekers who have h i g h e r incomes.  0  0  Relatives and Friends 12%  The f a m i l y - c e n t e r e d v a c a t i o n , f u l l of familiar, friendly and inexpensive e x p e r i e n c e s ; appeals most to o l d e r people who are not w e l l educated and have modest Incomes.  In 1978 approx. 5,400 b u s , a i r , r a i l , and t r a v e l l e r s came to Whitehorse and Dawson to v i s i t f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s .  Outdoor Discovering 15-21%  Cook over open f i r e , experience w i l d e r n e s s p i c n i c , tour c a v e s , d r i v e more than 1,000 m i l e s , d r i n k from a stream, camp i n a t e n t unusual, f i s h , l i v e with a foreign family, self cater.  -19% of r i v e r t r a f f i c P i n 1979, 285-475 people/year -2% o f auto campers a t Carmacks, M i n t o , Whitehorse and Dawson parks i n 1978. approx. 500 p e o p l e / y e a r .  P.*  P-1n proportion to .. population growth  upper Crustwith Taste 20.5%  Better educated, high readers of informed publications, like antiques, sportscars, looking attractive.  Active Tourist Grand Hotel Luxury Outdoor Discovering  Young/Modern Living 21%  Single, under 24 years o l d , impulsive, like sportscars and science f i c t i o n . Better educated.  Outdoor Discovering Grand Hotel Luxury Active Sunshine  Upper Crust 16%  Better educated, like new areas, rather spenu on travel than car, travel without children, ambitious, more female.  Active Sunshine Peaceful French Hotel Possibly Outdoor Discovering  Married, job security important, exercise r e g u l a r i l y , read consumer reports, high T.V. watchers.  Peaceful French Hotel Outdoor Discovering Family Hotel  Active Tourist •18-24%  Gourmet restaurants, famous people, broadening educational, exciting, nightclubs, fun, dancing, historical interest abroad.  Peaceful European Hotel 15-19%  Speak language, warm and sunny, l i e on a beach, swim, comfortable accomodation free from s t r i f e , able to drive there.  Grand Hotel Luxury 10-21%  Gourmet restaurants, excellent service, luxurious, good entertainment, theatres, nightclubs, shopping.  Visit Friends and  V i s i t r e l a t i v e s , stay in friends' home, v i s i t friends, watch T.V.  France  Cautious Spender 21% I cr-  U.K. Routine FamilyMinded 21%  Family centred, children come f i r s t in holiday decisions, day and l i f e orderly, concern over health and nutrition  V i s i t friends and relatives Active Tourist Family Seaside  Get to know husband/ wife better, get to know family better, good weather, able to sunbathe and swim, fun, go dancing Similar to active tourist but also expect to sunbathe a l l day and have good weather.  -12% of r a i l , bus and a i r travellers in 1978 stayed in Whitehorse or Dawson, approx. 8,000 people/year. -2% of non-camping auto travellers stayed in Whitehorse or Dawson in 1978, approx. 640 people/year.  Progressive Modern  B e t t e r e d u c a t e d , heavy readers of upper c l a s s publications, liberal o u t l o o k - i e . support c a r e e r women, a r t i s t s and w r i t e r s , independence of w i f e , d i s l i k e dress c o d e s , s t r i c t law enforcement, l i k e foreign travel, v i s i t i n g non-English speaking c o u n t r i e s .  Outdoor Discovering Possibly Visit F r i e n d s and Relatives/ Family Seaside  Male Outlook 20%  Under 34, enjoy s p o r t s on T . V . and watching o p p o s i t e s e x , heavy newspaper r e a d e r s , f i n a n c i a l l y ambitious  Grand Hotel Luxury Outdoor Discovery  Upper C r u s t with T a s t e 20%  Well e d u c a t e d , l i k e new d e s t i n a t i o n s , above average income, l i k e s p o r t s c a r s and a n t i q u e s .  Active Tourist Family Seaside  m  Family Seaside (Britian only) 18.5%  Family h o l i d a y with c h i l d r e n at s e a s i d e . Sunbathing and swimming, e a t i n g w e l l , d r i n k i n g and d a n c i n g , p r e f e r hotel i n Europe f o r 2 weeks.  USA Lifestyle Group J  Description  Vacation Type Preference  A.  Vacation Type Description Primary B. Factors Requirements of l i t t l e of Vacation Importance  Non-Active Visitors 29%  Conventional and introverted people who find it difficult to respond to new or strange situations. Tend to be older with fewer children, less education, lower income, many retired.  Stay within U.S., visit friends and relatives, below average cost, familiar place, few activities, 10-16 days, anytime of year.  Visit friends/ relatives, been before, no language problem, no borders to cross, go on impulse.  Never been before, popular place, exciting experience, things to see and do.  Active City Visitors 12%  Dreamers rather than doers. They tend to be followers rather than leaders, female, of average age, single, with average education.and lower income.  Tend to stay in U.S., visit familiar places and relatives, more often winter, average cost, 16 or more days, alone or with child under 6, city activities.  Visit friends/ relatives, been before, things to see and do, big dty atmosphere, popular price.  Clean air, never  Family Sightseer 6%  Conventional and rigid in their thinking and social behaviour which is a function of their relative lack of emotional security. Tend to be blue collar workers with a higher income, between 3544 years of age, married, high school education, with children.  Stay 1n U.S., visit new places, may visit friends and relatives, 9 days or less, average cost, usually with child under 12, city sightseeing, zoos amusement parks, cultural activities.  Treat for children, never been before, popular place, exciting, lots to see and do, no language problem.  Been before, not too commercial, clean air, quiet and restful.  Present Demand for Preferred Vacation Type  b.-i^n before, no  ant1-amer1can1sm, no language problem, no borders to cross, reasonable rates, go on Impulse, clean accomodation. In 1978 approx 7,900 bus, rail air and auto (non-camping) travellers stayed 1n Whitehorse and Dawson.2  Demand Potential for Development of Vacation Type  Outdoor Vacationers 19%  Seek new and varied experiences. Their impulsive and unconventional behaviour tends to make them "loners". Tend to be s k i l l e d blue c o l l a r workers, of average income, male, under 35 years of age, married, with children with an average education.  V i s i t Canada and U.S., new places, 9 nights or l e s s , summer usually, with children below average'cost, camping, country sightseeing, water sports, hiking, hunting, and f i s h i n g .  Camping facilities, clean a i r , hunting and fishing, treat for children, quiet and r e s t f u l , water sports.  V i s i t friends/ relatives, good transportation, no language Probst, no borders to cross.  Resort Vacationers 8%  Egocentric and domineering extroverts. Want an audience to admire and respect them and tends to Impress their views on others. Tend to be professionals, male, between 25-44 years of age, married, with children, more education and higher Income.  V i s i t U.S. and F l o r i d a , been before, sometimes with children, 9 nights or l e s s , above average cost, water sports, g o l f , tennis and nightclubs.  Water Sports, no borders to cross, good weather, popular place, big city atmosphere.  V i s i t friends/ r e l a t i v e s , go on impulse, never been before.  Foreign Travel Vacationers 26%  Extroverted and gregarious people who like s o c i a l i z i n g , meeting new people and going to new places. Tend to dominate social situations, be female, single, of higher education and Income, professionals, with fewer children.  Europe, less U.S., new places, 17-30 days, f a l l , without children, above average cost, sightseeing, shopping, cultural ' a c t i v i t i e s , night clubs, good restaurants.  Never been before, exciting, foreign atmosphere, beautiful scenery.  V i s i t friends/ relatives, been before, hunting and f i s h i n g , treat for children, no language problem, no borders to cross.  Sources:  (2) 3 4 (5)  38% of river t r a f f i c 1n 1979, 570950 people/ yr. 83% of auto campers at Carmacks, Minto, Whitehorse, and Dawson, 1n 1978 approx. 13,500 people/year. 0  In 1978 approx. 50,000 bus, r a i l a i r and auto (non-camping) travellers stayed in Whitehorse and Dawson. 2  Table 3-1 and use estimates given in Chapter 3 Data from Tourism Yukon (1980) and Department of Tourism and Economic Development (1979) (for method of calculation see Appendix 4. Air Canada (1975) A1r Canada (1974, 1974b) Canadian Government Office of Tourism (1974)  - 118 T a b l e 4-9 p r e s e n t s t h e m a r k e t represent group's  the  present  Yukon R i v e r  It  resident  Yukon m a r k e t .  and p o t e n t i a l  following vacation demand p o t e n t i a l  demand f o r t h e  reviewing Table  types  active  - relatives  friends  and  - active  tourist  - family  sightseer  - budget  An a s s e s s m e n t  4-8 and 4-9 t h a t  4-9.  the have a  Corridor:  travellers  of the e f f e c t  a b o v e v a c a t i o n t y p e s was f o u n d t o have a p o t e n t i a l were:  in Table  the  vacationers  c o n s t r a i n t s s u c h as c o s t and t i m e  a s s e s s m e n t was t h e b a s i s  i n t o account  types  vacationer  h a v e on t h e C o r r i d o r ' s p o t e n t i a l This  market  discovering  - foreign travel Yukon  vacation  to  quiet  - inexpensively  - outdoor  o f each  used  appreciation  - p e a c e and  - outdoor  types  from each c o u n t r y o r t e r r i t o r y  f o r t h e Yukon R i v e r  Canada - a e s t h e t i c  U.S.A.  Estimates  C o r r i d o r could supply are a l s o given  was c o n c l u d e d a f t e r  Europe  g r o u p s and v a c a t i o n  demand i s  contained in Table  by w h i c h t h e demand p o t e n t i a l  revised. after  The v a c a t i o n  could 4-10.  for  the  t y p e s w h i c h were  c o n s t r a i n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s were  taken  Table 4-9 Evaluation of the Corridor's Demand Potential for possible Market Segments from the Yukon (Lifestyle and Vacation Types are from Perreault, Darden and Darden 1977) (Key: 0 - no potential - resources or cultural features not available, * - possible potential if facilities for this type of tourism developed. Need to check feasibility of building these facilities, P - definite potential demand for available resources) Lifestyle Group and % of Sample Population  Description  Preferred Vacation Type  Present Demand for Preferred" Vacation T.ype^  -  Demand Potential for Development of Vacation Type  Budget Travellers 28%  medium income, head of household usually business executive, 2 years of college education, married young, started families early, conservative in using income, least use of credit cards, financially optimistic, interested in travel, but vacation interests economyoriented.  economic activities, interest in camping, educational, historic travel. No interest in jetsetter, cosmopolitan travel activities.  most present river users -if 80% of Yukoners on the river then. 215350 people/year in 1979.  Adventurers 24%  young, well-educated, middlehigh income, professional, business or technical, glamor seekers, low interest in homemaking or communityminded activities, frequent social drinkers, seek excite excitement and wide horizons financially optimistic.  money oriented and venturesome travel, like jet-set and one upmanship activities. Little interest in relaxing travel.  possibly some - if 20% of Yukoners on the river then 50-100 people/year in 1979.  Homebodies 20%  high income, although previously low, older, lowest on glamour and wide horizons scale, finaciilly pessimistic.  like relaxing vacations, staying at home and do not like to travel on vacation. Dislike camping, educational, economic, historical or tour types of travel.  CTl  Vacationers 7%  medium-low income, less education, generally active, in community and leisure pursuits, blue collar worker, average age 42, frequent users of credit cards, .gregarious and family oriented travellers.  weekend travel and short holidays. Like cosmopolitan, first-class and one upmanship travel activities.  Moderates  medium income, education, middle aged. Middle range of all general interest scores, tendency to travel.  social vacations, no interest in tenting, weekend travel, and sports (either participatory or spectator).  21.5%  (Source:  o  Based on Tables 3-1 and 4-4)  1  -121Table 4-10 Effect of Constraints on the Demand for Potential (P) and Possible (*) Vacation Types from Tables 4-8 and 4-9 Constraint  Cost-travel expenses  -package tours, services and activities -construction  Access-travel  Personal Limitations -poor health  -family l i f e stage  Lack of Information  Comments and Implications  Vacation Types i n Tables 5-8 and 5-10 to which Constraints Apply  Energy costs increasing; individual travel and auto travel becoming less f e a s i b l e , group t r a v e l , a i r , bus, and t r a i n increasing in importance.  a l l , especially Individual types l i k e : Peace and Quiet, Relatives and Friends, Family Sightseer, Outdoor Vacationer, Outdoor Discovering and Budget Travelling.  Expensive, a vacation w i l l cost several hundreds to thousands of d o l l a r s . Only a limited market w i l l spend that amount of money on a vacation.  Peace and Quiet, Inexpensive Action, Family Sightseer, Outdoor Vacationer, Outdoor Discovering, Budget Travelling  Expensive; b u i l t f a c i l i t i e s require a sustained level of high use to make a p r o f i t . Short ice-free period and long dark winters l i m i t likelyhood of steady year round flow of t o u r i s t s . Tourism based on capital intensive f a c i l i t i e s u n l i k e l y .  Aesthetic Appreciation, Family Sightseers, Foreign Travel Vacationers, Active Tourist, Family Hotel, Vacationers, Moderates  Its remoteness results in the Yukon being unsuitable as a weekend or short vacation destination for most markets outside the t e r r i t o r y ; t r a v e l l i n g there requires a major committment in time and money  Family Sightseers Outdoor Vacationers  Limited to use by people with time - i e . r e t i r e d , unemployed, students or people in occupations having 2 or more consecutive weeks of holiday.  Adventurers  Limited road access to Yukon River percludes auto and bus modes for tourism development.  Family Sightseers Vacationers Moderates  Retired market requires less strenuous travel and a c t i v i t i e s . Estimate 7-9% of Canadian population are too i l l to travel and 8-11% are in poor physical fitness ( S t a t i s t i c s Canada 1980). Parents with young children often do not travel long distances. Estimate 13.7% of Canadian adults have children under 6 years and 24.1% have children 6-14 years old ( S t a t i s t i c s Canada 1980).  Family Sightseers Family Hotel Budget Travellers  An existing problem which can be improved by disseminating information, but, to do so requires money.  A l l vacation types  no p o t e n t i a l - r e s o u r c e s or c u l t u r a l f e a t u r e s not a v a i l a b l e limited,  small-scale  developments  l i m i t e d , 1 or 2 developments territory  in  l i m i t e d , slow development over several years appears f e a s i b l e w i t h c a r e f u l p l a n n i n g and development possible potential i f f a c i l i t i e s f o r t h i s type of t o u r i s m d e v e l o p e d . Need to check f e a s i b i l i t y of b u i l d i n g these f a c i l i t i e s . d e f i n i t e p o t e n t i a l demand f o r a v a i l a b l e resources demand p o t e n t i a l f o r e x i s t i n g types of u s e , p o s s i b l e a d d i t i o n a l p o t e n t i a l from development of o t h e r types of use compatible w i t h v a c a t i o n type least  potential  small  potential  medium p o t e n t i a l most p o t e n t i a l  - 123 -  Table  4-11  Evaluation of Demand Potential for Different Vacation Types When Constraints are taken into Account Vacation Type  Rating From Tables 4-8 and 4-9  F e a s i b i l i t y Considering Constraints  Evaluation of Demand Potential for Development of Vacation Type  CANADA Aesthetic Appreciation Peace and Quiet  P,* P  Inexpensively Active Relatives and Friends  P,* P  L1,(L2)\L3  3  L1,(L2) 2 ,L3  3  LI ,L2,L3  2  F -depends on population growth  Potential -depending on growth of population  U.S.A Family Sightseers Outdoor Vacationers Foreign Travel Vacationers  P,* P P,*  L2.L3 LI ,L3 L1.L2.L3  EUROPE Outdoor Discovering Active Tourist Family Hotel  P P,*  L2.L3 L2.L3  *  0  Budget Travellers  P  L1.L3  Adventurers  *  LI ,L2,L3  Vacationers  *  0  Moderates  *  YUKON  L2.L3  1 Aesthetic Appreciation encompasses two basic historic-cultural tours: (1) a built-up f a c i l i t y oriented product and (2) a natural human resource product which requires few f a c i l i t i e s . The (2) refers to the f i r s t case where f a c i l i t i e s are needed.  2  Peace and Quiet is also made up of two d i s t i n c t products: (1) single location stays at lodges, cottages,etc.,and (2) relaxing travel and tent or t r a i l e r camping. The (2) refers to the f i r s t case, where b u i l t f a c i l i t i e s are needed.  - 124 aesthetic  appreciation  Canada  p e a c e and  quiet  Canada  outdoor  discovering  Europe  outdoor  vacationers  United  budget Except natural  All  aesthetic  not  Sixty-one  not used t o  screen  they  4.1 t h e  are  (see  activities.  The  problems f o r the  sources  of  activities  vacation  of year  by s o c i a l ty  round f a c i l i t y  routines  this  types  last  were t h e  of  to  finance  in  the  institution conditions  on  results  already  and manpower s k i l l s .  facility  step  elimin-  to  of t h i s  uncertainty  further  were  activities  develop-  e l i m i n a t e d or  considered  Specifically,  the  In  is  further  feasibil-  constrained  a d d i t i o n , the  r e a s o n s why  developments.  was  assessment  and p o t e n t i a l  and p r o b l e m s c a u s e d by l a n d c l a i m s , b u r e a u c r a t i c  willing  to  used  based a t t r a c t i o n s  provincehood d i s c u s s i o n s are  relate  Appendix Four) although i t  q u e s t i o n a b l e by t h e s c r e e n i n g a n a l y s i s . ity  types  l i s t e d on T a b l e 4 - 1 2 .  effect  was a s s e s s e d  p o i n t e d out a d d i t i o n a l ment  five  was c o m p l e t e d ; t h e s e  As e x p l a i n e d i n S e c t i o n  vacation  remained a f t e r  experience categories,  tourism potential  the  recreation.  related to these  activities  screening analysis derive  appreciation all  s u r r o u n d i n g s and o u t d o o r  activities  ated.  Yukon  travellers  for  States  uncertain-  red t a p e ,  investors  are  and un-  - 125 Table Activities A.  Feasible  i n t h e Yukon R i v e r  Dispersed Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n 1.  and  tripping  s l o w / f l a t water natural area organized tours  kayaking -  slow/flat  water  3.  day-use motor b o a t i n g small c r a f t boat tours  4.  motor boat t r i p p i n g small c r a f t large craft tours  5.  game  6.  u n d e v e l o p e d d a y and t r i p p i n g t r a i l s - w a l k i n g and h i k i n g cross-country skiing dog s l e d d i n g snowshoeing snowmobiling treking/outdoor tours  7.  trapping  8.  hunting waterfowl bear guided t r i p s  9.  camping -  10.  11.  fishing bank boat tours ice  pristine primitive  viewing ..; . landscape , vegetation historic sites wildlife/fish guided -  Corridor  Activities  c a n o e i n g and r a f t i n g day-use -  2.  4-12  tours/interpretation natural history h i s t o r y and a r c h a e o l o g y c u l t u r a l and e t h n i c  - 126 Table  4-12 12.  B.  (continued) miscellaneous -  cottaging  -  outdoor s k i l l  C e n t r a l i z e d Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n 13.  developed  trails  (a)  courses and B u i l t  Facility  Activities  day-use  -  14.  horseback r i d i n g recreation vehicles/motorcycles cross-country skiing snowmobiling walking/hiking (b) tripping horseback r i d i n g cross-country skiing snowmobiling SCUBA d i v i n g a n d s a i l i n g -  Lake  Laberge  15.  accomodation f u l l s e r v i c e camping l o d g e s and c o t t a g e s motel/hotel  16.  built  17.  -  facilities festivals, fairs shopping - h a n d i c r a f t s workshops/outdoor s k i l l courses salmon f i s h i n g , n a t i v e f o o d s , n a t i v e dances and a r t g a l l e r i e s , museums conferences/conventions s p o r t s s o m p l e x e s and c o m p e t i t i o n s gambling entertainment/historical shows/theatre downhill skiing g o l d panning  miscellaneous pleasure car picnicing  driving  arts  - 127 EXPERIENCE C L A S S I F I C A T I O N METHOD AND RESULTS The p u r p o s e o f an e x p e r i e n c e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s gories  of experiences which  specific  a r e two m e t h o d s o f o b t a i n i n g an e x p e r i e n c e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . i n f o r m a t i o n reviewed  be u s e d t o d e f i n e  types  w o u l d be u s e d . perceptions  experience  Market  resource  It  was c o n c l u d e d f r o m s c r e e n i n g a n a l y s i s  shown t h a t  similar activities,  of  are  and h a v i n g  there  are  categories.  4-12  Stankey  (Hendee,  1973).  those  determine  resources  that  (Outdoor  several  and  the type  the  of  used  activities  with natural  Research  of experience  and  activites  has  groups  listed  in  C a t t o n , M a r l o w and B r o c k m a n 1 9 6 8 ; L u c u s 1 9 6 4 ; segmentation  results  outdoor experiences  i n f o r m a t i o n was t o o g e n e r a l i z e d t o categories.  deriving experience  since  people.  development.  d i s t i n c t types  Discovering/Vacationing).  experience  infor-  market  f o c u s e d on o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n ,  limited facility  The m a r k e t  4-8 a n d 4-9 lump a l l  and  can  t h e most c r i t i c a l ,  people a s s o c i a t e d with the outdoor r e c r e a t i o n  Table  Here  S e c o n d , e x i s t i n g c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s can be  they  surroundings  screening analysis  largely  if  t h e most p o t e n t i a l  interactions.  attributes  information is  and m o t i v a t i o n s  received.  apply to  in the  r e l a t i o n s h i p s and d e v e l o p  pertaining to a c t i v i t i e s ,  people's  and s o c i a l  of  cate-  There  mation  settings  interaction  the  of  empirical  natural  from the  identify  types  First,  activities,  results  to  For these  categories  was  i n t o one g e n e r a l  Moreover, be u s e f u l reasons used.  presented  the  the for  in  Tables  category  segmentation formulating  second method  other of  - 128 Ideally,  a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system f o r experiences  by m u l t i v a r i a t e teraction  analysis  data.  Unfortunately  from m u l t i v a r i a t e universally  Beginnings  of a c t i v i t y ,  analysis  there  of a l l  natural  three  r e l a t i o n s h i p of various  interactions  attitude, etc.,  and r e s o u r c e s .  basis of p a r t i c i p a t i o n  Activity  1975); o c c a s s i o n a l l y the  (London, C r a n d a l l  Burdge  a  has been  groups t o  typing is  frequently  (Hendee, basis  to spec-  social done on  G a l e and C a t t o n 1 9 7 1 ,  i s the  needs a c t i v i t i e s  vary:  1980).  factor  ad-  analysis  has been f a v o u r e d f o r t h e  i s more v a l i d t e c h n i c a l l y  satIn  ( B u r t o n 1 9 7 1 , M c k e c h n i e 1 9 7 4 , Hendee  1 9 7 4 ) , but c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s it  according  activity  and F i t z g i b b o n s 1 9 7 7 , C r a n d a l l  had most u s a g e  f i v e y e a r s because Ditton,  derived  nor i s there  and, there  t h e methods f o r g r o u p i n g a c t i v i t i e s  initially  in-  ( B u r t o n 1 9 7 1 , Romsa 1 9 7 3 , M c k e c h n i e 1974  and Duncan 1 9 7 8 ) , o r p r e f e r e n c e  dition,  factors,  h a v e been made i n c a t e g o r i z i n g a c t i v i t i e s  u l a t i o n on t h e  isfy  s e t t i n g and s o c i a l  accepted c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system.  preference,  Ritchie  developed  i s no s y s t e m w h i c h i s  participation,  the  s h o u l d be  and past  (Beaman 1 9 7 5 ;  G o o d a l e and J o h n s e n 1 9 7 5 , L o n d o n , C r a n d a l l  and F i t z g i b b o n s  1977).  Another method, m u l t i - d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g l i m i t e d number o f a c t i v i t i e s MDS i s most u s e f u l g r o u p s and s o c i a l  for  ( M D S ) , has been u s e d f o r a  ( R i t c h i e 1974, 1975a; Holbrook  revealing the  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  or resource dimensions.  1980).  activity  - 129 MDS r e s e a r c h activities ferences are  l i s t e d in Table  (Ritchie  general  specific, shown  has i d e n t i f i e d f i v e  w h i c h e x p l a i n how t h e  4-12 c o u l d be g r o u p e d a c c o r d i n g t o  1 9 7 4 , 1 9 7 5 a ; Hoi b r o o k 1 9 8 0 ) .  and r e p r e s e n t  it  factors  Four of the  a continuum of p r e f e r e n c e s ,  i s the quest  for trophies.  pre-  factors  the f i f t h  is  The f o u r c o n t i n u u m s a r e  below.  Wilderness  Individual  I  Active  I,  A Passive  A c c o r d i n g t o MDS, e x p e r i e n c e c a t e g o r i e s binations involve  of the f i v e  no q u e s t  factors.  for trophies  be p a s s i v e  a r e made up o f v a r y i n g  plus attainment  easy  activities  com-  could  of the experience i n -  Experience  s u r r o u n d i n g s , have a m o d e r a t e  and i n v o l v e  Difficult  F o r e x a m p l e , one e x p e r i e n c e  d i c a t e d by " A " i n t h e a b o v e c o n t i n u u m s . be i n n a t u r a l  1  I  A Group  Urban  Simple  type  amount o f  " A " would  socializing,  s u c h as c o t t a g i n g o r c a r  camping.  In t h i s findings studies (1)  s t u d y an e x p e r i e n c e t y p o l o g y was i n d u c e d by s y n t h e s i z i n g t h e of several  studies  (2)  Three  criteria  determined  which  were u s e d :  the a c t i v i t y  key  studies.  typology  (Holbrook  social  the studies 4 - 1 2 , and  should agree with  1980, R i t c h i e  and r e s o u r c e  f i n d i n g s f r o m MDS  1 9 7 4 , 1 9 7 5 a , 1975b) so t h a t  d i m e n s i o n s c a n be c o r r e l a t e d ,  should emphasize the a c t i v i t i e s  listed  i n Table  - 130 (3) Three  cluster analysis basic  s h o u l d be t h e  s o u r c e s were used t o d e v e l o p t h e e x p e r i e n c e  shown i n T a b l e 4 - 1 3 , t h e s e USDA ( 1 9 7 4 ) specific  grouping method.  are:  and C h r i s t i a n s e n  categories  are  H e n d e e , G a l e and C a t t o n  (1977).  Additional  n o t e d i n c o l u m n (7)  sources  categories (1971); for  of Table 4-13.  Table 4-13 The Experience Categories and Natural Setting, Social Interaction and Natural S e t t i n g S (2) (3) (4) (1) Type of i Activities Important Development Experience Sought Compatable Features Level with Experience p r i s t i n e - no s i t e minimum evidence self organized I. a) Wilderness of man and maximum modification, no participation in Spiritual f a c i l i t i e s , no evidence of a c t i v i t i e s of: wilderness, road or solitude Important, canoeing, r a f t i n g , natural forces. motorized access. kayaking, camping, Isolation from peace and motorized access rejuvlnatlon from viewing, hiking, and large cross-country closeness with groups. s k i i n g , dog nature. Escape sledding, from stress of snowshoeing, nature urban l i v i n g study, fishing and r o l e playing. for food needs, high level of outdoor s k i l l s and self reliance. b) WildernessAppreciation appreciation of natural features; feeling of achievement, adventure and challenge from contact with the elements. Opportunities for solitude and growth of group members relations.  above a c t i v i t i e s plus small organized wilderness tours, boating with small motors, cabins, trapping, high level of outdoor s k i l l s and self reliance.  same as above, although less stringent about solitude: 1 or 2 contacts with small groups/ day accepted.  primltivemanimum s i t e modification, some rustic changes done to protect s i t e (vs comfort of user). Sanitation facilities simple and stark,site maintence by users, no road or motorized access, spacing informal and  A c t i v i t y Determinants for Each Category o c i a l Interactions (5) ^(6) Type Quantity of People  (7) Sources  no contact with other travellers s o c i a l i z e only with chosen group companions.  one Individual or a small group (2-6 people)  Hendee, Catton, Harlow and Brockman 1968 McKlnley 1966 Catton 1969  socialization within group of family or friends, development of comraderie.  small group (2-6 people), occasional meetings with other groups.  Hendee, Catton, Marlow and Brockman 1968, Burch 1969, Lucus 1980  dispersed so as to minimize contact with others. Only indigineous materials used for s i t e alterations. II. Nature-Trophy hunting, hunting and Fishing f i s h i n g , t r a p p i n g , cabins, lodges, quest for trophies quided t r i p s , in natural canoeing, environment hiking, rafting, motor boating (smal1), viewing, horseback treking. Low to high level of outdoor s k i l l s .  population of trophy sized animals and f i s h , natural state of environment.  range from pristine campsites to comfortable lodges. General l y , some facilitiesf i r e p i t s , and sanitation, guided tours often provide more services.  range from none (solo t r i p s ) to extensive socialIzation with large groups at lodges.  one, small group (2-6 people), large group (up to 30 or more people).  III.  natural environment, relatively easy access.  semi-primitiveas 1(b) above plus more services: water, sanitation,site maintenance, and primitive road access. No maintained accomodation.  group socialization, some outside contact primarily single groups, brief meetings and s o c i a l i z a t i o n of several groups.  small groups (2-6 people), occasional meeting of 13 small groups.  Nature Passive appreciate nature but physical stamina not necessary, relaxation, some social Interaction.  activities requiring l i t t l e effort-car camping, nature viewing and study, fishing for food needs, organized canoe and r a f t tours, day walks, outdoor tours. Moderate level of outdoor skills.  Meyer 1978 Bryan 1979  IV. Nature-Comfort Sociable Appreciate nature, taste of adventure but also sense of security and comfort. Expect to meet people outside group. Experience equally divided between social and environmental objectives.  canoeing, r a f t i n g , kayaking, motor boating (small) fishing for food needs, trapping, full-service camping, cottaging, outdoor s k i l l courses, a l l undeveloped t r a i l a c t i v i t i e s , nature and h i s t o r i c viewing, pleasure car d r i v i n g , p l c n l d n g . Low level of outdoor s k i l l s .  essentially natural environment, good access,  intermediate-site socialization modification outside group moderate, f a c i l i t i e s anticipated, equally provided Socialization for s i t e protection with and and comfort of influences from users. Well people outside maintained immediate sanitation, water sphere of and seasonal friends/family accomodation accepted. f a c i l i t i e s . Hard surfaced roads and t r a i l s . Informal provision of information. Some f a c i l i t i e s for buying limited supplies, meals. Inconspicuous spacing and use controls. Rustic seasonal accomodation-eg. permanent floors for gold rush style tents. Only natural material used.  several small groups (26 people/group), or 1 or 2 large groups (u D to 30 people  Catton 1969  V. Sociable Learning: Nature and Historic Pleasing environment, group learning experiences, numerous opportunities for s o c i a l i z i n g , appreciation and learning about natural and h i s t o r i c features.  r e s o r t , lodge vacation, f u l l service camping guided tours, developed t r a i l s : horseback r i d i n g , cross-country s k i i n g , walking, festivals, workshops, salmon fishing and native exhibits, historical shows, gambling, gold panning, nature study and viewing minimal outdoor s k i l l s .  pleasing environment, providing change of routine and surroundings, easy access with a l l types of motor vehicles  semi-rnoderns i t e heavily modified, many f a c i l i t i e s provided for comfort and convenience of users, no luxury f a c i l i t i e s . Synthetic materials used, artificial surfaces on a l l roads and t r a i l s . Basic permanent accomodation-eg. cottages, f a c i l i t i e s for obtaining information, most supplies, meals and some specialty items (eg. souvenirs, handicrafts).  active socialopportunities to interact with other tourists f a c i l i t a t e d by development  variable group size, site used by several other groups. Upper use level determined by congestion and queuing factors more than environmental perception.  VI. ActiveOutdoor Sports intense stimulation, glamour, fun, and being outdoors. Do not require natural setting.  s a i l i n g , SCUBA d i v i n g , downhill s k i i n g , horseback r i d i n g , recreation vehicles, motorcycles, sports complexes and and competitions. No outdoor s k i l l s ; moderate to high sport skills.  specialized features for a sport such as ski h i l l s , horse and recreation vehicle t r a i l s , etc. Easy access, large enough to accomodate numerous people.  range from intermediate facilities similar to those for IV to modern facilities described in VII below. Generally extensive site modification, exact type depends on activity.  variable with each sport but typically very socialnumerous opportunities for interaction.  variable group McKechnie 1974 size, f a c i l i t y P h i l l i p s 1977 used by numerous other people. Upper use level determined by queuing factors.  Canadian Government Office of Tourism 1974 A1r Canada 1974b, 1975  VII.  CulturalSocial socializing, meeting new people, travel to new exotic places, enjoyment of beautiful scenery, luxury, cultural events.  guided tours, sightseeing, viewing h i s t o r i c sites, festivals, f a i r s , shopping, art g a l l e r i e s , conferences, gambling, entertainment, motel/hotel, salmon f i s h i n g and native shows.  pleasing environment, attractive as a backdrop to highly social tourist.  modernextensive s i t e modification, most f a c i l i t i e s purely for comfort of users. Luxury f a c i l i t i e s , entertainment, manicured settingclipped hedges, gardens, mowed lawns etc.  highly gregarioussurrounded by people, opportunities to s o c i a l i z e always available.  variable group size encounter numerous -other groups en route and at each s i t e .  same references as for V  - 136 CHAPTER F I V E :  CARRYING CAPACITY  METHODS  INTRODUCTION This  chapter  Corridor's the  carrying  experience  procedures (1)  o u t l i n e s t h e methods used t o e s t i m a t e capacity  groups  t h e Yukon  River  f o r a few s p e c i a l i z e d a c t i v i t i e s  i d e n t i f i e d in Chapter  Four.  Included  and are  for:  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of  factors  important  for determining  biophysical  factors  important  for  socio-  1imitations, (2)  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of psychological  limitations,  (3)  inventorying  (4)  calculating limits category,  (5)  pertinent  resource  for different  characteristics, factors  f o r each  experience  and  e s t i m a t i n g the experience Three  determining  study area's  overall  resource  capacity  for  each  d e f i n e d as  fol-  category.  types  of c a p a c i t y  were s t u d i e d , t h e y  are  lows: (1)  Instantaneous  Capacity  simultaneously  Daily  Capacity  given  area  ple/unit (3)  Annual AC i s  - t h e maximum number o f  within a unit  number o f p e o p l e / u n i t (2)  (IC)  (DC)  times the  area.  IC  is  people  e x p r e s s e d as  the  area.  - the IC.  turnover DC i s  rate of  people  e x p r e s s e d as t h e  p e r day number o f  in a peo-  area/day.  Capacity  (AC)  - the  e x p r e s s e d as t h e  DC t i m e s  number o f  the  days of  people/unit  use p e r  area/year.  year.  - 137 -  Within  the c o r r i d o r three  a r e a s w e r e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d on t h e  use p a t t e r n s , t h e s e w e r e :  river,  r i v e r was assumed t o be t h e evidence fore,  supports t h i s  intensive  shoreline, as  the  focus of a c t i v i t i e s  assumption  experiences,  e x a m p l e USDA 1 9 7 4 ) .  There-  river  and such  v i e w i n g o r as a p l e a s a n t  backdrop f o r  concen-  used i n d i f f e r e n t ways,  t h e t y p e and  importance  uses.  is  of carrying capacity analysis  factors  d i f f e r s among t h e t h r e e  was done f o r e a c h a r e a .  s h o r e l i n e and h i n t e r l a n d a r e are  (for  and  of  The  h i n t e r l a n d w o u l d o n l y be u s e d f o r d i s p e r s e d u s e s  Because each area  ate  s h o r e l i n e and h i n t e r l a n d .  u s e was assumed t o be r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e  hunting, hiking,  trated  basis  areas.  Separ-  The b o u n d a r i e s o f t h e  river,  shown on Map 1 i n C h a p t e r S i x .  They  d e f i n e d a c c o r d i n g t o Hooper  (1977a)  and L o m b a r d N o r t h  (1975)  as  follows: River  - the a c t i v e highwater  Shore!ine- whichever  river  channel  and b e a c h up a s f a r  as  the  mark. is  less:  the  f o r e s h o r e and b a c k s h o r e  valley  b o t t o m , see Hooper  tion),  or 1 k i l o m e t e r from the channel  Lombard N o r t h  (1975)  (1977a)  for precise edge.  s u g g e s t e d a 1,000 f o o t  b o u n d a r y , one k i l o m e t e r was c h o s e n b e c a u s e  (ie.  definiAlthough  (0.304 it  would  l a r g e e n o u g h t o accommodate any t o u r i s m d e v e l o p m e n t not e x t e n d beyond t h e oriented  activities.  normal d i s p e r s a l  area  of  km) be yet  water-  - 138 H i n t e r l a n d - t h e maximum v i e w i n g d i s t a n c e river. sis  The e x a c t  of t o p o g r a p h i c maps,  taken  every eight  necessary in  People  can h i k e ,  landscapes.  sites occur. valid  b u i l d cottages  category  some a c t i v i t i e s  require  specific  capacities  separately.  In  f o c u s e d on t h e  is wider  than  possible  is  increases  developments.  of  within  a  requirements. eight  Based  experience  Four; general and e a c h  of  resource  experience  determined.  gold panning or viewing features,  otherwise,  resource  as w e l l  i d e n t i f i e d from s c r e e n i n g  as  the  capacity  f o r the  analyses.  cannot  requirements  Therefore,  carrying  historic  they  s p e c i a l i z e d resource  short,  f o r a few s p e c i a l i z e d a c t i v i t i e s categories  same r e s o u r c e  homogeneous  having  photographs  every a c t i v i t y  specialized activities.  for a c t i v i t i e s  were a n a l y s e d  s u c h as  resource  The a s s u m p t i o n o f for these  was  for  analy-  can o c c u r u n d e r s u c h a r a n g e  were d e f i n e d f o r each c a t e g o r y  tourism capacity  and  or snowmobile i n a wide v a r i e t y  has t h e  analysis  and  it  shoreline  w h i c h were d e s c r i b e d i n C h a p t e r  requirements category's  to allow  from p o t e n t i a l  assumption, the  categories  However,  viewing  f i e l d notes  a key a s s u m p t i o n was m a d e :  experience  on t h i s  i n most c a s e s  shoreline  was d e t e r m i n e d f r o m  km ( f i v e m i l e s ) ,  S i n c e most a c t i v i t i e s  conditions, given  boundary  from the  is  not  carrying  requirements was  eight  estimated experience  - 139 There  are  numerous methods  and t h e e v a l u a t i o n tory  recreation  1966, Resource A n a l y s i s  1971, Way  of  f o r the  Force  al  1977b,  In  Canada L a n d  1976, O n t a r i o Land  a d d i t i o n , there  o f methods s p e c i f i c a l l y  Resources  (eg.  Inventory  for  1980, McConnell  rivers  are  (eg.  a  capacity  (eg.  H o o p e r 1977a and  1969, Terry  USDA 1 9 7 4 ; H e l d , B r i c k l e r  L i d d l e 1 9 7 5 a ; Chubb and A s h t o n 1 9 6 9 ; G r e i s t 1974;  Fisher  studies there  and K r u t i l l a 1 9 7 2 ) .  l i s t e d a b o v e and o t h e r  was  After  Therefore,  new a n a l y t i c a l  of  1977, calculating  and W i l c o x 1 9 6 9 ;  1 9 7 5 ; Ovington et  an e x t e n s i v e  literature,  no m e t h o d s u i t e d t o t h e  Task  1979, Ontario M i n i s t r y  and S t o l l  it  was  study. The  various  were s e l e c t e d  as  (1)  the  resource c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  m i n e d by t h e  resource  to  various  (2)  d a t a must be a p p r o p r i a t e t o a r e c o n n a i s s a n c e  (3)  m e t h o d s must c o n s i d e r t h e from c a t e g o r i e s  (4)  data  Ia  to VII,  full  chapter  guidelines:  be m e a s u r e d  demands o f t h e  the  that  remainder of t h i s  following criteria  al  of  concluded  purposes of t h i s  methods were d e v e l o p e d .  review  components o f the methods d e s c r i b e d i n t h e using the  (eg.  bewildering  M o r i s a w a 1 9 7 1 , and C r a i g h e a d and C r a i g h e a d 1 9 6 2 ) and f o r carrying  Inven-  and P i e r c e 1 9 7 4 ) , and d e v e l o p m e n t  Chubb and Baumen 1 9 7 6 , P l a t t s  Natural  the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ,  1976, H i l l s 1961, Northern P i p e l i n e  1 9 7 5 , McHarg 1 9 7 1 ) .  quantity  resources  Branch  Leopold 1969, Beaubier  1978, Anderson et  inventory,  s h o u l d be market level  scope of t o u r i s t  deter-  types, of  detail,  experiences  and  i n p u t s must be l i m i t e d t o  available  secondary  and what can be c o l l e c t e d i n a few weeks i n t h e  sources  study  area.  - 140 5.1  FACTORS IMPORTANT TO DETERMINING B I O P H Y S I C A L Table ture  5-1 as  lists  important  capacities. limit  the  biophysical  t o u r i s m i n two use  trampling)  level  - specific ecological  velopments  infeasible.  which  require  ecological  escallate  l i m i t a t i o n s are substantial  each  (eg.  related  5.1.1  (ie.  quality  permafrost,  environor  erosion  and make  de-  categories  Categories V-VII)  standards  has on t o u r i s m c a p a c i t y  whereas  categories (ie.  as w e l l  which  I-IV).  as t h e  are described i n  The  values the  sections.  Topography and  Soils  Although s o i l s  and t o p o g r a p h y a r e  they  of the  to experience  w h i c h were used t o measure t h e s e e f f e c t s following  can  experience type,  construction costs  development  environmental  factor  carrying  conditions  quality  c o n d i t i o n s p e r se a p p l y t o e x p e r i e n c e  have h i g h n a t u r a l effects  to a given  characteristics  drainage)  cost  ecological  degrade the  acceptable  potential,  Generally  table,  tourism  litera-  ways:  (eg.  ment b e l o w t h e  i d e n t i f i e d from the  for appraising instantaneous  As i m p l i e d i n t h e  - impacts of  factors  LIMITATIONS  are d i s c u s s e d t o g e t h e r  l i s t e d separately  in this  s e c t i o n as t h e i r  in Table  5-1,  effects  are  related. Slope  - affects for  the  f e a s i b i l i t y of  septic tanks,  building f a c i l i t i e s ,  development  road c o n s t r u c t i o n , e r o s i o n p o t e n t i a l ,  and  - 141 Table Factors  Affecting  (Key:  Experience Resource A.  5-1  Instantaneous Biophysical Carrying Capacity tor- each E x p e r i e n c e Type X - i n t r i n s i c ecological factor"that could l i m i t use l e v e l i t s e l f C - c o s t f a c t o r , t h a t c o u l d l i m i t maximum number o f p e o p l e b e c a u s e o f h i g h d e v e l o p m e n t c o s t s due t o e c o l o g i c a l conditions)  Levels  Category/  Characteristics  R i v e r Uses HYDROLOGY water q u a l i t y hazards WILDLIFE abundance composition population growth r a t e FISH. " abundance composition population growth r a t e catchabi1ity offish S h o r e l i n e Uses VEGETATION density composition % prickley plants variety TOPOGRAPHY slope depth to bedrock parent material SOILS texture drainage permafrost HYDROLOGY flooding water q u a l i t y bank h e i g h t bank a n g l e bank v e g e t a t i o n % slumping  Ia  l b - . ; II  .III  IV  V  VI  VII  X X  X,C X  x,c x,c  c x,c  c c  c c  c c  c c  X X  X X  X X  X  X  -  -  -  -  -  -  X  -  -  -  -  -  X X  X X  X X  X X  X X  -  -  -  -  -  X  -  -  -  -  -  X  -  -  -  -  -  c c  c c  c c  --  -  X X X X  X,C X X X  x,c x,c x,c  c x,c c x  c x,c c  X X X  X X X  x,c x,c x,c  x,c X X  c c c c x,c x,c  c c x,c  c c  X X X  X X X  x,c x,c x,c  X X X  x,c x,c x,c x,c x,c x,c  x,c x,c x,c  x,i  -  C  c x,c x,c x,c x: c x,c  c c  c c c c c x,c  c c c c c c  c c c c c c  X X X X X  x,c X X X X  X  s  X X  c x,c  X  -  c c c c c c  -  -  X,i X,i  Table  5-1  (continued)  Experience Resource  Category/  Characteristics  WILDLIFE abundance composition population growth rate hazards FISH abundance composition population growth rate catchability of f i s h HISTORIC s t a t e of r e p a i r s i z e of b u i l d i n g H i n t e r l a n d Uses VEGETATION density composition % p r i c k l y plants variety TOPOGRAPHY s i ope depth t o bedrock SOILS texture drainage WILDLIFE abundance composition population growth rate  Ia  Ib  I I I I I  IV  X X  X X  X X  X  -  -  X  -  X  X  X X  X X  X X  X X  X X  -  -  X  -  -  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  -  -  -  x,c  c  X X X X  X X X X  x,c x,c x,c  c c c  c c c  X X  X X  X X  X X  X X  X X  X X  x,c x,c  c  c  X X  X X  x  X  X  -  -  -  X  X  -  -  X  X  X  -  -  X  X  X  X  -  -  X  -  -  V  VI  VII  - 143 -  suitability  f o r p a t h s , t r a i l s , c a m p s i t e s and p i c n i c  (Resource A n a l y s i s Branch 1979).  Important  1 9 7 6 , Root  s l o p e ranges are  sites  and K n a p i k 1 9 7 2 , S t a n e k  l i s t e d i n Appendix  Table  A5-1.  Depth t o Bedrock  - affects  grounds,  s e p t i c t a n k s , developments  p a r k i n g , r o a d s and b u i l d i n g s , e r o s i o n  depth of p l a n t  rooting structure,  to withstand winds. depth  such as  potential,  and t h e a b i l i t y  A p p e n d i x T a b l e A5-2 l i s t s  - affects  drainage,  of construction materials, suitability,  trees  pertinent  erosion p o t e n t i a l ,  availability  slumping p o t e n t i a l , s e p t i c  and l a n d a c t i v i t i e s  (in  the a n a l y s i s  assumed a l l  land a c t i v i t i e s  drainage).  As A p p e n d i x T a b l e A5-3 i n d i c a t e s , s o i l  and d r a i n a g e a r e  are a f f e c t e d  The i m p o r t a n t t y p e s  study area  are:  fluvial, 1977) .  it  of parent  material  and texture parent  in  (Ronstad et  The d e f i n i t i o n s and d e s c r i p t i o n s o f e a c h o f  of Soil  the  alluvium, colluvium, morainal, glacio-  g l a c i o - l a c u s t r i n e , and o r g a n i c  of parental  tank was  by e r o s i o n  r e l a t e d , although i m p e r f e c t l y , to  material.  1978) .  of  ranges.  Parent Material  types  play-  material  are  given  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n (Canadian  Soil  i n The C a n a d i a n Survey  al these System  Committee  - 144 Texture - affects erosion  built  facilities,  potential  grounds,  texture  are  class  the  and i n t e n s i v e  percentage  (Douglas  (Jubenville  1976):  - sand, g r a v e l ,  Fair  - stoney  Poor  - heavy c l a y  texture  categories  and o t h e r  soil  to p a r t i c u l a r  use,  septic  activities).  and o t h e r  factors  of d i f f e r e n t  most u s e s ,  the  1976).  follows  loam silt  loam  silt  because  s e p t i c tank  Five tables  of the  and i m p a c t s  of these  texture,  the of  specificity  of  (ie.  construction tables  drainage,  i n d e t e r m i n i n g the  allude slope,  ground  surface  poses a s e v e r e  limita-  uses.  poor d r a i n a g e  f a c i l i t y developments  playgrounds)  as  engineering  Again several  aspect  t i o n to  or  uses  tanks,  i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p betw een  - affects  sandy  limitations.  t o the  capability  Branch  is  loam, c l a y ,  c r i t e r i a were used because  dispersed t r a i l  or  A 5 - 3 , A 5 - 4 , A 5 - 5 , A5-6 a n d A 5 - 7 c o n t a i n  used t o a s s e s s  different  factors  Class  Good  criteria  The  camp-  and c l a y ,  Analysis  classes  Texture  s u c h as  areas.  sand, s i l t  s u i t a b i l i t y of t e x t u r e  fects  play  1974, Resource  Rating  Drainage  of  The g e n e r a l  Appendix Tables  construction,  and s i t i n g f o r d e v e l o p m e n t s  picnic sites  t o measure  r o a d and t r a i l  of costs  (ie.  campsites, buildings,  to d r a i n .  suitability.  w e r e t h o s e d e f i n e d by R o n s t a d e t  Drainage  The d r a i n a g e al  (1977)  also  categories  and  are:  afused  - 145 -  Permafrost  (1)  well  (2)  imperfectly  drained  (3)  very  drained.  - affects  etc),  drained  (dry)  poorly  built  facilities  s e p t i c tanks  and any  layer.  The  important  whether  it  tive  or  impeding l a y e r .  cant  engineering  is  (moist-gleyed  local  (ie.  factors  to  Ronstad's  5.1.2  assess  or widespread,  construction  3 categories  are  and t h e  Appendix Table  permafrost-drainage  trails,  buildings  use w h i c h d i s t u r b s t h e  ranges.  b u i l d i n g and r o a d d e v e l o p m e n t s . (1977)  roads,  phases)  In  surface  the  extent,  depth  of the  A5-6 g i v e s These  signifi-  can a p p l y  addition,  c l a s s i f i c t i o n was  ac-  to  Ronstad's used.  are:  (1)  well  drained with  (2)  imperfectly  (3)  poorly drained with  permafrost  drained  with  permafrost  permafrost.  Vegetation Density  - affects costs ness  abundance  for developed campsites  f o l l o w i n g are derness Analysis  use  of w i l d l i f e facilities  (food  and t r a i l s ,  and h i k i n g a r e a s , important  (Jubenville  Branch  density  and c o v e r ) , access  and e r o s i o n ranges  for  1 9 7 6 , Hooper 1977b,  clearing to  wilder-  levels.  clearing  The and  Resource  1976).  30% u n d e r s t o r y ,  30-75% u n d e r s t o r y ,  75% u n d e r s t o r y .  wil-  - 146 Composition - affects  a b u n d a n c e and t y p e o f w i l d l i f e  h u n t i n g and v i e w i n g and i t sensitivity  t o use  affects  (Douglas  and p e r s o n a l types  research  These  habitats  are  A5-8 g i v e s  affect to  (1979),  listed  the  impact  important  Prickly  Branch  that  plants  used f o r  composition  Appendix  area;  the  ( 1 9 7 6 ) was  etc.,  clearing  significant  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n from  used t o  Table  vegetation.  do n o t h a v e s i t e only  (1980)  associated  Table 6-3.  are the  1978).  vegetation  p r i c k l y p l a n t s , dead s t a n d i n g t r e e s ,  hazard in the study Analysis  al  O s w a l d and K i n g  and t h e i r  standards  for  overall  Lacate et  have d i s t i n c t i v e  in Chapter 6,  experience types  III).  seven  composition types  Hazards - poison i v y ,  I  (1977),  were i d e n t i f i e d w h i c h  types.  the a r e a ' s  1974, 1974a;  B a s e d on N e i l a n d and V i e r e c k  species  assess  (ie.  plant  ,  Resource  their  significance.  Variety  - affects vegetation  wildlife  abundance.  f o r w i l d l i f e are  The s i g n i f i c a n t  listed  The f o l l o w i n g s o u r c e s w e r e u s e d t o ies: (pers.  Douglas  (1974),  Hoefs  (pes.  comm. 1 9 7 9 ) , K e l l e y h o u s e  Mossop ( p e r s .  comm. 1 9 7 9 ) .  categories  in Appendix Table identify  these  comm. 1 9 7 9 ) ,  (pers.  A5-11.  categor-  Gasaway  comm. 1 9 8 0 ) ,  of  and  - 147 5.1.3  Hydrology F l o o d i n g Hazard - a f f e c t s  all  aspects  t o measure  hazard,  and  occur  are:  the  for  Stanley  all  uses  activities (1973)  which  relate  these  are  given  use t o  (1977)  important:  and c o l i f o r m c o u n t s  (Chess  The a c c e p t e d  the  types  of  use  (eg.  level.  Working  defined  levels;  pertinent  criteria  trace  standards,  that  this  metals,  p u b l i c water  factors  determine  study's  oxygen  1975).  Quality  for  different  s u p p l y o r s w i m m i n g ) were  f o r each  factor  at  a  purposes  dissolved  the  see A p p e n d i x T a b l e A5-9 f o r each  criteria.  Group  numerous  Group on W a t e r  for these  levels  The W o r k i n g  describe  For  quality  quality  as  fishing.  1 9 7 9 , S m i t h and Cameron  t o d e f i n e t h e maximum v a l u e quality  important water acceptable  three  (1977)  will  used.  and m i c r o b i a l  values  discharge  s w i m m i n g , b o a t i n g and  quality  are  the  as w e l l  given waterbody's  Objectives  Analysis  of  r e q u i r i n g d r i n k i n g water  Objectives  chemical  factors  a given  important  (1976)'  s u c h as  of  extent  i n Appendix Table A5-9.  on W a t e r Q u a l i t y physical,  areal  The  Branch  defined three  type  the  The R e s o u r c e  l i m i t a t i o n s were  - affects  specific  (1)  developments.  p r o b a b i l i t y that  (Fenco 1974).  ratings  Water Q u a l i t y  (2)  permanent  used  three  standard's  - 148 H a z a r d s - can a f f e c t  most w a t e r b a s e d a c t i v i t i e s .  h a z a r d s d e p e n d s on t h e o r not management ment does  undertakes  not c l e a r  in categories  severity  hazards  I and I I ,  of the  to  result  that  these  cases  where  management  does  hazards  maintenace  costs  for the (1)  Yukon R i v e r  In  use i s  The s i g n i f i c a n t  not  those  uses  affected,  factors  to  are  but  measure  are:  debris accumulation - type; high degree  Manage-  s u c h as  by h a z a r d s .  are.  hazards.  uses  the  of  whether  certain  d i s r u p t e d or prevented remove  p r o b l e m and  remove t h e  for  with  The e f f e c t  frequency;  l o w , medium o r  of danger a s s o c i a t e d w i t h sweepers  and  log  jams, (2)  shallowness tribution, factors  (3)  and c h a n n e l frequency  primarily  bank o v e r h a n g hang.  Bank - a f f e c t s  the  activities  bank  large  A5-5 g i v e s  for  were u s e d f o r  uses  of  vegetation  slumping classes  erosion  (1976)  overhang.  t o w a t e r and  f o r which m o d i f i c a t i o n i s  include:  classes  bank  height,  shoreline  (from Resource  Analysis  Branch  devel-  permissible.  bank a n g l e  ( f r o m H o o p e r 1 9 7 7 a ) and  over-  potential  Branch  c l a s s i f y i n g bank  and  of  h a v i n g no s i t e m o d i f i c a t i o n , and  uses  measures  and p e r c e n t the  dis-  sandbars;  watercraft,  used; Resource A n a l y s i s  e a s e and c o m f o r t o f a c c e s s  opment c o s t s Important  important to  - erosion potential  classification  abundance,  o f c h a n g e and d e p t h o f  Appendix Table  categories  s t a b i l i t y - the  and  bank 1976).  - 149 -  5.1.4  Wildlife Abundance - a f f e c t s nificant grizzly  opportunities for viewing  species bear,  for  black  bear,  mammals, w a t e r f o w l , finition  viewing,  and h u n t i n g .  The  h u n t i n g and t r a p p i n g  are:  moose, w o l f ,  bald eagles,  o f abundance  levels  t h i n h o r n sheep,  and o t h e r  used h e r e i n  raptors.  are  The s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r s  types  relation to different  and a b u n d a n c e  Descriptions 1979),  tat  for habitat  Douglas  leyhouse  (1974),  (pers.  rates  habitats  for different  the  factors  level are  and K e l -  A5-11  level.  on g r o w t h  f o r hunt e f f o r t  rate are  habi-  presented.  involves  factors  are for  disturbances.  sustained yield  survival  population sizes,  and d i s t u r b a n c e  standards  of  in  comm.  and w i l d l i f e c o m p o s i t i o n l e v e l s  which depends, i n p a r t , quality  comm. 1 9 7 9 )  The s i g n i f i c a n t  and s p e c i f i c a n i m a l  Important  ment p r a c t i c e s  are  de-  habitat  (pers.  Appendix Table  species  as a b o v e .  P o p u l a t i o n Growth Rate - a f f e c t s hunting.  In  The  disturbances.  from Hoefs  (pers.  are  same t o u r i s m o p p o r t u n i t i e s a n d  requirements  different  are  Gasaway  f o r each  the  same s p e c i e s  habitat  types  comm. 1 9 8 0 ) .  requirements  Composition - affects the  in  small  presented  Appendix Table A5-10.  sig-  and  reproduction  habitat  types,  An i m p o r t a n t is  for  managemeasure  hunt e f f o r t .  given  i n Table  The  A5-12.  - 150 -  Hazard - a f f e c t  outdoor recreational  t h e two p o s s i b l e h a z a r d s . none,  The d e g r e e  B e a r s and bugs  of hazard i s  (1976)  are  rated  s l i g h t , moderate or severe i n accordance w i t h  Resource A n a l y s i s Branch  .5  activities.  as  the  standards.  Fish Abundance - a f f e c t s the  v i e w i n g and c a t c h  b a s i c measure.  Composition - a f f e c t s  These c a t e g o r i e s  and f i s h r u n s .  Significant  fish,  species  chum s l a m o n , g r a y l i n g and l a k e  P o p u l a t i o n Growth Rate - a f f e c t s  types  Catchability  rates,  and t h e  affect  species.  abundant,  are defined  in  are:  and t h e  level  These are  chinook  fish  salmon,  of s u s t a i n a b l e y i e l d  f o r t o u r i s t meals  are:  habitat  s u c h as  requirements,  r e l a t i o n s h i p between reproduction  success of s p o r t s f i s h i n g . are the  number o f s u i t a b l e The u s u a l  Quality  viewing of  trout.  c a t c h a b i l i t y , these  lake or r i v e r .  catch e f f o r t .  and t h e  d i s t u r b a n c e and n e t  of Fish - a f f e c t s  fish to bite given  Key f a c t o r s  of habitat  factors  the  and h a r v e s t i n g  mon b a r b e q u e s . reproduction  are  is  A5-10.  the e d i b i l i t y of  sportsfishing,  Population size  The i m p o r t a n t c a t e g o r i e s  common, uncommon, and r a r e . Appendix Table  success.  standards  salnet  various rates.  Two  basic  propensity of  the  sportsfish in a  measure o f c a t c h a b i l i t y vary  for  somewhat a c c o r d i n g  l i s t e d i n Appendix Table  A5-13.  is to  - 151 5.1.6  Historic S t a t e of  Repair site  - affects  the  to d i f f e r e n t  sensitivity  uses.  gy West ( 1 9 7 5 ) was  and v u l n e r a b i l i t y  of  The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme o r  used.  The d i f f e r e n t  classes  are  the Syner-  listed  below:  Size  of  (1)  unsalvagable  (2)  badly  (3)  requires  (4)  reasonable  (5)  essentially  deteriorated major  whole s t r u c t u r e  in  and c u l t u r a l  r e l a t i o n to  size  events.  are:  beds/building  - maximum number o f  5.2  remains.  h i s t o r i c viewing  i m p o r t a n t measures  - number o f  restore  condition  Building - affects The  expense to  users  at  any one  time.  SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL LIMITATION FACTORS Socio-psychological  carrying  capacity  involves  two t y p e s  of  fac-  tors: (a)  perceptual gestion  (b)  factors  levels,  attractiveness and r e s o u r c e  r e l a t i n g to environmental  or  con-  and factors  r e l a t i n g to environmental  suitability  B o t h were c o n s i d e r e d  density  here.  for desired  experience.  appearance  - 152 -  5.2.1  Perceptual Table  Factors  5-2 l i s t s t h e  instantaneous  factors  perceptual  wilderness  factors  dividual's  requirements  of  with  contact  critical  capacity.  dominate, these  factors  are  For e x p e r i e n c e factors  for privacy,  people or evidence  (Jubenville  type of perceptual groups  factors,  (I-VII).  for  establishing  groups I t o  III  c a n be r e l a t e d t o t h e  s o l i t u d e , t r a n q u i l i t y , and  o f man.  related to service  termed queuing f a c t o r s A final  i d e n t i f i e d as i m p o r t a n t  In  1976, Panico (resource  Management  is  lack  g r o u p s IV t o V I I  q u a l i t y o r what a r e  in-  the  often  1969, Newell  1971).  use c o n f l i c t s )  affect  all  experience  largely  responsible  for  s u c h c o n f l i c t s ; p r o p e r p l a n n i n g c a n m i t i g a t e most r e s o u r c e  and  t o u r i s m use i n c o m p a t a b i 1 i t i e s .  Unlike factors  in Table  down a n d r e l a t e d t o breakdown i s marily fic is  easily  river,  perceptual  f a c t o r s were not  perceptions are  However,  extent  could apply to a l l tical  vegetation  following  caused  t h e a r e a w h i c h c a n be r e l a t e d t o some  deduced; f o r example, queuing f a c t o r s  The a r e a l  Such a  i n t e r a c t i o n s , w h i c h h a v e n o t h i n g t o do w i t h  m e n t s w h i c h f o r t h e most p a r t , w o u l d be l o c a t e d area.  broken  s h o r e l i n e and h i n t e r l a n d a r e a s .  inappropriate since density  by s o c i a l  areas.  5-1 t h e  three  of other  such as  in the  speci-  factors  develop-  shoreline  vegetation  density  a r e a s d e p e n d i n g on t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f  features.  discussion.  factors  apply to  Each f a c t o r  is  briefly  pri-  described in  crithe  - 153 Table  5-2  Factors Important f o r Determining Instantaneous P e r c e p t u a l Use L i m i t s f o r E a c h E x p e r i e n c e T y p e (Key: X - i n d i c a t e s f a c t o r important to experience category) Experience  Category/  Factors BIOPHYSICAL  vegetation density topographic variety  Ia  Ib  X X  X X  LOCATION OF INTERACTION at s i t e en r o u t e periphery vs. interior  X X  X  X  X  CONTACT PARTY FEATURES s i z e of group mode o f t r a v e l  X X  LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT existing level  II  III  X X  X  IV X X  VI  -  -  X X  -  -  -  X  X  -  -  -  X X  X X  X X  -  -  -  X  X  X  e x i s t i n g access  X  X  X  EVIDENCE OF OTHER GROUPS litter  X  X  X  X  OTHER USE COMPATABILITY mining/forestry/ hydro roads/homesteads communities tourism  X X X X  X X X X  X X X X  X ~ X X  X  ACCESSIBILITY  SPATIAL/QUEUING size of a c t i v i t y v s . # o f beds s i z e of services and i n f r a s t r u c t u r e v s . # o f beds  X  X X  V  1  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  X  X  X ~  ~  -  -  -  VII  -  ,  ~o  X X  -  -  X  X  X  X  -  -  X  X  X  X  ^ A p p l i e s o n l y f o r t h e p r i s t i n e t y p e II h u n t i n g a n d f i s h i n g e x p e r i e n c e s . 2 May o r may n o t be a f a c t o r d e p e n d i n g on s i z e o f c o m m u n i t y and d i s r u p t i o n i t causes to p e r c e p t i o n of n a t u r a l s u r r o u n d i n g s .  - 154 5.2.1.1 Wilderness vegetation  Quality  Factors  density - affects  seeing other grassland  people.  (poor),  visual  s c r e e n i n g and l i k e l i h o o d o f  Important  open f o r e s t  factors  (fair),  The d e f i n i t i o n s o f O s w a l d and K i n g open and c l o s e d f o r e s t  topographic variety density.  - has t h e  Important  (specifically classes  location  of  Generally  measures  least  or i n the  peripheral  tance  from the access  contact  party  tive  features  impacts  of the  on u s e r s '  group.  slope  with  1971).  of  area  contact  Important  wilderness  g r o u p s and t h e  each e x p e r i e n c e  of  and t h e  - encounters  Lime 1 9 7 5 , 1976, P e t e r s o n size  and t h e  i n t e r i o r of the w i l d e r n e s s  Lime 1 9 7 6 , L u c u s 1 9 6 4 ) .  vegetation  parent material  more t o l e r a n t  1973,  as  s a t i s f a c t i o n of  tolerant  point  and  types variety  (1974).  the  people are  r e g i o n ; they site  here are  and P i e r c e  and i n t h e  (good).  for grassland  same s c r e e n i n g a f f e c t  while t r a v e l l i n g are  closed forest  (1980)  p i t t e d ground m o r a i n e s )  Beaubier  include:  used.  interaction - affects  users.  ,  of  were  t o measure  encounters  of a  wilderness  while area  at  factors  are  have n e g a -  (Catton  The key f a c t o r s  number o f e n c o u n t e r s  The mode o f t r a v e l  of  dis-  campsite.  parties  perception  a camp-  (Stankey  s i z e of the  large  wilderness  are  1969, the  tolerated  parties  also  by  - 155 -  affects  the  groups are ty,  users'  perceptions.  less tolerant  Generally  non-motorized  than motorized p a r t i e s .  h i k e r s a r e more d e m a n d i n g t h a n h o r s e b a c k  Similari-  riders  (Hendee,  C a t t o n , M a r l o w and B r o c k m a n 1 9 6 8 ; L i m e 1 9 7 2 ; P r i d d l e Clark  1974).  The k e y f a c t o r s  people using the counters with  level  development Stankey  v a r i o u s modes g i v e n  parties  of development  different  of en-  modes.  p u r i s t s h a v e an a v e r s i o n t o  any  C a t t o n , M a r l o w and B r o c k m a n 1 9 6 8 ;  Therefore,  the  important  factors  a r e t h e number and d i s t r i b u t i o n o f c l e a r e d tation  levels  i n T a b l e 4-12 f o r  u s i n g each o f t h e s e  - wilderness  (Hendee,  1973).  here are t o l e r a n c e  and  f a c i l i t i e s and o t h e r e v i d e n c e  to  assess  campsites,  sani-  of tourism develop-  ments.  accessibility  - lack  experience category tant  of  road access  ( P e t e r s o n 1 9 7 1 ) f o r some u s e r s  I),  while  to others  restricted  (ie.  important determinant (ie.  categories  II  wilderness  condition of e x i s t i n g access. of the III  (ie.  and I I I ) .  The  experiences are Note t h a t  access  f e a s i b i l i t y o f more  to VII);  however,  of  impor-  important location is also  such s i t e  an  access  analysis  h a v e n o t h i n g t o do w i t h  limitations.  density  and  developed  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s were not c o n s i d e r e d i n t h i s perceptual  the  experience  road a c c e s s i b i l i t y i s  categories  f a c t o r s which a f f e c t  uses  i s an i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t  as  they  - 156 5.2.1.2  Queuing  Factors  Queuing e s s e n t i a l l y ing  in line-ups.  ceptable  Two f a c t o r s  queuing values  the  number o f  (2)  the  length of time these  of  activity,  satisfy  Specific vs. ture are  are  service  people w i l l  generally  numbers o f land  standards  are  available  number o f beds  factors  into consideration. (1977),  (1974),  Resource  Supply  uses.  ( F i g u r e 3-3)  incompatible with  to consider  and  the  used are  Force  space  infrastrucstandards suitable  took  queuing  from Baud-Bovy  of Tourism  (1977),  5-7 i l types.  Since these  standards  to  and  (1980),  and  Hall  Ontario  (1975).  Factors  O t h e r Use C o m p a t i b i l i t y - The  which are  Canada  Task  resort  s i z e of a c t i v i t y services  quantity  needed  presumably to maintain  Standards  Parks  Inventory  Use C o n f l i c t  C h a p t e r Three  f o r the  was assumed t h a t  (1966),  service.  developments  C a n a d i a n Government O f f i c e  Forbatha  Recreation  use t h e  for different  s i z e of  by t o u r i s m p l a n n e r s , it  ac-  and  For example, F i g u r e  for different  standards,  Lawson  for determining  a w a r e o f t h e t y p e and  people.  requirements  quality  tors  well  and i n f r a s t r u c t u r e  overall  derived  important  wait-  1969):  number o f b e d s , and f o r t h e vs.  l e n g t h of time spent  p e o p l e e x p e c t e d t o want a s e r v i c e ,  different  lustrates  are  (Panico  (1)  Tourism planners  5.2.1.3  has t o do w i t h t h e  resource  illustrates various  f o r measurement  use c o m p a t i b i l i t y m a t r i x the  tourist  general  types  experiences.  purposes a r e :  the  of  in  use  The  fac-  compatibili-  - 157 -  Figure  E x a m p l e s o f L a n d D e n s i t y R a n g e s U s e d by T o u r i s m P l a n n e r s f o r D i f f e r e n t Types o f R e s o r t s . Overall Densities i n R e s o r t s i s R e l a t e d t o t h e Type o f B u i l d i n g Used t o Accomodate Guests.  5-1:  SKI RESORTS IZZZZZZU-6  STORY BUILDINGS  I/////////1 P-3 STORY BUILDINGS  IZZZ2ZZ3 LIMIT LZZZZZ2 WIDLEY i  '  i  '  t  i  i  i  i  FOR  INDIVIDUAL UNITS  DISPERSED INDIVIDUAL UNITS i  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  t  i  i  SEA a LAKE RESORTS l / X X X X X X X X X y l MULTI-STORY HOTELS • Honolulu  \///S//7 7 7[ r  r  [ZZZZZZZ2 2-3  4-6 STORY BUILDINGS  STORY BUILDINGS  • Bali  IZZZZZZ1 LIMIT FOR INDIVIDUAL UNITS • Club Med Villages  FZZZZ3 WIDLEY J  I  20  i  I  40  I  i  60  OVERALL  i  i  80  DISPERSED INDIVIDUAL UNHTS t  |  TOO  DENSITY  i  i  120  i  i  140  l  I  160  (BEDS PER  i  i  180  HA)  L  200  - 158  ties  -  o f e a c h e x p e r i e n c e c a t e g o r y w i t h e a c h o t h e r and w i t h t h e  i o u s e x i s t i n g and p o t e n t i a l  r e s o u r c e uses o f t h e  Corridor.  Evidence of Other Users  - This c r i t e r i a pertains  to  quality  as  factors.  factors  as w e l l  regard to wilderness carvings,  quality,  pleasant for  evidence  suggests that  rock s i g n s , wanton c h o p p i n g o f t r e e s  human p r e s e n c e a f f e c t and C l a r k  r e s o u r c e use c o n f l i c t  people's  1974, Stankey  1971).  ence.  o b v i o u s l y erode the q u a l i t y  The e f f e c t  of other  t i o n s a r e more c o m p l e x . with  resource  (eg.  overuse  resource  u s e may  conflict  Generalizations r e s o u r c e uses  ly  of non-wilderness  the  The w i l d e r n e s s in this  study.  quality  aspect  can-  with  separate-  u s e r s do n o t h a v e a  are d i s t a s t e f u l .  or encourage  l a n d s c a p e w i t h dune buggy  forestry  percep-  e a c h u s e has t o be e x a m i n e d  s u c h as e r e c t i o n  re-  u s e s on n o n - w i l d e r n e s s  non-wilderness tourism uses;  der a b h o r r e n t ,  un-  experi-  n o t be made a b o u t t h e c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f o t h e r  some u s e r s may t o l e r a t e  Priddle  Similarity,  A mining or  some t o u r i s m u s e s and n o t w i t h o t h e r s .  u n i f o r m p e r c e p t i o n o f what a c t i o n s  of  of a wilderness  A particular  because the v a r i o u s types  tree  signs  The p r e s e n c e o f o t h e r  s o u r c e uses can a l s o cause d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . cut w i l l  With  garbage,  s i g n s o f human d e s p o i l i n g c a u s e p e r c e p t i o n s o f  non-wilderness experience types.  clear  wilderness  and o t h e r  perception of overuse  1973, Peterson  var-  For  instance,  p r a c t i c e s which others  consi-  of b i l l b o a r d s , or c r i s s - c r o s s i n g  trails.  of t h i s  Although l i t t e r i n g is  c r i t e r i o n was n o t a f a c t o r which a l l  considered experi-  - 159 ence types tenance fore,  city  5.2.2  study  negate area  and l i t t e r i n g w o u l d n e v e r  measures  litter  and p r o p e r m a i n -  problems.  There-  w o u l d have p r o p e r w a s t e m a n -  become a l i m i t i n g c a r r y i n g  capa-  factor.  relevant  Four  (see  features aesthetic  different  Factors  attractiveness  Table 4-7).  these  types  Sheppard 1977,  here i s  while  others  quality  are  Litton  1968, C r a i k  Brush and Fabos  (Zube 1 9 7 3 ) , types  factors  let  resource general  standards  for  for  activities.  1975).  for  Branch  methods,  ratings  for  quality  thresholds  Therefore,  c o u l d n o t be a s s e s s e d  and  Analysis  None o f t h e s e  along predict  of e x p e r i e n c e s .  evaluating  1972, Tetlow  can produce q u a n t i f i e d , r e p r o d u c a b l e  different  specific  have been p r o p o s e d f o r m e a s u r i n g and (eg.  Chapter  t o d e t e r m i n e a method  i n t o meaningful and  are  1 9 7 7 , S h a f e r and M i e t z 1 9 7 0 , R e s o u r c e  attractiveness  aesthetic  The t a s k  factors  factors  activities  of experiences  factors  and Zube,  however,  were i d e n t i f i e d i n  Some o f t h e s e  attributes.  Numerous m e t h o d s aesthetic  factors  r e q u i r e d by c e r t a i n  quantifying  for  degree,  was assumed t h e  Attractiveness The  detrimental, control  can, to a large  it  agement  agree i s  it  was  carrying  concluded  capacity  purposes.  Because the ties of  are  specific  resource  requirements  k n o w n , s u c h as duck h u n t i n g  attractiveness  can be q u a n t i f i e d .  for  specialized a c t i v i -  requiring ducks, this The same a p p r o a c h as  aspect the  - 160 -  Canada Land I n v e n t o r y reation  features  (1966)  used f o r i d e n t i f y i n g and mapping  was u s e d t o d e f i n e t h e s p e c i f i c  ments o f s p e c i a l i z e d a c t i v i t i e s corridor. Table  a n d t o map t h e i r  The s p e c i a l i z e d a c t i v i t i e s  resource  require-  extent within the  examined were a l l t h o s e  in  4 - 7 w h i c h have e s s e n t i a l ( f ^ q ) d e s i g n a t i o n s f o r s p e c i f i c  resource  f a c t o r s , as w e l l  literature,  as one a c t i v i t y  i d e n t i f i e d from t h e  s h o r e l i n e wilderness/Drimitive  camping.  w i l d e r n e s s / p r i m a t i v e c a m p i n g was i n c l u d e d b e c a u s e  Shoreline  i t c o u l d be  severely  c o n s t r a i n e d by s e t t i n g c o n d i t i o n s , t h e r e f o r e  specific  resource  requirements.  specialized activities,  This analysis  analysis  i s on s p e c i f i c s i t e s tracts factors  5-3 p r e s e n t s  resource  a refinement  those  Two a c t i v i t i e s ,  an a d d i t i o n a l  simply set of  g o l d p a n n i n g a n d w i l d e r n e s s / p r i m i t i v e c a m p i n g do o f new f e a t u r e s  T h e s e new r e s o u r c e  sections.  Most o f t h e r e s o u r c e  for the specialized a c t i v i t i e s .  r e q u i r e an a s s e s s m e n t  classifications  here t h e focus  Hence, t h e a n a l y s i s  involved evaluating the c o l l e c t e d data with standards;  generalized  instead of the large  studied.  been i d e n t i f i e d .  these  o f t h e more  and r e s o u r c e f e a t u r e s analysis  i t has  requirements.  described i n Chapter Four,  o f land the general have a l r e a d y  Table  and t h e i r  is essentially  attractiveness  data.  rec-  features  f o r most a c t i v i t i e s  New q u a l i t y  and c o l l e c t i o n o f a d d i t i o n a l  as w e l l  as t h e s p e c i f i c  quality  are described i n the following  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are not given  h u n t i n g , w i l d l i f e / f i s h v i e w i n g , o r t r a p p i n g ; t h e same  for fishing, standards  - 161 Table Specialized Activities  5-3  and E s s e n t i a l  so  M—  to to  c rC  o o  "O  <u  +J  ITS  o  u CU  >  to  sz to  •r— 4CU  M— •r—  S-  to  M—  (O CD  i— "D i—•  q-  3:  x  x  -  E  "r—  to  i —  </) "I—  SZ to  Q.  to  •1—*  ro  •i—  O CU  __  o  N  O  +->  •r-  _3  "1— 1  CD  r— •r-  CU  to  Necessary Resource Factors  Requirements  o  E  1  Resource,  •1—  to  T3  S-  •r—  XI  sQJ  •i—  +-> rO  -  -  x  x  2  ro  E E  <o  E  i— i —  ro E  to  Z3  S- cu o  •rS-  o  +-> to  •I—  sz  CU  re s_  rC SZ o (0  "O  1—  •i—  to  +->  r— •  u 4— O  o  rO  Q. o  to  CU  S-  +->  (0 CU  q-  •—  CU  to s-  o  T -  >  +J  TJ  ro s-  cu  4O  __  o  4J -t->  ro  O  ro  Specialized Activity(ies) shore!ine wilderness/ primitive camping fishing hunting  -  trapping  _  -  _  _  _  _  _  v i ewi ng wildlife/ fish v i ewi ng historic/ archaeologic sites native salmon fishing goldpanning  M  downhill skiing  x  Key:  x  - essential -factor,-data already available .inventory f o r b i o p h y s i c a l and-perceptual M e s s e n t i a l f a c t o r - more d a t a - r e q u i r e d  from factors  -162 -  discussed previously tion  5.1.4  Shoreline Eight  and  shoreline's their  Primitive  Sec-  Camping  i d e n t i f i e d by H o o p e r  capacity  (1977a)  were used t o a s s e s s  for primitive campsites.  l i m i t i n g c o n d i t i o n s are  listed  Factor ground  f a c t o r s were used (see  5.1.5).  Wilderness  factors  for biophysical  soil  factors  and  below. Limiting  material  These  thin,  Condition  poorly drained  surface  uneven ground  10°  slope  shore-type  inaccessible, t h a n 9m and  understory overstory boat  vegetation vegetation  landing  40%  suitability  Viewing H i s t o r i c / A r c h a e o l o g i c The e x i s t e n c e o f a s i t e  slope  forest  current,  shore-type campfire  30°  higher  cover  closed fast  foreshore  b o u l d e r s , no b e a c h ,  as g i v e n  above  o r g a n i c m a t e r i a l , dense  vegetation  Sites  i s , of course, the  Site  r a t i n g s w e r e b a s e d on a 5 p o i n t s c a l e  West  (1975).  significant d e v e l o p e d by  the  factor. Synergy  - 163 Value  Site  1  Smal1...other plementary  2  Characteristic  similar sites...requires  development  Not s p e c i a l . . . a f f e c t e d cent  3  land  com-  by c o n f l i c t i n g  adja-  uses.  A minor t o u r i s t  delay...complements  major  delays. 4  One o f large  5  a series  of minor  site...good  Provides tourist  destinations...a  access.  a destination  in  itself...major  delay.  Goldpanning G o l d p a n n i n g can o c c u r a t Here t h e very cur is  only consideration is  specific  over widespread a r e a s . known t o o c c u r a t  simply  presence  same s c a l e  Downhill For  the  and  1976).  or absence  (2) The  of c o l o u r .  as was u s e d f o r  level  intensive type,  The i m p o r t a n t  site,  Branch  area  rating  for  Factor  use.  which  has  use w h i c h can  factors  the  of  are: is  (1)  well  factor  (2)  was  ocgold  known (1)  rated  historic/archaeologic sites  was using above.  Skiing  s k i i n g the  pertinent  d r o p and o r i e n t a t i o n . as  f o r the  or e x t e n s i v e  r e s o u r c e demands u n l i k e e x t e n s i v e  (Resource A n a l y s i s  the  an i n t e n s i v e  follows  factors  The  are:  snowcover,  required conditions  ( f r o m B a u d - B o v y and Lawson  1977):  for  slope, each  vertical factor  are  - 164--  Factor slope  Required Conditions average 15°, with some steep sections up to 35°  vertical drop 1,000m  for national interest, 100-200m for  local interest orientation  north and east  snow cover  at least 4 months for national/international interest and at least 100 cm i f not man-made  Fishing, Hunting, Trapping and Viewing Wildlife/Fish The quality classifications already described for wildlife and fish abundance and catchability (see Appendix Table A5-10) were used to assess the Corridor's suitability for fishing, hunting, trapping and viewing wildlife and fish.  In addition to these  standards, hunting was excluded from areas of human settlement and tourism developments (eg. campsites) for safety reasons. Activity Fishing (including  Minimum Acceptable Standard Catchability - moderate  native salmon fishing)  5.3  Hunting and Trapping  Hunt Effort - moderate  Hunting  No settlements or campsites  Viewing Wildlife/Fish  Abundance - common  DAILY CAPACITY FACTORS Three types of factors were identified from the literature which are important in determining the daily capacity for users:  - 165 (1)  the  nature  activity,  of the ie.  activity  number o f  (3)  physical  hours  first  third  flow factors  two f a c t o r s  users  (ie.  for these  The  is  active;  current  of  three  months);  and  river,  site  speed of  hikers,  canoe)  use  restrictions,  the  enroute.  factors,  depends  upon t h e  they  are  given  for different  following  number o f d a y s d u r i n g  participate  in a certain  activities  in  depends  the  activity.  upon one  or  factors:  (1)  c l i m a t e - l e n g t h of  (2)  hydrology  (3)  w i l d l i f e - seasonal  summer, s n o w ,  - length of  ice  sunshine,  cover,  patterns  of w i l d l i f e , l e g a l  hunting  season, (4)  f i s h - seasonal  The v a l u e s Four the  (see  f o r most o f t h e s e Table  various  Chapter  patterns  Six.  4-2).  activities  of  fish,  factors  From t h e s e  legal  fishing  were p r e s e n t e d  values,  was d e d u c e d ; t h e  the  the  hours,  sources.  possible to  season l e n g t h  more o f t h e  t h a n two  FACTORS  capacity  y e a r when i t  less  mode - m o t o r b o a t v s .  Appendix 6 along with t h e i r  The a n n u a l  are  crowding perceptions  were d e r i v e d  ANNUAL CAPACITY  required to complete  hours to s e v e r a l  have t o do w i t h  has t o do w i t h  Values  several  p e r day  and s p e e d o f t r a v e l The  time  g o l d p a n n i n g may r e q u i r e  c o t t a g i n g may r e q u i r e (2)  (the  season. in  Chapter  season l e n g t h  results  are  given  in  for  - 166 -  INVENTORY OF RESOURCE CHARACTERISTICS The r e s o u r c e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n v e n t o r i e d are ter.  (2)  i d e n t i f i e d in the  The o b j e c t i v e s  use l e v e l  of the  acteristic  in the  To f u l f i l l  the  approach  collecting fauna,  inventory were:  i n the  (East et  al  1979).  the  The t h e m a t i c  culture etc  char-  distri-  The m a j o r d i s t i n c t i o n  approach i s t h a t  the  A landscape  biophy-  flora, The  bio-  system  of  between  biophysical  of  ap-  landscape  in separate  i s an a r e a  and  i n f o r m a t i o n on  i n f o r m a t i o n o n t o one map o f  information.  p o s s e s s homogeneous  (1969)  the c o l l e c t i o n of  each type of  reasons:  and  involved  (Bastedo 1979).  approach r e s u l t s  In t h i s  the  conducted  approach  landforms, s o i l s ,  u n i t s whereas the t h e m a t i c  to  may be  approach or the  p r i m a r i l y b a s e d on L a c a t e ' s  and t h e m a t i c  proach combines a l l  Such a s u r v e y  climate,  s o i l s and v e g e t a t i o n .  biophysical  standards,  l i m i t i n g f a c t o r or  namely t h e t h e m a t i c  l a n d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and i n v o l v e s  the  chap-  to determine  a s u r v e y was c o n d u c t e d o f t h e  study a r e a .  information on:  approach i s  landforms,  be  biophysical, h i s t o r i c , archaeologic  and g e o l o g y , h i s t o r y ,  physical  (1)  quality  e x t e n t of each  second o b j e c t  i n two d i f f e r e n t w a y s ; sical  w h i c h need t o  corridor.  bution of every pertinent factor  levels  preceding s e c t i o n of t h i s  c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o each f a c t o r ' s  to c a l c u l a t e the areal  cultural  and q u a l i t y  maps  land  for  assumed  characteristics.  study, the thematic  a p p r o a c h was c h o s e n f o r t h e  following  - 167 -  - Historic, cultural  and a r c h e o l o g i c  grated with natural of  features  - The  for natural  resource  be  inte-  f o l l o w the  Patterns  same p a t t e r n s  types  w h i c h need t o be known v a r y  of a c t i v i t i e s ,  hence,  u n i t s w o u l d be m i s l e a d i n g f o r many - Instead of e v a l u a t i n g  considerably  generalized  resource  activities.  vegetation-landform-soi1  units,  evaluation  can i n c l u d e c o m p o n e n t s s u c h as w i l d l i f e , h i s t o r i c s i t e s flora,  w h i c h i n many c a s e s  environmental  The i n v e n t o r y  impacts  secondary  a r e t h e most s e n s i t i v e  sources.  maps s u c h a s :  data.  M o s t o f t h e c o n c l u s i o n s w e r e drawn  The t y p e s  - soil  of secondary  maps f r o m R o n s t a d e t  - vegetation and K i n g related - the  data al  included: (1977),  Information  Series,  and  and e c o r e g i o n maps f r o m O s w a l d  resources  of the  density  impact  Yukon R i v e r  studies,  and  was a v a i l a b l e  Some u n p u b l i s h e d maps and r e p o r t s used.  Corridor,  sensitivities.  M o s t o f t h e map and p u b l i c a t i o n m a t e r i a l  a g e n c i e s were a l s o  from  to:  - resource  form.  of  pri-  (1980).  - perceptual  lished  indicators  from t o u r i s m .  - N o r t h e r n L a n d Use  publications  or  i n v o l v e d c o l l e c t i o n and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f b o t h  mary and s e c o n d a r y  as  features.  variables  for different  cannot  i n t o homogeneous u n i t s .  human phenomena do n o t u s u a l l y  those  resources  of  in  pub-  government  - 168 Primary areal  d a t a was  extent  tractiveness  collected  of various  vegetation  of a s p e c i f i c  camping,  f o r which  opinions  from knowledgeable  s u c h as w i l d l i f e sity  Data ing  for three  purposes:  types,  activity,  populations,  present  determine  (3)  to  unpublished  market  the  the at-  wilderness/primitive  l a c k i n g , and about  to  to determine  shoreline  e x i s t i n g d a t a was experts  (2)  (1)  obtain  information  expectations  and  den-  preferences.  was  collected  f o r each of the  above purposes  using the  follow-  methods.  Purpose  (1)  - airphoto - satellite  interpretation image  interpretation  using a colour  additive  viewer - 35 mm c o l o u r taken Purpose  (2)  - survey  slide  interpretation  during a f i e l d t r i p of a t t r a c t i v e n e s s  using a revision  of  to the  of  Corridor.  every 5 miles  Hooper's  page 346 i n A p p e n d i x 5 f o r  photographs  along the  (1977a) procedure.  details  on t h e  river See  method  used. Purpose  (3)  - interviews operators.  with  knowledgeable  individuals  and  tour  - 169 CALCULATING  THE USE  EXPERIENCE  CATEGORY  Precise  environmental  selected the  LEVELS FOR DIFFERENT L I M I T I N G FACTORS FOR  standards  f o r each e x p e r i e n c e  f r o m t h e numerous s t a n d a r d s  basis  of the  experience  calculation in theory the  of the  use l e v e l  vegetation  there  is  actual  standards  all  this  still  proved to gaps  environmental  not o n l y  knowledge about the knowledge  C o r r i d o r was  its  natural  vegetation  How t h e n w e r e use l e v e l s  established?  Pacific  developments  Northwest  in the  i n f o r m a t i o n and p r o c e d u r e s mates  used i n t h i s  study  presented  use l e v e l s  to  tent  b e f o r e more t h a n  15  killed.  By m a k i n g numerous  study  related user  area.  followed to a r r i v e  are  and  non-existent.  forest  p a r k and r e c r e a t i o n  Yukon o u t s i d e t h e  were  number o f t i m e s a  and e x t r a p o l a t i n g f i n d i n g s f r o m s t u d i e s  impacts,  can In  ecology  relating  virtually  about the  was  area's  at  natural  p e o p l e an a r e a  from a s i m p l e t a s k ;  c o u l d be p i t c h e d i n a m i x e d s p r u c e - a s p e n  tions,  should  one needs t o do t o a r r i v e  be f a r  N o t h i n g was k n o w n , f o r i n s t a n c e ,  of  standards  standard.  preference,  c o n d i t i o n s in the  percent  the  m a i n t a i n i n g t h e 85 p e r c e n t  in  on  Four.  were e s t a b l i s h e d  associated with these  instance,  Chapter  in Chapter  t o d e t e r m i n e t h e maximum number o f  substantial  people's  For  definitions  were  c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o a s t a n d a r d s u c h as 8 5 p e r c e n t  accommodate w h i l e practice  use l e v e l  be s i m p l e .  presented in t h i s  category  Once e a c h e x p e r i e n c e c a t e g o r y ' s  category  EACH  at  in Chapter  to  assumppipeline  impacts,  and  The s o u r c e s the  use l e v e l  Six.  of esti-  - 170 ESTIMATING CARRYING C A P A C I T I E S Once a l l  the  inventory  and u s e l e v e l  c a l c u l a t i n g each e x p e r i e n c e ' s It  involved combining the  factor's factor, this  determining the  number f o r t h e  Specifically,  capacity  was  compiled straightforward.  information with the extent of the  number f o r t h i s  area  numbers t o a r r i v e  limiting pertinent  and summing at  an  the  c a l c u l a t i o n of carrying capacity  involved  this  preceding discussion for  procedure the  b i g game h u n t i n g a r e  d e s c r i b e d under each  factors  f o r an e x p e r i e n c e and t h a t which are  suitable to  Example:  and  brevity  reasons.  To  that  i d e n t i f y the  determine  determine  step.  if  biophysical  an a r e a  use l e v e l s  is  and  suitable  for those  areas  use.  Suitability  ap-  s p e c i f i c c a l c u l a t i o n s w h i c h w e r e made  For each e x p e r i e n c e t y p e s  socio-psychological  five  c a l c u l a t i o n s although only experience types  i n much o f t h e  S t e p 1.  overall  Corridor.  These s t e p s were f o l l o w e d f o r both e x p e r i e n c e t y p e  illustrate for  inventory  other capacity  specialized activity peared  carrying capacity  use l e v e l , c a l c u l a t i n g t h e a r e a l  value with a l l  steps.  i n f o r m a t i o n was  factors  - presence sheep - safe  of moose, bear  or  habitat. distance  from  areas. - hunting  allowed.  inhabited  - 171 -  Use l e v e l  factors  - biophysical-population size big  of  game.  - soci o-psychologi cal-acceptable s p a c i n g o f b i g game - daily  hunters.  turnover-time  to complete - annual  required  activity.  turnover-legal  hunting  season.  Step 2.  Define the q u a l i t y  suitability  and use l e v e l  Example:  Suitability  standards  factors  of the  foregoing  f o r each e x p e r i e n c e  standards- habitat and - at  type.  requirements  of  moose  bear. least  5 km. away f r o m any  habitation. - no h u n t i n g o f Use l e v e l  standard  sheep  allowed.  - b i o p h y s i c a l - m o d e r a t e hunt fort,  0.14 animals  per hunter  per  ef-  available  year.  - s o c i o - p s y c h o l o g i c a l - s p a c i n g of 130  hectares/hunter.  - season hunting  length-determined season.  by  - 172 S t e p 3. mation each  Apply the about  the  suitability  standards  C o r r i d o r to determine  inventory  what a r e a s a r e  infor-  suitable  for  experience. Example:  Not enough d e t a i l e d unsatisfactory  Step 4. t o the  able  except  fore  9785 k m  Apply the suitable  standards per u n i t  are  capacities standard  2  of  involved  standards  carrying  d i v i d i n g the  use l e v e l  at  capacities. of the  standards  are  calculation  needed t o d e t e r m i n e  Example:  the  the  - the  by d i v i d i n g t h e  spacing  standard  p l y i n g by t h e mate o f  7526 h u n t e r s  annual  v a l u e was  higher  than the  annual  by t h e  per  area  carrying  spacing  factor.  therefore  number o f  of an  resource additional  people/area  per  standards. daily  estimate area  rate  p e r day  calculated  (1)  to  biophysical  calcuby  2  and t h e n  arrive  f o r the since  was  (9785 km )  (130 h a / h u n t e r )  annual  type  biophysical  people  time  suitable  turnover  there-  Socio-psychological  areas  0 . 1 4 moose p e r h u n t e r )  Socio-psychological  of  expressed i n terms  corresponded to these  lated  suit-  hunting.  socio-psychological  appropriate  (ie.  of time that  of  for  number o f  suitable  characteristics was  area  f o r each e x p e r i e n c e  estimates  calculation  and m u l t i p l y i n g by t h e  Biophysical  eliminate  Assumed e n t i r e  land a v a i l a b l e  expressed i n terms hence  to  f o r 5 km. z o n e a r o u n d s e t t l e m e n t s ,  a r e a s and a r r i v e  of t i m e ,  mapping a v a i l a b l e  habitats.  use l e v e l  and s o c i o - p s y c h o l o g i c a l  unit  to the  at  multian  corridor.  this  daily  value.  estiNo  value  is  - 173 Biophysical  - to convert  the  use l e v e l  standard  of  0 . 1 4 a n i m a l s / h u n t e r t o t h e number o f p e o p l e / a r e a was n e c e s s a r y  first  r a t e o f b i g game. made t o e s t i m a t e annual - the  the  The f o l l o w i n g a s s u m p t i o n s w e r e the  s u s t a i n a b l e moose and  c o r r i d o r ' s moose p o p u l a t i o n i s as i t  is  in central  bear  at  the  same  Alaska.  s u s t a i n a b l e moose h a r v e s t  of the - the  harvest  harvest:  density - the  t o determine the annual  it  rate is  20  percent  population.  present  harvest  level  sustainable harvest  Using these  o f 35 b e a r s  i s equal  to  rate.  assumptions the annual  b i g game  harvest  was e s t i m a t e d t o be b e t w e e n 84 and 110 a n i m a l s . D i v i d i n g these  harvest  values  r e s u l t e d i n an e s t i m a t e f o r the  S t e p 5. logical  c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t i e s , the  Example:  f o r the  by 599 t o 786  (0.14)  hunters/year  corridor.  Compare e a c h e x p e r i e n c e ' s  ing capacity  by h u n t e f f o r t  biophysical  lowest  and s o c i o - p s y c h o -  value i s the  overall  carry-  corridor.  Biophysical  estimate  Socio-psychological Overall  - 599 t o 786 estimate  carrying capacity  hunters/year.  - 7526  hunters/day.  f o r b i g game h u n t i n g - 600  t o 786  hunters/year.  - 174  The e x a m p l e o f b i g game was derstand.  Calculations  since  incorporated the  of  they  tourists.  -  u t i l i z e d because  for experience types spatial  it  is  simplest  w e r e more  to  un-  complicated  d i s t r i b u t i o n and t r a v e l  patterns  - 175 CHAPTER S I X :  CARRYING CAPACITY  RESULTS  INTRODUCTION This  chapter  specific at  the  area  outset  exist. of the  social  of the  It  s h o u l d be  of  relating different  and v e g e t a t i o n  analysis  was t h e  needed t o  (eg.  lacking:  of  use t o  impacts.  At  about  some c a s e s  waterfowl  specific  present  t i o n s more p r e c i s e of d i f f e r e n t  Nevertheless,  levels  information is of hunt  an a t t e m p t  likely  and m a r k e t  are  needed  how t h e  crude e s t i m a t e s .  mois-  traffic).  the  in other  hunter's  a range  i n f o r m a t i o n was a n a l y s e d  of  situa-  tolerance  use  Table  no  es-  effort).  was made t o d e v e l o p  available  inter-  been  s i z e of  e a c h e x p e r i e n c e t y p e and s p e c i a l i z e d a c t i v i t y .  indicates  of  characteristics.  needed, (eg.  Table  impacts  has  to watercraft  known ( s u c h as t h e  baseline data  a few  on s o i l  and e n v i r o n m e n t  relation  resource  where n o t h i n g i s  populations)  in  (see  s p e c i f i c types  F o r many o t h e r  use l e v e l  f i s h abundance  produce  i n f o r m a t i o n were types  gaps  identification  category  composition.  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  recognized  each e x p e r i e n c e  environmental  a  i d e a l i s t i c ; numerous d a t a  i n f o r m a t i o n which are for  Five to  have been d e f i n e d s u c h as t r a m p l i n g i m p a c t s  - Information  for  of  g e n e r a l , two t y p e s  tablished  In  result  estimates  and n a t u r a l  actions  Corridor.  the methodology i s  use l e v e l  - Information  clear  that  Yukon R i v e r  s p e c i f i c types  In  ture  - the  t h e methods d e s c r i b e d i n C h a p t e r  Hence, a major  accurate 6-1).  applies  levels  6-1  to a r r i v e  Numerous a s s u m p t i o n s had t o be made t o a r r i v e  at at  - 176 Table 6-1 Status of Information Needed to Produce Accurate Use-Level Factors  Relationship of Use-Level to Resource Suitability and Potential Social or Environmental Impacts  Biophysical Factors Hydrologywater quality flooding hazards bank Wildlife abundance composition population growth rate hazards Fish abundance composition population growth rate catchability Vegetation density composition X prickly plants variety Topography slope depth to bedrock parent material Soils texture drainage permafrost Historic state of repair size of building  More Precise Data Needed About Factor (eg. Status and Distribution 1n Corridor)  Use of Factor 1n this Analysis  Baseline DataNothing Known about Factor  I.  Perceptual Factors Biophysical vegetation density topographic variety Location of Interaction at s i t e en route periphery vs Interior Contact party features Level of Development Accessibility Other Use CompatablHty Spatial/Queuing size of activity vs. # of beds size of services and infrastructure vs. f Of beds  S A A  S A  -  AU AL NO AL  S S X  . S  X  -  s  AU AU NO  s  A  •  AL  -  X  NO AU AU  -S  -  X  X  -X  s  X  s  -  s  -  X  NO  s s s  X S  --  NO AU NO  s  S  X  X  A A  -S  s s s  S S  A A  A A  X -  S S  S X  S  AU NO  S S S  A A S  -  AU AU AU  S A A S  S A A A  -  AU AL AL AL  S  A  -  AL/AU  S  A  -  AL/AU  s  s  NO AL NO AL AL AL & AU AL i. AU AL AL  II.  Key: X - a l l types of Information needed; S - some types of Information needed, some available; A - adequate amount of Information available for this analysis; AL - assumed to be limiting. experience;  If factor present area unsuitable for given  AU - assumed to effect use-level in suitable areas; NO - no analysis done using this factor because of lack of Information on Its relationship to Impacts and/or occurrence In the corridor.  - 177 these  crude e s t i m a t e s ; much of the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n concerns  assumptions t h a t u n d e r l i e each  the  estimate.  As Chapter F i v e e x p l a i n e d a f i v e step procedure was f o l l o w e d to  cal-  culate  the  carrying capacities  first  step,  gical  factors  Five. which  identification  f o r each e x p e r i e n c e . of the b i o p h y s i c a l  which could l i m i t  The r e s u l t s  of  and s o c i o - p s y c h o l o -  use, were a l s o d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter  T h i s Chapter presents the  results  of the l a s t  four  steps,  were:  - d e f i n i t i o n of the q u a l i t y - suitability  analysis  standards  f o r each experience  of the C o r r i d o r to i d e n t i f y  type,  the areas  suit-  a b l e f o r each e x p e r i e n c e , - calculation gical  of b i o p h y s i c a l  carrying capacities  carrying capacities  and s o c i o - p s y c h o l o -  f o r each e x p e r i e n c e t y p e ,  - d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the C o r r i d o r ' s o v e r a l l The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s d i s c u s s these  carrying  results  and  capacity.  in the f o r e g o i n g s e -  quence.  QUALITY STANDARD DEFINITIONS FOR EACH EXPERIENCE TYPE Specific  resource c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  use:  they  can make i t  area,  or they  can have one of two e f f e c t s  impossible for certain  can set an upper l i m i t  on  uses to occur in an  f o r use in an a r e a .  Specific  r e s o u r c e standards were d e r i v e d f o r each e x p e r i e n c e which  defined  the c o n d i t i o n s under which an experience could not occur and under which  its  use l e v e l  was l i m i t e d .  These standards were based on the  d e f i n i t i o n of each e x p e r i e n c e ; they were taken  from the  range of  - 178 standards, Different  classes  and c a t e g o r i e s  standards  were d e v e l o p e d  socio-psychological biophysical  conditions.  people per area  standards  are  cases,  to  suitability  if  of  ards  s l o p e and s o i l  in Table 6-2.  specialized  per u n i t  of  the  biophysical  it  such as  people  was,  in  was  most  not  use them i n  standards  85  per  e x p r e s s e d i n terms  of time to  step.  into  The d e f i n i t i o n s o f standards  of the  use each  are  respectively.  which determined the  used t o e l i m i n a t e  listed  standards  Since  and s o c i o - p s y c h o l o g i c a l  u s e s w e r e f o u n d t o be r e l a t e d flooding,  i n terms  standards  impossible task.  6-2 and 6-3  expressed  ANALYSIS  The s t a n d a r d s  as  explained  number o f  computation of these  biophysical  and  of time whereas  biophysical  n o t done f o r t h i s  in Tables  stated  Five.  resource c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  biophysical  the  are  Determining the  people per area  analysis  experience's  SUITABILITY  not  have t h e  u n i t s was  presented  i n terms  corresponded to the  number o f  level  per u n i t  vegetation.  a difficult  necessary the  given  natural  that  biophysical  As C h a p t e r F i v e  s o c i o - p s y c h o l o g i c a l ones  number o f  area  for  and s o c i o - p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t a n d a r d s a r e  differently;  percent  discussed in Chapter  s u i t a b i l i t y of  primarily to physical  texture.  Suitable the  were d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r  most  constraints  a r e a s were a l s o d e t e r m i n e d for these  such  stand-  f o r each e x p e r i e n c e  l i m i t i n g standards Five.  for  The s p e c i f i c p h y s i c a l  u n s u i t a b l e areas  activities,  an a r e a  are  for activities  - 179 Table Natural la.  Setting  Wilderness  -  6-2  C r i t e r i a and Standards  f o r E x p e r i e n c e Types  Spiritual  R i v e r Uses Hydrology  l e v e l 1 water q u a l i t y assume no c l e a r i n g of sweepers or o t h e r h a z a r d s , t h e r e f o r e . a c c e p t a b l e i f : . . - danger from d e b r i s medium or l e s s  Wildlife  abundant composition r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  Fish Shore!ine  of u n d i s t u r b e d ecosystem  abundant Uses  Vegetation  assume no c l e a r i n g or s e e d l i n g and p l a n t i n g t h e r e f o r e a c c e p t a b l e i f : - u n d e r s t o r y d e n s i t y <75% - hazard l e v e l moderate or l e s s impact l e v e l 1  Topography and Soils  assume no s i t e l e v e l i n g , a r t i f i c i a l d r a i n a g e , e r o s i o n c o n t r o l or s p e c i a l s t r u c t u r e s over p e r m a f r o s t , areas o f high o r g a n i c m a t t e r , l i m i t i n g standards are t h e r e f o r e : - adequate number of campsites as determined by s e p a r a t e s h o r e l i n e campsite a n a l y s i s , p e r c e p t u a l l i m i t s , and t u r n o v e r f a c t o r s - slopes > 1 7 ° - severe r a t i n g s f o r parent m a t e r i a l (see Appendix T a b l e A5-3) - bog or marsh  Hydrology  water q u a l i t y as above bank h e i g h t , a n g l e , e t c . not c o n s i d e r e d , assumed i f adequate campsites these are not l i m i t i n g  Hinterland  Uses  V e g e t a t i o n , Topography, S o i l s ,  W i l d l i f e - as above  - 180 -  Table 6-2 (continued) lb.  Wilderness - Appreciation Hydrology  Wildlife Fish  - level 2 water quality - assume no clearing of water hazards, therefore, acceptable i f : danger from debris medium or less common common  Shoreline Uses Vegetation  • assume no clearing and indigenous species can be planted for erosion control, therefore, acceptable i f : - understory density t75% - hazard level moderate or less  Topography and Soils  • assume no site leveling, a r t i f i c i a l drainage or erosion control, therefore, limiting factors are for: (a) overall area - slopes >17° - severe rating for parent material (see Appendix Table A4-3) - bog or marsh - adequate number of campsites as determined by separate shoreline campsite analysis (b) specific f a c i l i t i e s (outhouses, cabins, camping) outhouses - s u i t a b i l i t y class 3 in Table A5-7 cabins and camping - slope >9° -<0.5m s o i l , erosion potential high (see Appendix Table A5-5), very poorly drained  Hydrology  water quality as above bank characteristics not considered for same reasons as in Ia - severe flood hazard limiting (Resource Analysis Unit 1976)  Wildlife  as above  and Fish Hinterland Uses Vegetation and W i l d l i f e  as above  Topography and Soils  - assumptions as above plus suitable for wilderness t r a i l s and camping, therefore limiting factors are: - slopes>31° - bog or marsh - adequate # of sites with slope <9° >0.5m s o i l , well or imperfectly drained  - 181 Table II.  6-2  (continued)  Nature River  - T r o p h y H u n t i n g and  Fishing  Uses  Hydrology  - level 1 water q u a l i t y - assume no c l e a r i n g o f d e b r i s , t h e r e f o r e a c c e p t a b l e i f : d a n g e r l e v e l f r o m d e b r i s medium or l e s s  Wildlife  ..- a b u n d a n t ,  at.maximum p r o d u c t i v i t y  - hunt.effort Fish  -  - a b u n d a n t , a t maximum p r o d u c t i v i t y ecosystem - c a t c h a b i l i t y good  Shoreline  level  for  level  for  ecosystem  moderate  Uses  Vegetation  assume c l e a r i n g t o p r o v i d e s u i t a b l e a c c e s s and c a s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s i n d e v e l o p e d a r e a s , and t o p r o v i d e optimum w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t , therefore economic t o c l e a r i f : - u n d e r s t o r y d e n s i t y <75% - hazard l e v e l moderate or less impact l e v e l 1 - 3  Topography and Soi Is  f a c i l i t i e s r a n g e f r o m none ( p r i s t i n e ) t o m o d e r n lodges (development l e v e l V). Assume t o p o g r a p h y and s o i l s n o t l i m i t i n g t o f i s h i n g and h u n t i n g i f there are s u f f i c i e n t s i t e s f o r s h o r e l i n e campsites a s d e t e r m i n e d by s e p a r a t e a n a l y s e s .  Hydrology  w a t e r q u a l i t y as above m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o bank c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r a n g e f r o m none ( d e v e l o p m e n t l e v e l 1) t o s t a i r s , and r e t a i n i n g w a l l s (development l e v e l V ) . Assume bank i s n o t l i m i t i n g t o h u n t i n g and f i s h i n g i f i t meets c r i t e r i a f o r d e v e l o p m e n t l e v e l V.  Wildlife  as  Bank  Fishing  above  abundant catchability  Hinterland  good  Uses  Vegetation  assume same p r a c t i c e s a s a b o v e , sustainable w i l d l i f e yield  Topography and S o i l s  a c c e p t a b l e i f adequate^number o f s i t e s f o r c a m p i n g , i e . s l o p e s < 9 ° , > 0 . 5 m s o i l , and w e l l or imperfectly drained  purpose to maximize  - 182 Table 6-2 III.  -  (continued)  Nature - Passive R i v e r Uses  Hydrology  l e v e l 2 water q u a l i t y assume c l e a r i n g of debris having medium or high danger  Wildlife  uncommon  Fish  common  Shoreline Uses Vegetation  assume thinning at campsites to optimum d e n s i t y , removal of p r i c k l y p l a n t s , t h e r e f o r e , economic to c l e a r i f : - understory density <75% - hazard l e v e l moderate or l e s s impact l e v e l 3  Topography and S o i l s  assume: - l i m i t e d s i t e l e v e l i n g at.campsites, l e v e l i n g f o r roads - erosion control from p l a n t i n g natural species, c u l v e r t s , ditches - drainage t i l e s at campsites, no b u i l t - u p s t r u c t u r e s over permafrost - s u i t a b l e f o r outhouse leaching p i t t h e r e f o r e , l i m i t i n g f a c t o r s are: - slopes>• 9° - <,0.5m s o i l - high erosion p o t e n t i a l (see Appendix Table A5-5) - sO'il s u i t a b i l i t y c l a s s 3 i n Table A5-9 - construction s u i t a b i l i t y for access roads to s i t e s , class 3 in Table A5-6 assume: - c l e a r i n g of bank vegetation of s u i t a b l e level - no a r t i f i c i a l r e t a i n i n g structures f o r slumping - bank steepness - provide s t a i r s , graded f a c i l i t i e s , simple p i e r s and docks i f necessary therefore l i m i t n g cost f a c t o r s are: - moderate and severe f l o o d i n g (Resource A n a l y s i s U n i t 1976) - vegetation understory >75% - bank>9m high, > 30° slope - any slumping - as above - assume no bug c o n t r o l , bear control i f necessary  Hydrology  Wildlife  Fish  - as above  Historic  - r e b u i l d i n g and r e s t o r a t i o n but no major d i s p l a y s , or s t a f f e d i n t e r p r e t e r s  Hinterland  Uses  Vegetation  assume c l e a r i n g f o r t r a i l s , t h e r e f o r e , l i m i t i n g cost f a c t o r : - understory density  Topography and Soils  assume:— -  no s i t e l e v e l i n g no drainage measures no b u i l t - u p s t r u c t u r e s over permafrost « s u i t a b l e f o r cleared t r a i l s adequate number of s i t e s f o r camping with s l o p e s < 9 , ? 0 . 5 m s o i l , and well or imperfectly drained t h e r e f o r e , l i m i t n g f a c t o r s are: - slopes >17° - severe r a t i n g f o r parent material (see Appendix Table A5-3) - bog or marsh 0  Wildlife  >75%  - as above  - 183  -  Table 6-2 (continued) IV.  Nature - Comfort Sociable River Uses Hydrology  level 2 water quality assume clearing of a l l hazards that block access (ie. a l l debris with ratings of low, medium or high  Wildlife  uncommon  Fish  common, catchability f a i r - good  Shoreline Uses Vegetation  Topography and Soi Is  Hydrology  Wildlife Historic  - assume: - thinning around campsites/trails to achieve optimum density - therefore economic to clear i f : - understory density4.75% - hazard level moderate or less - impact level 3 - assume: - leveling to achieve desired slope - erosion control - natural materials for structural control - drainage imporvement, simple structures (catwalks, bridges) over wet, organic or permafrost areas - therefore maximum standard levels are: - moderate c l a s s , parent materials (see Appendix Table A5-3) - <50% sand (Table A5-4) - medium erosion potential (Table A5-5) - class 3 engineering construction (Table A5-6) - class 2 septic tank s u i t a b i l i t y (Table A5-7) - water quality as above - assume: - bank c l e a r i n g , structures ( s t a i r s , graded slopes) to improve access - slumping control from planting and structures of natural material - therefore, l i m i t i n g factors are: - moderate and severe flooding hazard (Resource Analysis Unit 1976) - vegetation understory>75% - bank>9m high, >30 slope - moderate and severe slumping class of Resource Analysis Unit 1976 - uncommon - assume bear and bug control (spray, drainage, clearing) i f necessary - r e b u i l t buildings, some informal exhibits  Hinterland Uses Vegetation, Topography, Soils  - assume: - erosion control, vegeation c l e a r i n g , no leveling or drainage control - suitable for cleared t r a i l s - therefore, l i m i t i n g factors are: - the same as those given for experience III Hinterland Uses  - 184 -  Table 6-2 (continued) V.  Social Learning - Nature and Historic River Uses Hydrology  level 3 water quality assume clearing of a l l hazards that impede a c t i v i t i e s , large boat cruises are one possible activity therefore, assume channel dredging where necessary and removal of a l l hazardous debris  Fish  abundance - common (for native salmon fishing)  Shoreline Uses Vegetation  assume clearing to achieve optimum density, no prickly plants therefore, economic to clear i f : - understory density<75% impact level 4  Topography and Soi Is  assume: - leveling for sites and roads - erosion, gullying and slumping prevented by use of synthetic materials - drainage improvement, structures to cover or avoid permafrost - s u i t a b i l i t y for septic tanks, permanent buildings and roads (see Tables A5-6 and A5-7) therefore, upper limit for soil/topography standards are: - slope <5° (Table A5-1) - moderate c l a s s , parent materials (Table A5-3) - medium erosion potential (Table A5-3) - class 3 construction s u i t a b i l i t y (Table A5-6) - class 2 septic tank s u i t a b i l i t y  Hydrology  water quality as above assume bank clearing, structures to imporve access therefore, same standards apply here as those given for experience IV Shoreline Uses  Wildlife  assume bear and bug control i f necessary  Fish  as above  Historic  complete restoration, exhibits, and interpretation  Hinterland Uses Vegetation, Topography, Soils  assume: - no leveling or drainage control - erosion control, vegetation clearing - suitable for developed t r a i l s therefore, limiting factors are: - understory density >75% - stopes>17° - severe rating for t r a i l limitation (Table A5-3) - bog or marsh - <0.5m s o i l  - 185 Table 6-2 (continued) VI.  Active - Outdoor Sports River Uses Hydrology  level 3 water quality assume clearing of sweepers, debris and possible- dredging of-sandbars  Shoreline Uses Vegetation  assume clearing where required less suitable cost i f : - understory^75% but will not stop development on its own impact level 3-5 depending on activity  Topography  assume: - leveling for roads and f a c i l i t i e s - a r t i f i c i a l controls of gullying, erosion and slumping - drainage improvement, permafrost avoided or protective structures - suitability for septic tanks, intensive use, roads, specialized activities and f a c i l i t i e s therefore, upper limit for soil/topography standards are the same as those given for experience V Shoreline Uses plus suitability for specialized activities from separate analysis  and  Soils  Hydrology  Wildlife  water quality as above assume modification to make water access suitable therefore, less suitable cost factors (but do not stop development on their own) are: - vegetation understory >75% - bank >9m high, >30 slope - moderate and severe slumping class (Resource Analysis Unit 1976) limiting factor is: moderate or severe flood hazard (Resource Analysis Unit 1976) - assume when necessary bear and bug control  Hinterland Uses Vegetation, Topography, Soils  - assume: - modifications to suit development - suitable for developed t r a i l s , ski hills - therefore, limiting factors for developed trails same as those given for experience V Hinterland Uses. Suitability for ski h i l l s determined from separate analysis.  - 186 Table 6-2 (continued) VII.  Cultural/Social River Uses Hydrology  level 3 water quality assume removal of hazards i f river is used (ie. see discussion for experience V River Uses)  Fish  common (for native salmon fishing)  Shoreline Uses Vegetation  assume clearing where needed for devleopment therefore, less suitable costs i f : - understory ^75% (but will not stop development on its own) impact level 5  Topography  assume: - leveling, use of a r t i f i c i a l materials to correct slope and control erosion - drainage improved to suit development requirements - suitability for septic tanks, roads, buildings therefore, upper limit for soil/topography standards are the same as given for experience V Shoreline Uses  and  Soils  Hydrology  water quality as above assume bank modified to suit development requirements therefore, same standards apply here as those given for experience VI, Shoreline Uses  Wildlife  assume bear and bug control i f needed  Fish  common  Historic  full restoration, exhibits, dances, interpretation  Hinterland Uses Vegetation, Topography, Soi Is  assume: - vegetation clearing - planting for erosion control - no leveling or drainage control - suitable for developed trail therefore, limiting factors are the same as those given in experience V Hinterland Uses  - 187 -  Table 6-3 Socio-psychological Standards for Wilderness Experience Category la.  WildernessSpiritual  Acceptable # of Encounters/day" canoeists-0 optimum up to 3 small groups/ day tolerated. hikers-0 optimum, tolerate up to 2 small groups/day. at campsite-0 at campsite or nearby.  at periphery-tol erate seeing several groups of people in f i r s t 5-10km lb.  Wilderness Appreciation  canoeists-1 optimum up to 6 tolerated.  motorboaters-5 or less optimum, tolerate up to 10. hikers-1 optimum, tolerate up to 4. at campsitea) canoeists-50% of users want none nearby, 50% want other groups some distance away but within sight. b) motorboatersmore than 50% wanted a place within sight of others. c) hikers-0 nearby optimum, 33% tolerate campers within sight.  Factors  Comments -must be small groups, in nonmotorized c r a f t . -must be small hiking groups, horseback riders not acceptable. -if another group is within sight or sound 84% of . these users will look for another site.  Source(s) Stankey 1973 Lucus 1980 Stankey 1973 Stankey 1973  Lucus 1964  -must be encounters with other small groups of canoeists, d i s l i k e motorboats and motor canoes. -prefer encounters with canoeists, tolerate motorboaters. -no large groups, prefer no horseback riders.  Priddle and Clark 1974 Lime 1975  -no large groups acceptable.  Hendee et al 1968  Lime 1975  Stankey 1973  -split in Stankey 1973 preferences (ie. some want campsites nearby and others do not) -suggests a mix of close and isolated campsites should be provided.  - 188 -  Table 6-3(continued] Experience Category II. NatureTrophy Hunting and Fishing  Acceptable # of Encounters/day~ fishing-lakeprofessional estimates for acceptable density range from 4.04ha/ boat (estimated ave. 2.2 people/ boat) to 0.13ha/ boat.  Priddle and Clark 1974 Chess 1979 Supply Inventory Feasibility Study 1973  Ontario Standards  Supply Inventory Feasibility Study 1973  Ontario Standards  Supply Inventory Feasibility Study 1973  small campsites7-11 units separated by at least 31m and good screening.  -expect some contact w i l l occur-therefore, spacing of campsites more important than actual # of encounters.  Lucus 1980  cottage spacingl/0.404ha  -acceptable density from Gulf Islands, B.C.  Chambers 1974  huntingmoose- 130ha/ hunter waterfowl- 5.1 ha/ hunter NaturePassive  IV. NatureComfort  Source(s)  -fishermen more interested in good fishing t than wilderness only 9% of of fishermen i n Algonquin Park, Ontario mentioned absence of other people as important.  fishing-bankone fisherman/ 0.4km, approx. 1.2ha/ fisherman -one fisherman/ 0.3km.  III.  Comments  campsites-<15..units 85% separated by 31m and good screening, 15%<31m apart, screening less important.  Lucus 1980  - 189 The a n a l y s i s factors,  level  ibility. types for  also u t i l i z e d  of development,  The f i r s t  I and I I ) ;  them i s  standards  either  affect  wilderness  e x p l a i n e d i n C h a p t e r 5, none o r v e r y  little.  ience type.  For t h i s  of  purpose the  following experience high density low d e n s i t y  acceptable  3-3 w e r e t h e  learning  (type  (1)  V)  h u n t i n g and f i s h i n g types  outdoor sports social  non-consumptive = n a t u r e - p a s s i v e  areas which the  I,  II), III  (type  III),  and  (type  i d e n t i f i e d as  analysis  VI),  VII)  and s o c i a b l e  analysis  map and t h e  (type  (type  f o r e a c h e x p e r i e n c e t y p e and s p e c i a l i z e d a c t i v i t y . from t h i s  (type  IV  nature-comfort  was  exper-  as  non-consumptive = a c t i v e  c o n c l u s i o n s were drawn  each  same use i n c o m p a t i b i l i t i e s  and c u l t u r a l  able  standards  in  consumptive = s o c i a l  general  the  types.  and  Map 1 shows t h e  standard  used  and t o a m i n o r d e g r e e  low d e n s i t y  (ie.  from  four tourism categories  consumptive = trophy  high density  compat-  experiences  use w e r e i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h  t h e m a t r i x w e r e assumed t o have t h e the  the  use  The e v a l u a t i o n s  compatability matrix i l l u s t r a t e d in Figure used t o d e f i n e which t y p e s  socio-psychological  a c c e s s i b i l i t y and o t h e r  two f a c t o r s  as  for three  IV)  suit-  Several  on w h i c h  it  based: The C o r r i d o r i s spiritual  not p r e s e n t l y  experience  (Ia)  very  as t h e  i n h a b i t e d homesteads, motorboats  suitable  presence  for a wilderness-  of a  and s e v e r a l  highway,  developed  campsies  MAP  - 190 -  1  YUKON RIVER CORRIDOR TOURISM RESOURCES Scale  SYMBOL  ®  A  @  tttt* # D © • ®  A O A  — 3 0 2  Sources:  1  :  500,000  NAME Archaeological Site Historical Site R o a d House Site R N W M Police Post A r e a of H u m a n A c t i v i t y ( s e t t l e m e n t s , r o a d s , etc.) Existing Campsite Fishing Camp A r e a suitable for facility development f o r E x p e r i e n c e T y p e s HI t o 1ZTL A d d i t i o n a l a r e a suitable f o r E x p e r i e n c e T y p e H I facility developments Potential sites for following activities: cottaging camping family boating beach activities geologic interest hot s p r i n g s sports fishing gold panning fish viewing Mileage  from  Whitehorse  Indian and Northern A f f a i r s , 1 9 7 3 . L o m b a r d North G r o u p , 1 9 7 5 D e p a r t m e n t of Interior C a n a d a , 1919 m a p of the Yukon Territory. M a p showing location of road houses and R N W M Police p o s t s Personal observations, 1979  - 191 -  MAP  1 i s too large to be inserted here.  Collections.  I t w i l l be kept i n Special  - 192 preclude the area best  offering a true wilderness  s e c t i o n s , which have t h e  from the  least  evidence  experience.  The  o f man a r e :  (a)  30 m i l e s e c t i o n b e l o w L a k e L a b e r g e t o t h e  of the L i t t l e  S a l m o n w i t h t h e Yukon R i v e r  and  (b)  confluence from Minto  to  Dawson. T h e s e same two a r e a s a r e a l s o b e s t tion experience suitable is  (Ib).  for this  not changed.  However,  The e n t i r e  use b e f o r e Except  II).  limit  campsites  immediate v i c i n i t y  Corridor is  thermore, there  presently the  suitable  led t o the  suitable river  are adequate  than p h y s i c a l  least  limiting.  do.  of settlements for hunting is  sites  f o r development  of  and  campsites  (experience  suitable  for  fishing.  of f a c i l i t i e s  soil  lated to  f l o o d hazard areas.  60 p e r c e n t  and t o p o g r a p h y and o f  al  FurThe  fish  s h o r e l i n e are  f o r nature  The s u i t a b l e a r e a s w e r e d e r i v e d  et  type  f o r l o d g e s and c a m p s .  land w i t h i n the  maps f o r  from Ronstat  limit  characteristics.  95,000 hectares  (III).  because  conclusion  t o use d e p e n d s on t h e a b u n d a n c e o f w i l d l i f e and  rather  access  f a c t o r s , which are d i s c u s s e d l a t e r ,  L i k e w i s e , the e n t i r e  ences  Appendix Six)  lack of potential  in the  the e n t i r e  able  rated  - apprecia-  is  r e m a i n so i f  C o r r i d o r was  (see  river  l o c a t i o n s f o r p r i m i t i v e c a m p s i t e s were not  Socio-psychological  At  the e n t i r e  e x p e r i e n c e and w i l l  the campsite inventory that  for a wilderness  (1977),  of the C o r r i d o r .  reports  The s o i l  but they  - passive  suit-  experi-  from a n a l y s i s  and p h o t o g r a p h s  of re-  and t o p o g r a p h y maps w e r e  only  provide coverage  Although part  of the area  not  for  - 193 -  covered  (ie.  (Donaldson  m i l e 312 - 3 6 2 )  1971) t h e r e  95,000 hectares generally  be c o n c l u d e d t h a t  least  C o r r i d o r which i s experience types of the  suitable  IV t o V I I .  ing at  l i m i t e d to the  of  above,  facilities  sites  (see  for  analysis  factors  besides  for these  Twin F a l l s i s at  least  experiences.  ( m i l e 302)  16 km.  .  ."  and  one s u i t a b l e In  the  t o T h i s t l e Creek  creeks.  available  loca-  steep  con-  section,  best  (Donaldson  sites  "campoccurr-  1971 p.  Appendix  Hence, there  is  less  14).  a r e e s t i m a t e d t o be b e t w e e n 24 and 32 Six).  c a m p s i t e s c o u l d i n c l u d e l o w i s l a n d s and g r a v e l  a d d i t i o n to the  the  u n d e r s l i g h t l y more  shorelines with the  t h e mouths o f s m a l l  Wilderness in  (4)  other  o f t h e Twin F a l l s  kilometers apart  Other  A g a i n t h e amount and d i s t r i b u t i o n o f  ( m i l e 370) t h e r e  Here s u i t a b l e creek  can  characteristics  T h i s was c o n c l u d e d a f t e r  f o r t h e s e c t i o n between  are  it  of shoreline land within  f o r a p r i m i t i v e campsite every  sites  land  s u i t a b l e f o r development  limit carrying capacity  fining walls  Hence, again  than  a r e more l i k e l y t o do s o .  land suggests that  T h i s t l e Creek  suitable  carrying capacity.  85,000 hectares  criteria.  land w i l l  tion  physical  same maps d e s c r i b e d i n  stringent  Except  shoreline.  experience's  such as a c c e s s  There are at  known t o be l e s s  u n d o u b t e d l y s u b s t a n t i a l l y more  of s u i t a b l e  should not l i m i t t h i s factors  is  is  f l o o d prone p r i m i t i v e  no s h o r t a g e o f w i l d e r n e s s  campsites.  sites.  bars  - 194  (8)  Numerous s p a w n i n g s i t e s 1976) but t h e w a t e r  is  -  f o r c h i n o o k and chum a r e generally  The f i s h l a d d e r a t Whitehorse fish (9)  t o o murky t o v i e w t h e  i s the only  sites.  They w e r e e v a l u a t e d  for their  viewing  potential  Synergy  Fort  using the  Selkirk  a 5 o u t o f 5.  viewing  historic significance  West  (1975)  five  Gold panning i s  possible in a l l  from Selwyn t o Dawson.  of the  A five  excell-  numerous s i t e s  h i s t o r i c s i t e s was u s e d t o e v a l u t e  gold panning s u i t a b i l i t y .  slightly  known and w e r e r a t e d 2 o u t o f 5 o r 3 o u t o f 5.  5.  As a r e s u l t  of a marginal  downhill  Several  known g o l d p a n n i n g s i t e ,  of 5 out of  skiing is  amount o f  which  it  of the  simieach  valleys  was g i v e n a  snow and l a c k  not a f e a s i b l e t o u r i s t  val-  s c o r i n g system  valley's  i s the only well  given  u n g l a c i a t e d stream  point  of  attraction  and  number  p o o r and 5 means  The C o r r i d o r a l s o c o n t a i n s  used f o r  historic  r a t e d 4 o u t o f 5 w h i l e Dawson was  3.  lar to that  (11)  was  were r a t e d 2 or  leys  fish.  location for  numerous o l d b u i l d i n g s and  s c o r i n g s y s t e m i n w h i c h 1 means v e r y  (10)  (Walker  runs.  The C o r r i d o r c o n t a i n s  ent.  known  are  Dawson rating  elevation for  the  Corridor.  CALCULATION OF BIOPHYSICAL AND SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL  CARRYING  CAPACITIES As e x p l a i n e d i n C h a p t e r F i v e ,  ideally  be c a l c u l a t e d t o d e t e r m i n e a n n u a l  three  types  use-levels:  of capacity  should  - 195 (1)  instantaneous istics the  (eg.  users  sources (2)  daily  capacity  vegetation  (eg.  for  w h i c h d e p e n d s on b i o p h y s i c a l sensitivity),  privacy  at  specialized  capacity  campsite)  perceptual  character-  expectations  and amount o f e s s e n t i a l  of re-  activities.  which depends  on t h e t u r n o v e r  time of  different  activities. (3)  annual  capacity  patterns Use  levels  is  a f u n c t i o n of  s u c h as w i l d l i f e  were c a l c u l a t e d  f o l l o w i n g general (1)  which  s e a s o n l e n g t h and  migrations.  for these  three  capacities  the  equations:  Biophysical  = Hectares  of  Ecological  (b)  Socio-psychological  Suitable Standard  = Hectares  Land* in  Hectares/User  of S u i t a b l e  Space S t a n d a r d  in  Land*  Hectares/User  Daily: (a)  Biophysical  = Instantaneous ple  (b)  Socio-psychological  in the  Level  d e t e r m i n e d by s u i t a b i l i t y  analysis  x Turnover  Rate of  Peo-  x Turnover  Rate  Area  = Instantaneous of  *  using  Instantaneous: (a)  (2)  annual  Level  People  in the  Area  - 196 (3)  Annual : (a)  Hunting Biophysical = Square Kilometers of Suitable Land in the Corridor Square Kilometers/Animal for Particular Abundance Level of Species  Number of Animals Able to be Harvested Hunt Effort Standard (number of hunters per Animal) (b)  Other Biophysical = Daily Level x Season Length  (c)  Socio-psychological = Daily Level x Season Length  In practice not all these calculations were made; vegetation use levels for instance were expressed in terms of annual use therefore it was unnecessary to calculate their instantaneous or daily carrying capacities.  Similarily calculation  hunting carrying capacities was not done.  of daily and instantaneous The calculation of socio-  psychological carrying capacities did however involve computing all three values.  The area estimates of suitable lands used in these  calculations were determined by planimeter measurement of the areas delimited on Map 1.  Appendix Table A6-1 l i s t s these areal values.  The results generally had very broad ranges, for instance the range for the nature-passive e x p e r i e n c e was from 1708 people.to 53,130  - 197 people  per y e a r .  values  were c a l c u l a t e d  ple the  This, range  shortest  number o f p e o p l e For  calculated treme  i n a g r o u p and f e w e s t  value,  for  be s e e n  therefore  - vegetation  - wildlife  from f o u r to  and s e n s i t i v i t y  carrying  biophysical  standards  the is  was n e c e s s a r y  number o f p e o p l e additional  carrying  ranges  was  capacity  also ex-  to  to  disturbance,  disturbance. w e r e b a s e d f o r t h e most  in wilderness  that  quality  calculation to  corresponded to these  c a l c u l a t i o n s w e r e b o t h c o m p l i c a t e d and is  f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n about  biophysical  carrying  wildlife  four biophysical  and f i s h ,  are  discussed  required.  factors,  of  use  determine  standards. underlain Therefore,  capacity vegetation,  separately.  part  factors.  were not e x p r e s s e d i n terms  t o do an a d d i t i o n a l  per area  Each o f the  estimates  disposal,  explanation  qualtiy,  broad  groups.  instead of  assumptions; considerable  lengthy.  smallest  other  capacity  f r o m sewage  capacities  Because the  with  calculated  characteristics:  ability  t o changes  These  carry  exam-  disturbance,  sensitivity  the  with  purposes these  biophysical  on p e o p l e ' s  it  contacts  For  time,  by u s i n g r e a s o n a b l e  r a t e and s e n s i t i v i t y  Socio-psychological  levels  turnover  high  case.  e x p e r i e n c e was  a realistic  assimilative  abundance  growth  6-1  primarily  sensitivity  - water q u a l i t y  l o w and  variables.  in Table  were d e t e r m i n e d  - fish  allocation  f o r each e x p e r i e n c e  values  As c a n  nature-passive  season l e n g t h , slowest  p l a n n i n g and r e s o u r c e  have l i t t l e  the  by a s s u m i n g t h e most e x t r e m e  low v a l u e f o r t h e  using the  o c c u r r e d because  factors water  - 198 6.3.1  Vegetation Soils  and t o p o g r a p h y , o r t e r r a i n , and v e g e t a t i o n  reational  impacts are  interrelated  F o r e x a m p l e , a s a n d dune t h a t likely  has l o s t  t o b l o w away t h a n one t h a t  t i o n and t e r r a i n picking to Willard  (Liddle  s e n s i t i v i t y to  1975a, Douglas  its  grass cover  has n o t .  recreational  vehicles  and M a r r 1 9 7 1 ) .  However,  (see  relationship  to different  of vegetation  and t e r r a i n  the only  relationship  i s the e f f e c t  ( B a r d e n and R a n d e r s o n ly,  use l e v e l s  t a t i o n types count  fact,  o f p e o p l e t r a m p l i n g on  1972, Kellomaki  f o r t r a m p l i n g were d e r i v e d  f o r the  responsible f o r the  flood plain conifer  vs.  till  relate  6-4.  trampling effects,  vegetation According-  significant  in Tables  however,  type are  vegetation  The g e n e r a l given  represent  (ie.  features  i n c o l u m n two o f  a r e assumed t o  ac-  category  6-4 and 6-5 w e r e d e r i v e d o n l y  they  vege-  into  terrain  i m p a c t s f o r e v e r y t y p e o f use d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s  Use l e v e l s (1)  conifer).  t o each v e g e t a t i o n  The u s e l e v e l s  tation  quantifiable  i n t h e C o r r i d o r , b u t , t e r r a i n was o n l y t a k e n was  has  combinations  1 9 7 3 , Wagar 1 9 6 4 ) .  i n s o f a r as i t  that  vegeta-  f o r example A l l e n 1 9 8 1 ,  no q u a n t i f i a b l e  In  on  from w i l d f l o w e r  been e s t a b l i s h e d w h i c h l i n k s i m p a c t l e v e l s types.  1974).  i s much more  The e f f e c t s  h a v e been d i s c u s s e d f o r e v e r y t h i n g  rec-  the  Table  from vege-  study.  w e r e d e r i v e d by t w o m e a n s :  Hudson ( 1 9 7 7 )  assessed the e f f e c t  t r a m p l i n g on f o u r p l a n t near Tok, A l a s k a .  of d i f f e r e n t  levels  communities along the Forty  The p e r c e n t  of  Mile  River  r e d u c t i o n i n c o v e r Hudson  found  Table 6-4 Vegetation S e n s i t i v i t y to Impacts: Derivation of Maximum Trampling Levels by Two Procedures(1) Reanaly s of Existing Data and (2) U t i l i z a t i o n of a Theoretical Correlation Equation S1  (1) Vegetation Type  Hood Plain l a . willow/ alder/ horsetail lb. balsam popular/ cottonwood/ aspen l c . mixed sprucepopular Id. white spruce/ feathermoss l e . black F spruce  Old River Terraces 2a. white spruce/ feathermoss 2b. mixed wood/white spruce/1p 2c. aspen  2d. grasslandsshort grass, juniper,  . (2) . Drainage. .„ Elevation, Permafrost  „ .(3) Sensitivity According to Douglas 50% 1974  W-MW.low, NP  Maximum Number of Tramples for Each Impact.Category Determined by Reanalysis of Hudson's..(1977) Composition Data 85-95% 25-85% 5-25% 0-5%  740 145365  W-MW,low, NP  1000  3 0  475  (5) Tree Productivity 3  m  / h a / y r  1210  >1210  3.6-13.7JJJ  960  >960  3-7.5 ^ ^ ( 1  W-MW,low, NP  ?510  ?H5  ?800  71035 >?1035 3.5- 5  W-MW,low, NP  ?60  710  7105  7240  ?>240 3 - 5  MW.low.NP  60  MW-I,low  ?520  MW.low.NP W.low.NP  (2)  2(max)  MW.low P or NP  ?190 2-3  10  105  7815- 340 1250  (2)  ,(3)  D e n s i $ y  k g m / n—r 1  VulneraDility Index: Number of Tramples that by 50%. Calculated using Liddle'« ° « ° Tree Ground Cover Index Index  (7) ia\ Tree Ground Productivity .over gj^/yr eiomass 2 gm m  R e d u c e  9  7  5  )  B 1 o m a s s  e c  4 5 0  162-616  440  132-330  435  152-218  430  129-215  95-190  480  96  64  430  129  u a t 1  n  130-801  98-342 3348.2 (6)  (5)  119-194  ,(5)  240  >240  ?1035  ?>10352.2-3.5 (5)  455  100-160  7475  67-127  7960  7>960 2.1-3 (1)  440  92-132  60-98  11501915  1420- >1420- 1 - 2 ^ 2450 2450  460  46-92  23-60  7115 7800 750  ( 5 )  4  (6) . Seasoned Wood  200  53  "(6)  Table 6-4 (continued) (D 2e. black spruce/ wi11ow/ feathermoss Wetlands 3a. bogssphagnum hedge/ black spruce 3b. marsh/ fencattail , sedge/ alder Morainal or Till 4a. lodgepole pine (lp) 4b. lp/aspen/ white spruce 4c. aspen  o o  CM  4d. white spruce  4e. black spruce  (2)  (3)  Column Number or Name 50% 85-95% 25-85% ,5-25% 0-25% (5J_  MW-P.low, P or NP  (1)  .68-1.7  P,lowhigh, P or NP  ?35  ?7  ?50  ?65  76570  Indices  0-.68 (1)  (5)  P.low.NP  0-.7  W-MW.low, NP  2.2-3.5^  W-MW,low SEW.NP W.low.S, NP a) W-I.medium, SEW.P or NP b) W-I,low, SEW.NP P.low.N.P  3 3 2-3 2-3  7190 ?115 7815- 750 1250  7800 7475  5)  (5) 71035  7>1035 0-8-3.5  7960  7^960  V  1-1-2.1 0.8-2.1 2.2-3.5 0.0-0.7  ;  (1)  (5) (5)  (7)  [8]  Tree  33- 82  -  15-51  0-33  -  0-14  0-32  "  0-13  110-175  1201.5 _. 1823.4^  76-144  49-88  36-160  1192.4^  17-127  49  48-92  -  24-60  94-151  -  61-117  34  34- 90  921.4^  15-58  34  0-34  -  0-15  34-90  -  15-58  7  GlacioHuvJal  5a. white spruce 5b. mixed white spruce/ aspen or white spruce/ aspen/lp  W-MW,low, NP W-MW,low, NP  0.8-2.1  0.8-2.1  (5)  Ground  35-91  16-59  Table 6-4 (continued) LD 5c. lbdgepole pine 5d. grasslandshort grass, juniper, bearberry  L?J_ W.low, SEW.NP W, 1 ow, S.NP  (3)  85-95%  25-85%  2-3  Column Number or Name 5-25% 0-5% (5) 0.8-2.1 (5)  0-2.1  500  HI  40-105  (8) 1823.4< ) (6) 0-64 5  * Indices Tree Ground 19-72 49-88  460  0-97  430 430  0-30 34-151  0-13 15-117  450  0-90  0-58  480  34  15  Lacustrine STTt  6a. white spruce 6b. saline grasslandspine grass Colluyium 7a. mixed white and black spruce 7b. black spruce  a) I,low b) MW,low, NP  0-0.7 0.8-3.5 (5)  MW.L.S, NP W-I, medium, P or NP MW-P, medium,P  Productivity Sources Neiland, B.J., and L.A. Viereck (1977) r.—. . ^ =—: Oswald, E.T., and R.K. King (1980) Farr, W.A. (1967) Gregory, R.A., and P.M. Haack (1965) Oswald et al (1979) Assume since most of the biomass is composed of mosses, young seedlings and woody plants  - m  (ie. Sheperdia aanadenaia, Salix s p . , Vacoinium s p . , Linnaea borealis etc. that  i t represents 10-15 years of growth.  0-2  (2)  0-0.7 Keys:  (2)  Drainage W - well MW - moderately well I - imperfect P - poor Elevation low - <900m medium - 900 - 1200m high - +-1200m (alpine) Aspect N - north SEW - not north S - south Permafrost P - permafrost occurs NP - no permafrost occurs  Douglas's (1974) (a) and (b) S e n s i t i v i t y Ratings TXJ very f r a g i l e (2) moderately f r a g i l e (3) moderately resistant  - 202 Table 6-5 Acceptable Number of Tramples per Season f o r Each Impact Category Vegetation Type Flood Plain l a . willow/alder/ horsetail l b . balsam poplar/ aspen/cottonwood l c . mixed spruce/ poplar Id. white spruce/ feathermoss l e . black spruce Old River Terraces 2a. white spruce/ feathermoss 2b. mixed wood/ white spruce/ lodgepole pine 2c. aspen 2d. grasslandsshort grass, juniper, bearberry 2e. black spruce/ willow/ feathermoss Wetlands 3a. bogssphagnum hedge/ black spruce 3b. marsh/fenc a t t a i l , sedge/ alder Till 4a. lodgepole pine 4b. lodgepole pine/ aspen/white spruce 4c. aspen 4d. white spruce (a) 4d. white spruce (b) 4e. black spruce Glacio-Fluvial 5a. white spruce 5b. mixed white spruce/aspen or white spruce/ aspen/lodgepole pine 5c. lodgepole pine 5d. grassland-short grass, juniper, bearberry Lacustrine S i l t 6a. white spruce (a) 6a. white spruce.(b) Colluvium 7a. mixed white and black spruce 7b, black spruce  Level 1  Level 2  Level 3  Level 4  Level 5  1  h  1  h  1  1  1  0  38  39  242  195 1210  247 1532  >247 >1532  0  27  29  103  147  514  186  960  >186 >960  0  34  35  60  179  300  380  '226 '380  0 0  9 44  226  10 45  57 19  105 285 23 96  181 29  361 121  ^•181 ?361 -29 '121  0  9  10  29  80  143  101  240  >101 7240  0 0  19 17  20 18  38 29  101 90  191 147  126 114  241 186  7126 '241 ni4 186  0  6  7  18  35  90  44  114  ' 4 4 '114  0  3  4  15  23  77  29  97  729 797  0  3  0  4  0  21  0  26  7  0  3  0  4  0  20  0  25  *0  0  14  15  43  74 214  0 0  4 6  0  3  5 7 ' 18 4 0  38 18 35 17 4  26 36 91 23 0  197 90 174 87 23  4  17  23  87  29  no  -29 TIIO  5 6  18 21  24 29  88 108  30 37  112 137  730 7112 ?37 yi37  -  0  19  0  96  0  121  0  >0 >121  0 4  4 35  0 25 29 220  >0 >25 '29 ^220  0  17 4  -  0  -  0  3  0  0  rt 0  0  Key: 1 - low value, h - high value  0  h  0 20 23 174 0 0  87 23  h  h  0 r26 >25  93 271  ^93 '271  32 243 45 114 110 220 29 no 0 29  T-32 -*243 ' 4 5 '114 ^110 7220 ^29 *110 >0 ?29  0 0  110 29  ' 0 '110 '0 729  - 203 f o r the f o u r communities was p l o t t e d and the s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the  impact c a t e g o r i e s  85%, 25% and 5% n a t u r a l  values  d e f i n e d i n Appendix Table A5-8 of  cover were i n t e r p o l a t e d  from the g r a p h .  The f o u r communities were assumed t o c o r r e s p o n d t o some o f vegetation  types  found i n the C o r r i d o r .  T a b l e 6-4 which have v a l u e s  i n column  the  These are the types  4.  in  Values were a l s o  determined f o r the communities i n the C o r r i d o r which were s u s pected o f being somewhat s i m i l a r t o Hudson's f o u r community types;  these are the values  i n Column 4 o f T a b l e 6-4 which  are  preceded by a q u e s t i o n mark. (2)  The second method of c a l c u l a t i n g the use l e v e l s o f  vegetation  types was t o use an e q u a t i o n L i d d l e  (1975a) d e r i v e d which  lates a vegetation  resilience  tivity. takes  type's  trampling  over a season t o original  reduce the v e g e t a t i o n  value,  and i s  l o g i o ( n u m b e r of passes)=1.362  would cause a 50 percent  as  logio(P  T h i s equation was used t o c a l c u l a t e  it  cover t o 50 p e r -  follows:  r o  ductivity)  the number o f tramples  r e d u c t i o n i n cover  types  f o r which p r o d u c t i v i t y  sults  are a l s o presented i n T a b l e 6-4.  for all  data c o u l d be f o u n d .  The two measures do not p r o v i d e comparable r e s u l t s ;  munities  produc-  T h i s e q u a t i o n e x p r e s s e s the number o f tramples  cent o f i t s  general  to i t s  re-  vegetation These  however,  re-  the  t r e n d o f bogs, back spruce and white spruce/feathermoss having g r e a t e r  ported by both methods.  sensitivity  that  than o t h e r communities was  Hudson's data was from ground cover  comsup-  studies  - 204 -  w h i l e most of the p r o d u c t i v i t y t i o n were f o r t r e e s .  1967, L i d d l e 1975b); however,  Corridor.  used i n L i d d l e ' s  I d e a l l y , the e f f e c t s  assessed as they are the f i r s t  mine the use l e v e l s  values  for all  on ground cover should be  and most obvious impacts  (Lepage  Hudson's data was inadequate t o  the p l a n t communities growing i n  f o r the s i g n i f i c a n t  5% from L i d d l e ' s v u l n e r a b i l i t y  In e s s e n c e , i t  the  indices.  was assumed t h a t a l i n e a r  this  assumption i s  relationship exists  valid  (Liddle  indices.  1975b).  Appendix  f o r each impact  In g e n e r a l , these  values  concur with those c a l c u l a t e d using the Hudson d a t a ; however, cases the  'Hudson'  ed from L i d d l e ' s  v a l u e s were h i g h e r than the values  indicies.  is  f o r the range of 85  Table A6-3 g i v e s the values t h a t were c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g the v u l n e r a b i l i t y  between  Although the r e l a t i o n s h i p  relatively  to 5 percent under c o n s i d e r a t i o n here  eral  deter-  impact ranges of 85%, 25% and  number o f tramples and l o s s of c o v e r .  level  equa-  T h e r e f o r e , a means was developed t o c a l c u l a t e maximum  t r a m p l i n g values  not l i n e a r ,  (1975a)  in  sev-  calculat-  T h i s c o u l d be because Hudson's f i n d i n g s  d i d not correspond t o the C o r r i d o r ' s v e g e t a t i o n types or because  the  linear  in  assumption used t o e x t r a p o l a t e L i d d l e ' s  indicies  resulted  an over e s t i m a t i o n of i m p a c t s .  Table 6-4 c o n t a i n s the range of a c c e p t a b l e t r a m p l i n g values this  study.  Because  it  i s e a s i e r to increase v i s i t a t i o n  p l a c e destroyed v e g e t a t i o n , the most c o n s e r v a t i v e c a l c u l a t e d were used f o r each a c c e p t a b l e  range.  values  used i n  than to of those  re-  - 205 A n o t h e r c a l c u l a t i o n had t o be made t o t r a n s l a t e values  i n t o use l e v e l s .  ber of times  a site  The t r a m p l e v a l u e s  trample  only give the  can be s t e p p e d on i n a s e a s o n .  t o d e t e r m i n e t h e number o f  num-  The p r o b l e m was  people a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each trample  num-  t h e f o l l o w i n g a s s u m p t i o n s w e r e made a b o u t u s e  pat-  ber.  To do t h i s  terns  i n s h o r e l i n e and h i n t e r l a n d Shoreline  these  - b e tw e e n  river  areas:  and o v e r n i g h t  5 trips/person - cleared t r a i l s  (Hudson  campsite or  cabin,  1977)  2 trips/person  (ie  g o i n g and  comi ng) H i n t e r l a n d - n o t r a i l s , wander - cleared t r a i l s  Rather  (ie.  4 passes/person  I n v e n t o r y Task  1 pass/person  2 passes/person  - developed t r a i l s ski)  freely,  Force  horseback, (Ontario  was e a s i e r  to  t y p e f o r t h e above f i v e  refer to Table  6-4 and d e r i v e  s i t u a t i o n s when t h e y w e r e r e q u i r e d . a flood p l a i n white ence type III (a)  impact  (b)  at  spruce vegetation  that  experience  assumed c o n d i t i o n s use l e v e l s  For example, the  ranges  for  it  specific  use l e v e l  w o u l d p r o v i d e an  between  p r o c e d u r e was u s e d t o d e r i v e  types.  Supply  for  experi-  follows:  3 range o f t r a m p l e s / s e a s o n = 105-285  5 t r i p s / p e r s o n use l e v e l  vegetation  f o r each  f o r s h o r e l i n e camping i s e s t i m a t e d as level  This type of  Recreation  1975).  t h a n d e v e l o p a huge m a t r i x o f u s e l e v e l s  t y p e and v e g e t a t i o n  cross-country  21-57 p e o p l e / s e a s o n .  use l e v e l s  for  pertinent  - 206 V e g e t a t i o n m a p p i n g by O s w a l d and K i n g specific  vegetation  Carmacks.  communities  No v e g e t a t i o n  stream of Carmacks.  (1980)  in the  was  used t o  C o r r i d o r upstream  Accordingly, vegetation  also  used f o r  slides with pers.  imagery,  of  mapping e x i s t e d f o r the C o r r r i d o r downm a p p i n g was done o f  unmapped p o r t i o n o f t h e C o r r i d o r ; t h i s m a p p i n g was done from s a t e l l i t e  identify  conventional  areas which  colour air  had s u c h c o v e r a g e .  taken during a f i e l d t r i p to the  primarily  photographs  Field  notes,  were 35 mm  C o r r i d o r , and d i s c u s s i o n s  i n d i v i d u a l s knowledgeable about the  area's  vegeation  (Murtha  comm. 1 9 8 1 , O s w a l d p e r s . comm. 1 9 7 9 , 1980 a n d 1 9 8 1 ) w e r e  used i n the mapping p r o c e s s . p i n g done f o r t h i s  study.  Map 2 i l l u s t r a t e s  the  vegetation  T h i s m a p p i n g was u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e  by v e g e t a t i o n  use l e v e l s  set  Additional  a s s u m p t i o n s were r e q u i r e d t o c a l c u l a t e  vegetation  f o r each e x p e r i e n c e t y p e .  large  areas of the  C o r r i d o r w h i c h c o u l d be u s e d f o r e a c h  type,  however,  same i n t e n s i t y  occur throughout these  areas.  pinpoint  of  the  locations  also mapthe  f o r areas downstream from Carmacks.  level  the  the  The s u i t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s  of  use w o u l d n o t  Hence,  concentrated  given  in Table  6-6.  areas  i n which  use c o n c e n t r a t e d ; t h e r e f o r e ,  calculated  for these  areas.  use l e v e l  f o r each e x p e r i e n c e the  experience  realistically to  assumptions  V e g e t a t i o n was assumed t o o n l y  were o n l y  identified  a s s u m p t i o n s were made use; these  use  limit  vegetation  To c a l c u l a t e  the  use  use  are in  the  levels  vegetation  f o l l o w i n g s t e p s were f o l l o w e d :  - 207 -  MAP 2  Legend  Scale (approximately) 1 = 690,000 GRASS G - almost all grass cover Gl - grass > 5 0 % cover with scattered trees and shrubs * 5 G2 - grass 5 50 % cover with scattered trees SHRUB S -shrub 5 5 0 % cover SI - shrub 5 50 % mixed with spruce S2-shrub $ 5 0 % mixed with aspen TREES softwood C -white spruce 5 5 0 % cover C l -black spruce 5 5 0 % cover C2 -white and black spruce 5 5 0 % cover C3 -open spruce (5 50%. cover) with grass C4 -open spruce ( 5 5 0 % cover) with shrub hardwood T -aspen T1 - poplar T2 - poplar T3 - poplar T4 - poplar  5 50%. cover 5 50 % cover and aspen 5 5 0 % cover and aspen 5 5 0 % cover with grass and aspen 5 5 0 % cover with shrub  mixed M -mixed spruce and aspen 5 50 % cover M l -mixed spruce and poplar 5 50 % cover M2 -mixed spruce, poplar and aspen 550 % M3 -open mixed trees ' 5 5 0 % cover with grass M4-open mixed trees 5 5 0 % cover with shrub ROCK R -predominantly rock RI - rock with some grass R2 - rock with some trees or shrubs OTHER B -bog  - 208 -  - 209 MAP 2  (continued)  DAWSON mile 459 Klondike River  White River  Stewart River  - 210 - D e t e r m i n e t h e amount o f e a c h v e g e t a t i o n cations This  f o r which v e g e t a t i o n  involved  tions  the  vegetation  - Identifying  types  f o r each  therefore  from t h e nearby  river  standards  and t h e r e f o r e In most  a l o c a t i o n was c a m p i n g o r s t a y i n g  t h e a s s u m p t i o n s used were 5 t r i p s  t o t h e c a m p s i t e and 2 t r i p s  assumptions to the  for trampling  range  f o r each  - Determine the  (see  pertinent  T a b l e 6-6)  per  the cases  in  person/day  per person/day  on  Chapter Four)  f o r the types  standards  given  low  an a n n u a l  use  who c o u l d use e a c h l o c a t i o n d e f i n e d f o r each  and e s t a b l i s h t h e  o f use l i k e l y t o o c c u r a t  range o f each s i t e  annu-  experi-  turnover from  in Table 6-11.  - C a l c u l a t e t h e minimum and maximum u s e l e v e l s s u s t a i n by c o m b i n i n g a l l and as w e l l  at  h i g h and  location.  number o f p a r t i e s  (see  vegetation's to arrive  f r o m t h e number o f p e o p l e p e r p a r t y  ence t y p e times  receive  use  trails.  - Apply these  ally  Maps  location.  o f u s e t o assume f o r c a l c u l a t i o n p u r p o s e s .  cabins;  level  stipula-  from the e x p e r i e n c e type d e f i n i t i o n the type o f  use a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  lo-  w e r e t o be c a l c u l a t e d .  l o c a t i o n s according to the  p a r t i c u l a r l o c a t i o n would l i k e l y  pattern the  i d e n t i f y i n g the  o c c u r r i n g i n the  i n T a b l e 6-5 and e s t a b l i s h i n g , f r o m Map 2 and O s w a l d ' s  (1980)  each  use l e v e l s  types  as a l l  the  lowest  the highest  values  values  the  for  together.  Corridor could  standards  together  - 211 -  Table 6-6 Assumptions Used to Identify Locations for which Vegetation S e n s i t i v i t y Use-levels were Calculated Experience Type  Feasible Shoreline Area from S u i t a b i l i t y Analysis  Assumptions made to Calculate Vegetation Use-level for thfs Experience  Ia WildernessSpiritual  (i) entire corridor ( i i ) Lake Lebarge to L i t t l e Salmon and Minto to Dawson  numerous campsites, users w i l l avoid areas with evidnece of use and w i l l tend to camp in areas such as gravel bars, islands and mixed tree stands.  entire corridor  campsites located at sites identified by Lombard North (1975) and every 16-32km in between on the least sensitive vegetation.  entire corridor  not calculated, use levels depend on abundance of f i s h and wildl i f e .  95,000 hectares  same assumptions as for  lb  WildernessAppreciation  II Nature Trophy Hunting and Fishing III Nature - Passive IV Nature - Comfort Sociabl e Sociable Learning  VI Active Outdoor Sports VII Cultural Social  lb.  85,000 hectares  same assumptions as for  85,000 hectares  l i k e l y development areas are the suitable areas in Map 1 which have a clustering of attractions and a c t i v i t i e s . These are: Minto to Fort S e l k i r k , Lake Laberge, Whitehorse and Dawson. Most of the Lake Laberge area was not examined in the s u i t a b i l i t y analysis as i t was outside the Ronstad (1977) map coverage; development considered feasible for a l l land with slopes<9 .  85,000 hectares  not calculated; condition of vegetation not important to experience.  85,000 hectares  lb.  not calculated, condition of vegetation not important to experience.  - 212 The  r e s u l t i n g h i g h and l o w use l e v e l  experience types  Experience Type  are  listed  values  f o r the  relevant  below.  Comments  Number o f P e o p l e p e r Year f o r A l l S u i t a b l e Areas Low  High  la.  WildernessSpi r i t u a l  lb.  Wildernesse s t i m a t e d v a l u e s f o r s h o r e l i n e 180 A p p r e i c a t i o n t r a i l s t o c a m p s i t e s (assumed t o have h e a v i e s t u s e ) . Area r e l a t i o n s h i p d e t e r m i n e d by assuming 8 people would walk on a t r a i l b e f o r e same a r e a t r a m p l e d , and 1-5 s i t e s p e r campground.  8830  III.  IV.  V.  assumptions imply that veget a t i o n w i l l n o t be a l i m i t i n g f a c t o r - there are s u f f i c i e n t s i t e s and p e o p l e w i l l c h o o s e a n o t h e r s i t e i f one a p p e a r s over-used - s o c i o - p s y c h o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s w i l l l i m i t use before vegetation impacts become i m p o r t a n t .  Nature Passive  u s e d same a s s u m p t i o n o f 8 p e o p l e / t r a m p l e on a t r a i l b u t assumed 7 t o 11 s i t e s per campground.  3057  97966  Nature Comfort  assumed 8 p e o p l e / 4 c o u p l e on a t r a i l and 15 s i t e s per campground.  6555  133596  Sociable Learning  not c a l c u l a t e d - s i n c e h a r d e n i n g t r a i l s and p l a n t i n g a r e a c c e p t a b l e (as defined in Table 6-2), t h i s i m p l i e s v e g e t a t i o n w i l l not be l i m i t i n g .  - 213 6 . 3 . 2 Water In  Quality  T a b l e 6-2 t h e w a t e r  c a t e g o r y were g i v e n  quality levels  level  1  - Experience  Ia,  II  quality  level  2  - Experience  Ib,  III,  quality  level  3  - E x p e r i e n c e V, V I ,  6-7, the  trations  l i m i t i n g values  Ia  and I I .  of wastewater  Donaldson (1971)  in the  present water  river  and II  dor downstream from mid-Lake  various  T a b l e 6-7)  river  reveals  trations are,  for all  in general, well  downstream from Whitehorse  and t h e  mid-  downstream from Dawson.  Fishing)  to the  Ia  Corri-  the  f o r t h e Yukon  and D a w s o n .  below a c c e p t a b l e  limits  samples taken  River  A comparison of  parameters measured the  (see concen-  (level  2)  immediately  and t u r b i d i t y c o n c e n t r a t i o n s  d o w n s t r e a m f r o m C a r m a c k s and d u r i n g s p r i n g  measured  runoff.  are not a s i g n i f i c a n t l i m i t a t i o n t o d r i n k i n g  Many s m a l l  ex-  concen-  f o r each q u a l i t y l e v e l  f o r the c o l i f o r m counts from water  supply.  Table  unsuitable for  found d e t e c t a b l e  q u a l i t y values  l i m i t i n g values  that  The t u r b i d i t y l e v e l s  given in  Laberge.  l o c a t i o n s between W h i t e h o r s e  these values with the  I  between W h i t e h o r s e  (Nature-Trophy  T a b l e 6-8 l i s t s t h e p r e s e n t w a t e r  water  level  q u a l i t y conditions r e s t r i c t experience types  (Wilderness-Spiritual)  cept  VII  for quality  p o i n t o f L a k e L a b e r g e and a l s o i n t h e Hence,  IV  p r e s e n c e o f sewage i n t h e w a t e r makes i t  perience types  experience  as:  quality  According to the  at  a c c e p t a b l e t o each  n o r t h e r n c o m m u n i t i e s u s e more t u r b i d  ex-  - 214 -  Table 6-7 Maximum Acceptable Values for Different Levels of Water Quality Water Quality Parameters Dissolved Oxygen Total Coliform Counts Turbidity (JTU) Trace Metals: Lead (Pb) mg/1 Mercury mg/1 Iron mg/1 Hardness (Mg&Ca) mg/1 Ammonia mg/1 Nitrate mg/1 Nitrite mg/1  Source:  Level 1  at natural level with no degradation or sewage disposal  Level 2 near saturation 100/100ml 5 0.05 0.002 0.3 100 0.5 10 1.0  Working Group on Water Quality Objectives 1977  Level 3 near saturation 1,000/100ml at natural level 0.05 0.002 0.3 350 0.5 10 1.0  Table 6-8: WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS  Dissolved Oxygen (%Sat)  1 At Dawson h a 1  -  -  -  Present Water Quality Values in the Yukon River  Above Confluence of White River  At Carmacks Bridge  Whitehorse Above Outfall 1  1  1  1  h  a  1  -  -  -  -  a  h  -  h  1  -  -  Whitehorse Above Outfall 2  a  a  -  -  Total Coliform Counts Turbidity  (JTU)  .5  5  1  Whitehorse At Sewage Outfall 4  1  h  a  1-7300 h=594,000 a =263,130  37 km Downstream From Outfall  t  Lake Laberge a h  a  1  10.9 1=230 h=ll,360 a=1,000  93  100  0  295  2.5  .09  7.5  -  99  1  -  -  -  -  -  -  .02  -  -  -  .05  -  -  -  -  .0002  -  .002  .16  .13  -  -  -  -  .03  11  .04  44.5  -  46  38  39  68  -  .005  -  .005  .005  .005  -  -  .01  -  .01  .01  .01  -  -  .005  -  .005  .005  .005  -  -  17.5 1.9  210  25  .2  54  17.5  2.5  16  .04  .011  -  -  -  .01  .01 .01  .001 .05  .1  1  Trace Metals: i LO  Lead (Pb) mg/1 .001 Mercury mg/1  -  -  -  -  -  -  .05  .05 .05  Iron mg/1  .001  .3  .05  .04  .04  .04  .4  .4  Hardness (Mg&Ca) 53.9 mg/1  119  97  69.6 88.5 79.8  Ammonia mg/1  .1  .1  .1  -  -  -  .1  .1  .1  .1  .4  Nitrate mg/1  0  .113 .025  -  -  -  -  -  -  0  .226 .037  N i t r i t e mg/1  .005  .067 .014  -  -  -  .005 .09 .04  Sources:  1. 2. 3. 4.  .4  58.8 72 63.3 40.5 100 49  .001 .16  .1  .019  Environment Canada 1975 Bethel 1 and Munro 1977 Baker 1979 These values are for prior to i n s t a l l a t i o n of Whitehorse sewage treatment, since the sewage treatment plant started in Feb. 1979 the total coliform count at the o u t f a l l has been reduced 2 or 3 orders of magnitude (Atkins pers. comm. 1979)  Key:  1 - lowest h - highest a - average  - 216 waters  than the  treatment  plants  remove t h e 1977).  Yukon and s u f f e r  c o u l d be i n s t a l l e d a t  turbidity  Finally,  frequently  (Working  small  streams with  freezing. known, the  although i t  rates  (Atkins vealed  that  percent  comm. 1 9 7 9 ) .  enterococci  Munro 1 9 7 7 ) t h a n  Owing t o  data  in the it  not  would a l l o w .  As i s  people.  rates,  was  source  sewage  recreationists.  generally  acknow-  temperatures  are  Yukon R i v e r  is  study  after  to  Alaska  (Gordon  1972)  of the  7 days.  water  near not  w o u l d be s i m i l a r  C Yukon R i v e r  re-  total 37.3  Nothing  (Bethell  surand  waters.  i m p o s s i b l e to estimate  the  River  although c o l i f o r m probably  In most a r e a s , because  Yukon  c o l i f o r m and 1 8 . 1 t o  alive  in temperate  demonstrated at  d i l u t i n g a point  fecal  were s t i l l  it  the  3.2 t o 6.5 p e r c e n t  of the  to  Objectives  outside Fairbanks,  f o r each e x p e r i e n c e t y p e  be a l i m i t i n g f a c t o r  large.  River  4 - 5.7°  deficiencies  number o f t o u r i s t s standards  does  is  t o assume i t  at 0°C,  summer d i e - o f f  much l o n g e r  problem; i t  conventional developments  join  of d i s p e r s e d  The T a n a n a R i v e r  2.1 t o 4 . 2 p e r c e n t  of the  water  f o r c o l i f o r m in the  reasonable  i n the w i n t e r ,  known a b o u t  vives  is  also  tourist  l o n g e r when w a t e r  f o u n d f o r t h e Tanana  pers.  coliform,  is  The d i e - o f f t i m e  large  clear  needs  C o l i f o r m c o u l d be a more s e r i o u s coliform survive  effects,  Group on W a t e r Q u a l i t y  enough t o meet t h e  ledged that  no i l l  which water  however,  water  Yukon R i v e r ' s  Whitehorse, discharge  the  river  from over  t h e maximum quality  quality  discharge is ten  will is  capable thousand  so of  - 217 Nevertheless, two p a t t e r n s quality:  of  (1)  sources  of  the  future large  sewage,  which there  longevity  of c o l i f o r m i n  tourism centres  and  (2)  for  it  the  produce  sites  d i s c h a r g e of Thus,  foreseeable  two a b o v e m e n t i o n e d p a t t e r n s  substantial  sewage t h a n t h e  of  point  for  any o f t h e  planning,  use, because  be l i m i t e d due t o sewage t r e a t m e n t  from  lake's  although water q u a l i t y future  that  water  around Lake Laberge  s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d i n d e v e l o p m e n t  ceivably  6.3.3  in the  that  numerous  s l o w f l u s h i n g r a t e can remove.  ences  water suggests  use c o u l d s e r i o u s l y d e t e r i o r a t e  c o u l d be a l a r g e r  a limiting factor  river  is  not  experi-  particularly  they  could  con-  costs.  Wildlife Except  f o r t h i n h o r n sheep, the  in the C o r r i d o r is fects  of  n o t known  recreationists  p o p u l a t i o n of d i f f e r e n t  (see  on w i l d l i f e  is d i f f i c u l t to establish actual dance  and h u n t e f f o r t  Tables  are  problem in the  defined.  fauna  values given  a d d i t i o n , the  ef-  poorly understood.  Hence  for the  abun-  significant  in Chapter Five  determination  no d a t a on t h e a r e a ' s c a p a b i l i t y  undisturbed natural are  standards  are  In  with-  it  (Appendix  A5-10 and A 5 - 1 2 ) .  The g r e a t e s t there  Table 6-9).  species  c o n d i t i o n s , the  Historical  records  of these  values  is  that  t o produce w i l d l i f e  baseline  from which  d e s c r i b e an a b u n d a n t  standards  and  varied  of, " . . . m o o s e and r e i n d e e r , b e a r s , b l a c k and g r i z z l y , w o l v e s and w o l v e r i n e s , r a t s and h a r e s , t h e f o x , t h e l y n x , t h e b e a v e r , t h e mink and t h e m a r t e n . . . " (Campbell  1885 p.  18)  under  Table G-9: Speci es  co  Sustainable Harvest Rate for Present llabi tat Condi t i oris  Abundance  Sensltlve Times  Sens 111ve Areas  G r i z z l y bear  estimate r a t i o 1:10 g r i z z l y to black in area  100/year in Territory - at capacity  mid-May to mid-June  south facing slopes and riparian habitatprimary food source  Black Bear  population size unknown for g r i z z l y and black bear  approximately 35 shot in corridor in spring of 1979^ - at capacity or over capacity for area now  mid-May to mid-June  south facing slopes food source  Moose  total Yukon population: 30,000-50,000 , almost rare i n c o r r i d o r , no estimates a v a i l a b l e , in s i m i l a r habitat in A n t r a l , Alaska - GiiO. 1000/10,000 square miles \ potential estimated at 1 moose/2.6km in prime habitat (bog and fen) and average of l / 2 6 k m .  over e x p l o i t a t i o n now, no estimate of number presently harvested" 20 shot in Carmacks area in 1970, closed from Stewart River  calving - spring, summer feeding, winter - especially especially Feb. - March and heavy snowfalls  riparian areas, bogs and wetlands  i r— JT, OO  Known Information on W i l d l i f e Abundance and Disturbance S e n s i t i v i t y In the Corridor  major  b  Wolf  no information, generally considered healthy'  Thinhorn Sheep  less than 35 animals  0-population depleted  lnmbing-spring and early summer  lambing areas-on c l i f f s near rivers'  Smal 1 Mammals  no information, generally considered healthy  lynx, fox and marten, probably somewhat u n d e r u t i l i z e d ; hare, s q u i r r e l substantially underuti11zed  l i t t l e information  see Table A5-11  unknown  staging-April-May, Sept.see Table A5-11 Oct. moulting-late Julv and Aug 10 nesting-May-July  I  J  Waterfowl  no information, 100's of migrating ducks, geese and swans at nearby staging areas in spring and f a l l "  9  Table 6-9 (continued) Bald Eagles  small stable population^ no estimates available  Peregrine Falcons  rare, endangered species^  Gyrfalcons  records of nesting i n area, none recently  Golden Eagles  healthy population^  0  0  0  not applicable  nesting, raising young breakup to beginning of August  see Table A5-11  not applicable  nesting until young leave nest May to August  cliffs  not applicable  nesting until young are out of nest-ice breakup to f i r s t of August  cliffs  Q  Sources: 1. Hoefs pers. comm. 1979 2. Smith pers. comm. 1979 3. Hoefs 1975 4. Kelleyhouse pers. comm. 1980 5. Hoefs 1973 (cited in Douglas 1974) 6. Larson pers. comm. 1979 7. Westwater 1980 8. Herrick 1977 9. Dennington 1980 10. Mossop 1979  - 220 Yet,  they  do n o t  An a l t e r n a t i v e conditions  is  and t o a p p l y Using t h i s  provide actual  means  relevant  moose and g r i z z l y  Potential  of e s t i m a t i n g s p e c i e s  to obtain  procedure  numbers o f a n i m a l s  densities  i n f o r m a t i o n from the  bear  densities  the  n o r t h e r n Yukon i s al  1973).  are  given  per  f o r a female  lower than the  grizzly  s i z e o f two  t h e maximum d e n s i t y  10-23 k m ^ ; t h e  upper value  current  for  found bear d e n s i t i e s t o  2 3 - 3 3 km2 p e r estimates wildlife  For  the  field  to the C o r r i d o r . for  estimate  range  used.  were u s e d i n t h e population for  and c u b ( s )  the  in  The  (Mundy  the  density  Studies  f r o m one b e a r  1 9 7 3 ) and no  bears  of  is  parks  p e r 26 have  p e r 2 8 km^ t o one  study a density  T h e s e moose and b e a r  range  bear  of  density  p r e d i c t i o n of the C o r r i d o r ' s  undisturbed natural  one  slightly  one b e a r  in other  et vacant  w o u l d be  range  bear  size  30 - 70 km^ ( W a t s o n  f o r K l u a n e Park  purposes of t h i s  b e a r was  explanation.  grizzly  of t h i s  km^ ( P a r k Warden p e r s . comm. 1 9 7 9 ) .  p e r 33 k m ^ .  natural  i n Table 6-9, e s t i m a t i o n of  e s t i m a t e d t o be between  Assuming a l i t t e r  territories*,  land.  populations.  moose d e n s i t i e s  home t e r r i t o r y  of  i n each  were p r o j e c t e d  d e n s i t i e s was more c o m p l i c a t e d and r e q u i r e s of  under  experts  f i n d i n g s from o t h e r areas potential  per u n i t  potential  conditions.  U n d o u b t e d l y t h e r e i s v a c a n t t e r r i t o r y ( e g . a r e a s w i t h no s u i t a b l e d e n n i n g s i t e s ) b u t t h i s o v e r e s t i m a t i o n i s c o u n t e r a c t e d by t h e f a c t t h a t m a l e s a r e n o t c o n s i d e r e d (as t h e y a r e w i d e r a n g i n g and have p o o r l y d e f i n e d t e r r i t o r i e s ) .  - 221 The t o t a l  land area  of the  with  1480 km2 i n t h e  (see  Appendix Table  area  is  identified  Corridor  shoreline A6-3).  on t h e  is  and 8 8 2 0 km^ i n t h e  l a n d use s e r i e s  ( I n d i a n and N o r t h e r n A f f a i r s  percent  of the  the  the  shoreline  balance  potential  Similarily,  of the  ( 7 4 0 km^)  than  if  the  grizzly  bears  under  bears  bears ideal  (see  estimates  Corridor able  (Ontario annual black  b i g game v a l u e s  offer  the  numbers  were e s t i m a t e d  and m o d e r a t e  are  of as  If  range  moose,  the if  300 t o 440 a n i -  be 10 t i m e s  more  plentiful  t h e maximum number o f  black  o f an u n d i s t u r b e d C o r r i d o r , t h e s e  for  the  number o f  conditions.  these  harvest  effort  Force  good o p p o r t u n i t i e s  popthe  sustain-  populations  1 9 7 5 ) , t h e maximum  b e a r 60 t o 90 and  levels  (listed  hunters  Assuming a  b o t h moose and b e a r  are  d i v i d e d by  in Appendix  hunting opportunities  opportunities  correct,  between  I n v e n t o r y Task  hunt  and  C o r r i d o r could support  o f moose w o u l d be 1 3 0 , g r i z z l y  for the  f o r moose  c o u l d be 3000 t o 4500 b e a r s .  under t h e s e  Supply  b e a r 600 t o 9 0 0 .  A5-12),  Table 6-9),  r a t e of 20 p e r c e n t  harvest  the  were u s e d t o c a l c u l a t e  Recreation  50  C o r r i d o r w o u l d be 6 5 0 .  estimates  that  total  b e i n g good moose  prime h a b i t a t  were known t o  scenario  could support  harvest  bears  conditions  C o n t i n u i n g under the ulation  density  u n d i s t u r b e d would  Since black grizzly  is  the  Assuming t h a t  maximum number o f moose i n t h e  e c o s y s t e m was  mals.  1973).  of  l a n d s u p p o r t s t h e a v e r a g e number o f  maximum number o f g r i z z l y the  maps as  10300 km^  hinterland  A p p r o x i m a t e l y 50 p e r c e n t  habitat  that  approximately  Table  the C o r r i d o r  could  f o r 3 4 0 0 t o 4900  f o r 5600 t o 8 0 0 0 h u n t e r s .  the  hunters  - 222  Obviously, these estimates sociated harvest  levels  the e x i s t i n g s i t u a t i o n .  are  (type II)  former level  It  is  it  are  10 a n d p o s s i b l y 100 t i m e s they  capacity  life  critical  of the t o t a l  u n d e v e l o p e d and c o u l d ,  of o v e r e x p l o i t a t i o n .  the e f f e c t s  a time-frame which acts ever f o r e s t a l l  was c o n c l u d e d f u t u r e  have i t s  wild-  former  is a result  of s e n s i t i v e  abunof a  habitats,  all  the  other developments potential  rather than  Moreafter  likelihood deciand c h o o s e  level.  opportunities for trophy hunting  l i k e l y t o be r e l a t e d t o p r e s e n t  potential  populations.  to  Therefore, experiences wildlife  levels.  f o r p r e s e n t moose and b e a r  at  w o u l d h a v e t o be i m p l e -  against  A s i m i l a r p r o c e s s was f o l l o w e d t o c a l c u l a t e ties  remainder  f r o m s u c h m e a s u r e s w o u l d o n l y be a p p a r e n t  increase w i l d l i f e populations to their  population  The  approximating t h e i r  Protection  state; developed  management w i s h e s t o i n c r e a s e w i l d l i f e a b u n d a n c e .  s i o n makers w i l l  are  the  b i g game h a r v e s t i n g and p r e v e n t i o n o f d i s t u r b a n c e s  numerous y e a r s ;  it  hunting  this  area.  in theory,  t i m e s are the t y p e o f measure t h a t  mented i f over,  However,  Much o f t h e d e c i m a t i o n o f w i l d l i f e s t o c k s  closure to all  of  estimates  r e t u r n the whole C o r r i d o r t o a p r i s t i n e  populations returned to levels  long h i s t o r y  as c r u d e  for providing trophy  now r o a d s , m i n e s and s e t t l e m e n t s .  Corridor is  dance.  useful  s h o u l d w i l d l i f e a b u n d a n c e be r e t u r n e d t o  land comprises l e s s than 5 percent of the  are  i n excess  as-  had u n d e r u n d i s t u r b e d c o n d i t i o n s .  impossible to  there  o f maximum p o p u l a t i o n s i z e and t h e i r  However,  of the C o r r i d o r ' s potential experiences  -  the hunting o p p o r t u n i Assuming t h a t  moose  - 223 presently  have t h e  same p o p u l a t i o n i n t h e C o r r i d o r as t h e y  central  Alaska  area  9785 k m , t h e  is  (see  T a b l e 6-9)  2  s h o u l d be b e t w e e n harvest  hunters.  or moderate  w e r e made t o c a l c u l a t e 1979 h a r v e s t 32 b l a c k present  of  comm.)  "...  can be h a r v e s t e d , solved.  Likewise,  mals can  increase.  at  but it  Further  were assumed t o  level; this  the  level  comparing the  535 A5-12  assumptions for  bear.  The  3 grizzlies  be t h e  150 h u n t e r s  and  and  Corridor's  was e s t i m a t e d t o  even l e s s  amount o f h u n t i n g "  clear.  pro-  moderate  As t h e r e  is  s o u t h end o f L a k e L a b e r g e  unclear  how much t h e  is  ( M o s s o p 1979 p e r s . p r o b a b l y more  how many more and o f what s p e c i e s harvest  is  of  no e s t i m a t e was made o f  unre-  small  mam-  potential  hunting o p p o r t u n i t i e s .  of w i l d l i f e  maximum p o t e n t i a l  hunting is  Therefore,  t r a p p i n g and w a t e r f o w l  After  f o r 360 t o  hunting opportunities  bears  f o r 220  in Appendix Table  numbers.  annual  f o r 250 h u n t e r s .  a small  of waterfowl  The a b u n d a n c e  given  hunting opportunities for  f o r waterfowl  only  hunter  present  harvest  hunting opportunities  presently  these  values  land  Corridor  w o u l d p r o v i d e an  hunting opportunities  Thirty-five  sustainable  The p i c t u r e  This  in  undeveloped  35 b e a r was assumed t o be made up o f  bears.  good b e a r  total  and good h u n t i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s  The h u n t i n g e f f o r t  were used t o e s t i m a t e  the  number o f moose i n t h e  240 t o 380 a n i m a l s .  o f 50 t o 75 a n i m a l s  t o 325 h u n t e r s  vide  present  and t h a t  do  for  estimates  viewing of  p u r p o s e s was a l s o  present  population levels  it  evaluated.  b i g game p o p u l a t i o n s  was  concluded that  the  to pre-  - 224 s e n t moose p o p u l a t i o n i s Appendix Table the  for  are  both black  but  seen d u r i n g t h e  low t h e r e f o r e  present  bear,  common c a t e g o r y  it  of t h e i r  black  abundance  experience types  levels lb,  for  described  bears  bear  are  comm.).  thought to However,  It  and t r o p h y  Ideally,  to  and IV,  hunting  properly  (II)  but they  was  need t o  abundance.  on d i f f e r e n t tional  use  experiences  r e l a t i o n s h i p betw een  Unfortunately,  species  very  little  from s p e c i f i c types  (Hamer 1 9 7 4 ) .  Qualitative  river  uncommon i n concluded  be  the  the  for increased - spiritual  ous p i p e l i n e c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s  is  involving  wildlife  t o u r i s m use and known o f t h e  and m a g n i t u d e s  impact  e r a t e and s e v e r e have been d e v e l o p e d t o  al  bears  experiences.  p l a n and manage  one s h o u l d u n d e r s t a n d t h e life  be  o f b i g game w e r e s a t i s f a c t o r y  III  probably  use o f t h e  c o n s i d e r them as viewing.  in  within  black  b e f o r e t h e C o r r i d o r can p r o v i d e a p p r o p r i a t e w i l d e r n e s s (Ia)  are  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are  s p r i n g when t o u r i s t  was d e c i d e d t o abundance  and g r i z z l y  These  common ( S m i t h 1979 p e r s .  primarily  evaluation  the  rare categories.  grizzly  relatively  is  A5-10 w h i l e  uncommon o r  correct  within  ratings  predict  the  on d i f f e r e n t  effect  of  recrea-  of l i g h t , effect  species  wild-  of  modvari-  (Watson  et  1973).  Quantitative namely  the  found that  values  presence  are  known f o r  one t y p e o f d i s t u r b a n c e  of d i s p e r s e d r e c r e a t i o n i s t s .  Hancock  moose d e n s i t i e s were r e d u c e d by 75 p e r c e n t  2 km z o n e a r o u n d a c t i v e l y t o 2 km may n o t  used c a m p s i t e s  seem s i g n i f i c a n t , b u t t h e  on m o o s e , (1976)  within  and summer c o t t a g e s . effects  on t h e  a 1 to One  Corridor's  - 225 moose p o p u l a t i o n c o u l d be s u b s t a n t i a l  because most present and f u -  t u r e campsites and c o t t a g e s are l o c a t e d i n the prime moose h a b i t a t .  Not enough i s  known t o q u a n t i f y  the s e n s i t i v i t y  t o v a r y i n g amounts and types of use. gests t h a t w i l d l i f e In  fact,  wildlife  experiences tions.  (ie.  c o u l d be very  sensitivity Ia,  Ib,  II)  susceptable to tourism  which r e q u i r e f a i r l y  b a s i s , on-going research w i l l  of  6.3.4  activities.  abundant  f o r some popula-  However, the present amount of i n f o r m a t i o n makes i t i n the a n a l y s i s .  gers wish t o p r o v i d e e x p e r i e n c e s I a ,  species  The one study on moose s u g -  c o u l d be the l i m i t i n g f a c t o r  s i b l e t o c o n s i d e r such e f f e c t s  life  of d i f f e r e n t  Ib,  and II  impos-  T h e r e f o r e , i f manaon a c o n t i n u i n g  be needed t o monitor changes i n  s t a t u s and t o assess w i l d l i f e  sensitivities  to various  wild-  levels  use.  Fish It  is  i m p o s s i b l e t o estimate the number of s p o r t s f i s h e r m e n which  the  r e s o u r c e s c o u l d s u s t a i n because the p o p u l a t i o n s i z e of salmon, t r o u t and g r a y l i n g i s  not known (see T a b l e 6-10).  Therefore, fish  t i o n s were not taken i n t o account i n the c a l c u l a t i o n o f capacity.  Some s p e c i e s and r e s o u r c e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  b e a r i n g on f i s h p o t e n t i a l s were i d e n t i f i e d , these - Salmon can only be caught by commercial are too small trout  limita-  carrying  t h a t have a  are:  f i s h e r m e n , and g r a y l i n g  (mature spawner only 29 cm) t h e r e f o r e , only the  and northern pike i n Lake Laberge are trophy  fish.  lake  Table 6-10: Abundance  Population Growth Rate  Sensitive Areas  Sensitive Times  Species  Distribution  Chinook Salmon  in mainstream Yukon and Tributaries  1974 estimate 36,700 annual spawn: 30,000-50,000 U.S. estimate as many as 20 times more than above figures  12-16.5cm/yr spawners range from 4-7 years  Migration-mid-July to late 60 known spawning s i t e s , August' most important are : Spawning-August to early mainstream Yukon -Yukon September - peak Crossing(miles August 27th-: 234-238) Incubating eggs and alevins-Hells Gate Slough f a l l , winter, spring u n t i l (miles 268-272) mid-June plus miles 232-236,240-' Downstream migration of f r y , mid242, 252-256,266-268, July . Tatchun Creek, Takhini River, Michie Creek, outlet of Lake Laberge.  Chum Salmon  primarily mainstream Yukon  1974 estimate 31,352 annual spawn: 30,000-50,000 suspect 4 year cycle with population up to 10 times more than other years. U.S. estimate as many as 600,000900,000 spawners  15-18.5cm/yr. spawners primarily 4 years o l d .  numerous locations - 10 principal spawning sites  Arctic Grayl i ng  widespread in rivers and lakes  no population estimates, less abundant than salmon  30-55mm/yr. slower growth than other drainage systems in Yukon  Lake  Lake Laberge only  no population estimates  variable  Trout*  Sources Brock 1976 Walker 1976 Westwater 1980 Brown, Elson, and Steigenberger 19761 Beak 1978  main spawning areas: 1) up and downstream of exposed gravel banks on outside bend of main river 2) edge of gravel bars in main river 3) side channel-open at both ends 4) slough-closed at upper end numerous locations-gravel in small creeks, large rivers and lakeshores, generally in clear water.  Spawning-September 25-November 5-peak October 23 Incubating eggs and alevins late f a l l , winter and spring up to mid-June  Migration-all of Apri] Spawning-May and June Incubating eggs and alevinsmid-June to mid-July  Spawning-end of August to November spawn over clean rocky Eggs-November to early spring bottoms near shore and Fry and juveniles-throughout year reefs in lake, rarely in along shoreline and rivers , fry-along shoreline spawning areas. for several years  - 227  - As e x p l a i n e d p r e v i o u s l y f i s h i n g because - Unless  lakes  northern - Salmon  of i t s  are  lakes  have t h e  streams  that  - Sensitive  areas  less  is  Yukon  given  (especially  Yukon  cold  River  activities  native  such  fishery.  common i n t h e m a i n s t r e a m o f  a b o v e H o o t a l i n q u a and i n most o f t h e j o i n the  rate in  for tourist i n the  trophy  low.  population in the  and p a r t i c i p a t i o n  for  quality.  harvest  very  good p o t e n t i a l  relatively  desirable  impaired water  small  the  tributary  River.  t i m e s and some s e n s i t i v e  g r a y l i n g are  is  s t o c k e d , the  largest  and o f f e r  g r a y l i n g are  Yukon R i v e r  slightly  artificially  as s a l m o n b a r b e q u e s - Arctic  Lake Laberge  such as Lake L a b e r g e  species  ( W a l k e r 1976)  -  in Table  areas f o r  6-10.  spawning s i t e s )  salmon, trout  Disturbance will  decrease  at  these  fish  and  times  and  population  size.  Several  c o n c l u s i o n s w e r e drawn  - The C o r r i d o r has v e r y l i t t l e ence  potential  general  p o i n t s which  for trophy  fishing  are:  (experi-  II).  - The u b i q u i t o u s a r c t i c g o r y and h e n c e III,  from these  and  grayling  present  is  probably within  c o n d i t i o n s are  ideal  the  common  for experiences  cateIb,  IV.  - The s a l m o n f i s h e r y  for experiences  IV,  V,  and V I I  has good p o t e n -  tial . - To m a i n t a i n  s a l m o n and g r a y l i n g  experiences  Ib,  tected  disturbance.  from  II,  IV,  V,  populations  and V I I ,  at  optimal  levels  s p a w n i n g a r e a s need t o be  for pro-  - 228 .5 S o c i o - p s y c h o l o g i c a l  Calculations  The s o c i o - p s y c h o l o g i c a l c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y tirely  on w i l d e r n e s s  quality  estimates  and p e r c e p t i o n  factors.  sented the  perception spacing standards  used t o  perience's  socio-psychological carrying  capacity.  these  standards  determinants Corridor's  values  of d a i l y  annual  for  season  and y e a r l y  carrying capacity;  based  en-  T a b l e 6-3  calculate In  length, turnover capacity  are  each  addition  t i m e and  preexto  other  were used t o c a l c u l a t e  these  values  are  listed  the  in  Table 6-11.  It  was  river  assumed t h a t  c o n g e s t i o n problems would o n l y o c c u r  and s h o r e l i n e a r e a s .  Since the  determines  wilderness  capacities  were o n l y c a l c u l a t e d  capacity  results  ness q u a l i t y  These  quality  f o r the  factors  are  levels  five  amount o f c o n g e s t i o n socio-psychological  f o r t h e s e two a r e a s .  experience types  given  i n Table  example,  the  perience  (Ia)  reasonable  estimate  was c a l c u l a t e d  (Season l e n g t h  less  as  values f o r the  standards  given  equals:  wilder-  contained  - spiritual  in  For ex-  follows:  days-to-travel)  (92 d a y s - 12 d a y s ) 320 p e o p l e  by  carrying  i n Table 6-11.  wilderness  x number o f  number o f g r o u p s s t a r t i n g p e r This  primarily  carrying  The  affected  the  6-12.  c a l c u l a t i o n s were p r o d u c e d by u s i n g t h e  T a b l e 6-3 i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e  in  p e o p l e per group x  day  x 4 people/group x 1 group/day =  - 229 Table 6-11: Low, High and Reasonable Values Used t o C a l c u l a t e D a i l y and Annual C a p a c i t i e s Factors  Used  Low  High  77  122  92  Length o f C o r r i d o r by: - Canoe - Small motor boat  10 5  16 16  12 7  Number of People/Group - Experience Ia - E x p e r i e n c e Ib - Experience III - E x p e r i e n c e IV  2 2 2 2  6 6 18 30  Season Length Days t o  (days)  Reasonable  Travel  Number of Groups/Day S t a r t i n g t h e i r V a c a t i o n i n the Corridor - Experience Ia - E x p e r i e n c e Ib (non-motor boat) - E x p e r i e n c e Ib (motor boat u s e r s ) - E x p e r i e n c e IV ( c o t t a g e s )  Table 6-12: Experience Type Ia  Ib  4. 4 4 4  1 1 every 2 days 7 2 11 6 c o t t a g e s used di f f e r e n t by same party people use f o r season cottages daily  Socio-psychological Carrying Capacity Comments  Estimates  Number of People per Year for Overall Corridor low reasonable high  for entire Corridor 61 - f o r best areas only 144 (Lake Laberge t o L i t t l e Salmon and Minto to Dawson) - non-motorized c r a f t - motor boat  1 4 8 cottages used by different groups ' each week  users  II  - b i g game hunting  III  - river only  IV  - river travellers - cottages - total  users/campers  244 732  672 1440  320 708  4702 7722  1920 3520 7526  1708  53,130  11,520  3660 380 4040  72,450 38,760 111,210  12,000 19,760 31,760  - 230 The l e n g t h o f t h e t r i p length to provide season.  Similar  perience  carrying  Ill  and I V )  campsites the  it  ( 1 2 d a y s ) was s u b t r a c t e d  for t r a v e l l e r s procedures  was assumed t h a t  ingly, ences  the  cottage  (see  T a b l e 6-3)  areas to determine t h e i r carrying  capacity  spacing standard  habitat  which the  perience  the is  carrying  6.4  with  s u i t a b i l i t y analysis  greater  when two s e p a r a t e entire  Corridor is  t h e two s e g m e n t s  used.  biophysical  lowest  hunting per-  suitable  of the  ex-  of the C o r r i d o r  are  is  because  each  other; therefore,  col-  This  as many  group  observation  is  purposes.  OF THE CORRIDOR  carrying  capacity  is  determined  and s o c i o - p s y c h o l o g i c a l c a r r y i n g  o f t h e two v a l u e s  the  - spiritual  This  for  The C o r r i d o r ' s o v e r a l l  experi-  hunting  amount o f  segments  noteworthy  OVERALL CARRYING CAPACITY  Accord-  shoreline  Finally,  c o u l d accommodate t w i c e  planning  than  had i d e n t i f i e d .  p e r day as w o u l d a s i n g l e s e g m e n t . future  rather  of these  suitable  the  departures  the  developed  per s e .  f o r the w i l d e r n e s s  segment w o u l d be u s e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y lectively  the  capacities.  ( T a b l e 6-3)  carrying capacity  u s e d t h a n when t h e  (ie.  v a l u e was d e r i v e d by m u l t i p l y i n g t h e  ceptual  Note t h a t  experiences  standards  were a p p l i e d t o a l l  the  ex-  limiting factor  and c a m p g r o u n d d e n s i t y  end o f  most o f t h e  spacing conditions in  groups were e n c o u n t e r e d  season  by t h e  F o r t h e more s o c i a l  a r e a s w o u l d be t h e  number o f t i m e s o t h e r  trip  were u s e d t o c a l c u l a t e  capacities.  or c o t t a g e  ending t h e i r  from t h e  becomes t h e  overall  by  comparing  capacities;  carrying  the  capacity.  - 231 These  values  calculated  are  Their  and V I I  (cultural  tractions  social)  land e x i s t s to develop  resources  s i z e and t y p e o f  facilities  analysis  - active  Whitehorse  for  to estimate ences.  sports  ences  at-  suf-  experiences, identi-  potential  were:  i n c l u d i n g Lake Laberge,  Fort  of  Sel-  for watersports  of the  and f a c i l i t y  carrying capacities costs.  Seven.  impossible  developments is  dictated  Thus, a thorough of these  T h i s c o n c l u s i o n and o t h e r s  r e s u l t s are explored in Chapter  was  f o r these three  required before the c a r r y i n g capacity  can be c a l c u l a t e d .  trails.  areas i d e n t i f i e d i t  service  and  and D a w s o n .  the C o r r i d o r ' s c a r r y i n g capacity  by m a r k e t demand and d e v e l o p m e n t is  determined that  c o m p l e x e s and d e v e l o p e d  determine these experiences'  analysis  factors.  and D a w s o n .  l i k e l y development  The c a p a c i t y  out-  on Map 1 w h i c h h a v e a c l u s t e r  - c u l t u r a l - s o c i a l areas - Whitehorse  Even w i t h t h e  (active  i n Chapter Four g e n e r a l l y  outdoor s p o r t s areas - Lake Laberge  Whitehorse  not  f a c i l i t i e s and  for these  These a r e a s  and a t t r a c t i o n s ,  was  experiences  and a r e a s w h i c h may h a v e d e v e l o p m e n t  - s o c i a b l e l e a r n i n g areas - s i t e s  kirk,  because t h e s e  VI  and s o c i o - p s y c h o l o g i c a l  for experience types V to VII.  activities  learning),  The s u i t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s  while the a t t r a c t i v e n e s s f i e d the  V (social  d e p e n d upon t h e  developed.  Carrying capacity  6-13.  l i m i t e d by b i o p h y s i c a l  use l e v e l s  ficient  in Table  f o r experience types  door s p o r t s ) were not  given  -  experiwhich largely  market experi-  drawn f r o m  the  - 232 -  Table 6-13: O v e r a l l C a r r y i n g C a p a c i t i e s of the C o r r i d o r f o r each E x p e r i e n c e and S p e c i a l i z e d A c t i v i t y  E x p e r i e n c e Type  Ia  Overall Carrying Capacity (number o f people/year f o r the e n t i r e C o r r i d o r ) low high reasonable  Comments  Wilderness-Spiritual -entire corridor -best areas only  61 144  672 1440  320 708  Ib  Wilderness-Appreciation  -non-motorized c r a f t -motor boats  180 180  4702 7722  1920 3520  II  Nature - Trophy Hunting & F i s h i n g  -only b i g game hunting  599  786  599  1708  53,130  11,520  3660 380 4040  72,450 38,760 111,210  12,000 19,760 31,760  III  Nature - P a s s i v e  IV Nature - Comfort  V VI VII  -river travellers -cottagers -total  Social Learning l i m i t e d by A c t i v e - O u t d o o r S p o r t s: s e r v i c e s and infrastructure Cultural Social  Specialized Downhill  Activities  Skiing  not  feasible  P r i m i t i v e Camping  1 s i t e every  Fishing  l i t t l e trophy  Hunting (Big  Game)  Wildlife/Fish  fish  Viewing H i s t o r i c  Sites  Fishing  Not c a l c u l a t e d ; used i n experience c a l c u l a t i o n s  p o t e n t i a l Not C a l c u l a t e d II  599  data  ladder-Whitehorse  good p o t e n t i a l Dawson  Gold Panning  Native Salmon  10-32 km  see e x p e r i e n c e insufficient  Trappi ng Viewing  Not C a l c u l a t e d  good p o t e n t i a l good p o t e n t i a l  around  786  599  Not C a l c u l a t e d Not  Calculated  Not c a l c u l a t e d , as they depend on s e r v i c e s and facilities  - 233 CHAPTER S E V E N :  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  INTRODUCTION This  is  essentially  conceptual  a methodological  study;  it  developed a  approach f o r a s s e s s i n g t o u r i s m p o t e n t i a l s  f o r the  purpose  o f r e s o u r c e a l l o c a t i o n d e c i s i o n m a k i n g a n d r e s o u r c e management. a l s o d e v e l o p e d an a n a l y t i c a l source capacity  assessing a region's  re-  f o r t o u r i s m and u s e d t h i s m e t h o d t o e s t i m a t e  the  carrying capacity  method f o r  o f t h e Yukon R i v e r  The two m e t h o d o l o g i c a l  of t h i s  f o r the C o r r i d o r are illustrative;  they  Corridor.  p r o d u c t s , the conceptual  method t o d e t e r m i n e t o u r i s m c a r r y i n g contributions  It  study.  capacity  The a c t u a l  a p p r o a c h and  are  the  important  carrying capacity  c r u d e and p r e l i m i n a r y .  Their  d e m o n s t r a t e how t h e c o n c e p t u a l  the  estimates  primary value approach  is  and  m e t h o d s may be a p p l i e d .  The s t u d y was u n d e r t a k e n the tourism p o t e n t i a l  o f t h e Yukon R i v e r  impact a s s o c i a t e d with utility  of the  subsequent  study  i n i t i a l l y to provide information to  several  f o r these  C o r r i d o r and t h e  The  purposes i s d i s c u s s e d  in  sections.  Although the tourism p o t e n t i a l  o f the Yukon R i v e r  be d e t e r m i n e d f r o m t h i s  observations  tourism potential presented  economic  t o u r i s m development o p t i o n s . and o t h e r  assess  i n the  study,  Corridor could  about the  w e r e made i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e w o r k . final  s e c t i o n of the  chapter.  region's These  are  not  - 234 CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO ANALYTICAL Several  empirical  c o n c l u s i o n s w e r e drawn f r o m t h e r e s u l t s  i n C h a p t e r s F o u r and S i x . (1)  Except  and t h e Ib)  the C o r r i d o r ' s overall  s u r p r i s e because o f 60 d e g r e e s  Appreciation Experience  conclusion  of the widely  held b e l i e f  that  environments  fragile.  The c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y  and s h o r e l i n e a r e a s ;  river  valley  t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s had i n c l u d e d h i n t e r l a n d a r e a s  experience types,  have been l i m i t i n g f o r  and s e r v i c e  because  factors.  and f a c i l i t y capacity  social  factors  f o r these  these  learning, active  are  environments.  three  outdoor sports  and  t h e s e e x p e r i e n c e s a r e l i m i t e d by  facility  study d i d not i n v e s t i g a t e  service  carrying  experiences.  c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t i e s were i d e n t i f i e d  (see  limit  Chapter F i v e ) ,  f o r the purpose of c a l c u l a t i n g  T h i s was b e c a u s e o f  The d a t a g a p s a r e  only  areas.  A l t h o u g h numerous f a c t o r s w h i c h c o u l d p o t e n t i a l l y  capacity.  north  biophysical  i t was i m p o s s i b l e t o e s t i m a t e t h e  f a c t o r s were i n v e s t i g a t e d  caused  bottoms  c o u l d n o t be c a l c u l a t e d f o r  Since t h i s  three  (type  calculations  s e n s i t i v e , most r e s i l i e n t n o r t h e r n  Carrying capacities  II)  c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t i e s w e r e d e t e r m i n e d by this  the l e a s t  cultural-social,  (type  Initially,  f a c t o r s might well  (3)  follows:  standards.  are  considered river  (2)  as  f o r the Wilderness  socio-psychological  If  These are  presented  f o r t h e T r o p h y H u n t i n g and F i s h i n g E x p e r i e n c e s  low v a l u e s  generally  RESULTS  only a  carrying  i n s u f f i c i e n t d a t a about most  i d e n t i f i e d i n Table 6 - 1 , the  few  n o t a b l e ones  factors. are:  - 235 -  the  s i z e o f f i s h and w i l d l i f e  -  the  sensitivity  populations,  o f most b i o p h y s i c a l  and m a g n i t u d e s o f t o u r i s t -  baseline  -  socio-psychological  factors  to different  types  use,  i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e a r e a ' s v e g e t a t i o n spacing standards  and t e r r a i n ,  specifically  for  and  the  Corridor. (4)  The c a r r y i n g  capacity  estimates  of the C o r r i d o r are very  i n a d d i t i o n to data problems, the e s t i m a t e s hinterland areas.  Therefore,  these  are  do n o t i n c l u d e  not estimates  number o f p e o p l e t h e C o r r i d o r c o u l d a c c o m o d a t e . represent  users  of  o f t h e maximum  Instead,  they  t h e maximum number o f p e o p l e w h i c h c o u l d be a c c o m o d a t e d  intensively  7.2  crude;  used  in  areas.  U T I L I T Y OF RESULTS AND CONCEPTUALIZATION The c o n c e p t u a l applications  approach  for  results  Territory.  Their  analytical  tourism planning in general  r e s o l v i n g Yukon R i v e r capacity  and s p e c i f i c  are  tourism issues. of i n t e r e s t  value is  In  methods  as w e l l  as  a d d i t i o n , the  to tourism o f f i c i a l s  limited,  have  however,  because  for carrying  i n the they  are  Yukon not  definitive.  7.2.1  A p p l i c a t i o n to C o r r i d o r Tourism This  s t u d y was o r i g i n a l l y  potential  assessment  combined w i t h  another  Issues  conceived  as p a r t  o f t h e Yukon R i v e r study  of a d e t a i l e d  Corridor.  to provide a complete  It  was t o  i t was r e q u i r e d t o p r o v i d e q u a n t i f i e d c a r r y i n g  estimates  w h i c h c o u l d be u s e d i n a s u b s e q u e n t impacts  from d i f f e r e n t  tourism  be  assessment.  Moreover,  economic  tourism  study,  developments.  capacity  to predict  the  - 236 Assessments of tourism potential and economic impacts are needed to help decide the fate of the Yukon River Corridor.  A decision to dam  the river and create a huge hydro power reservoir is pending and concern exists that the potential of other resource uses such as tourism will be inadequately considered in the decision process. A detailed tourism potential assessment would provide the tourism information needed to make an informed decision.  A detailed tourism potential assessment would also assist the development of tourism policies for the region.  At present no  policy exists for the Corridor although parts of i t (Whitehorse, Dawson and Carmacks) are included within the Yukon Tourism Development Strategy, a policy for Yukon road corridors.  For  society to achieve the maximum benefit from tourism in the Yukon River Corridor a comprehensive regional policy is needed.  Thus, this research was designed to produce the resource and carrying capacity information needed for a detailed tourism potential assessment.  Additional information on markets, services  and f a c i l i t i e s is required before the tourism potential can be determined. potential.  This study alone cannot provide the Corridor's tourism Unfortunately, the study on markets, services and  f a c i l i t i e s was never completed.  Consequently, the Corridor's  tourism potential is s t i l l unknown.  - 237 Furthermore,  the c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y  to c a l c u l a t e  the economic impacts of  calculate  economic impacts the t o t a l  be a t t r a c t e d give t h i s ,  they  number o f t o u r i s t s w h i c h  used a r e a s .  The e s t i m a t e s  Also,  with  different  because  are  inaccurate  were  C o r r i d o r was d e v o t e d t o a  and more t h a n one u s e o c c u r r i n g i n some a r e a s . estimates  do n o t  the e s t i m a t e s  areas being used f o r d i f f e r e n t  for quantitative  single  the experiences  Finally,  impact  could  be  i s l i k e l y t h a t a m i x t u r e of uses would occur i n  Corridor,  used  To  o n l y p r o v i d e t h e number o f p e o p l e who c a n  c a l c u l a t e d by a s s u m i n g t h e e n t i r e It  c a n n o t be d i r e c t l y  tourism development.  t o t h e C o r r i d o r m u s t be k n o w n .  accomodated i n the h e a v i l y  use.  estimates  the  calculations  o f t h e numerous d a t a g a p s i n t h e c a r r y i n g  capacity  analysis.  Nevertheless, -  the r e s u l t s  i n f o r m a t i o n gaps a r e  are  useful  identified.  for In  the f o l l o w i n g particular,  reasons:  the data  t o c o m p l e t e a d e t a i l e d t o u r i s m a s s e s s m e n t and t o i m p r o v e e x i s t i n g resource 7.1). -  -  Thus,  and c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y  further  research  needs a r e  i n s i g h t s about t o u r i s m p o t e n t i a l analysis  tourism potential  was n o t d e t e r m i n e d .  interpreting relationships  approach i s  results. to assess  It  (see  identified.  S e c t i o n 7.5)  useful  the v a r i a b l e s  in tourism potential  the  even though  for designing studies  identifies  the  Section  were a c q u i r e d t h r o u g h  carrying capacity  The c o n c e p t u a l  (see  analysis  needed  and  studies.  the  and inter-  - 238 The l a s t p o i n t c o n c e r n s m e t h o d o l o g i c a l planners worldwide not j u s t  7.2.2  i s s u e s which are useful  to those concerned with  Methodological  Applications  The c o n c e p t u a l  a p p r o a c h and m e t h o d s a r e  p l a n n e r s and r e s o u r c e managers tourism planning is site  plans.  assessment  Policy  The s t u d y c o n t r i b u t e s t o s e v e r a l  of  specific  d i f f e r e n t areas  within  potential  methods.  development i s  of t o u r i s m p o l i c i e s . facilities,  one a r e a  It  activities,  degradation allowable  i n which the approach i s tool  level  f o r each e x p e r i e n c e  f o r the  From  under d i f f e r e n t  tourism  and u s e d t o  useful  primarily  because  and a p p r o a c h f o r t o u r i s m a n a l y s e s .  conceptual  approach provides a c o n t e x t f o r  evaluation  of study r e s u l t s w h i l e  a c o r r e c t method f o r  image  region.  a p p r o a c h and m e t h o d s a r e  offer a perspective  of  p o l i c y makers can a c q u i r e a mental  decide the development p o l i c y  The c o n c e p t u a l  formulation  (see T a b l e 4 - 1 3 ) .  T h e s e s c e n a r i o s c a n t h e n be e v a l u a t e d  research  design  the c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y  the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of use  The  resources,  o f d e v e l o p m e n t and amount  o f w h a t t h e a r e a w o u l d be l i k e i n t h e f u t u r e use o p t i o n s .  useful.  f o r the  s u p p l i e s a d e s c r i p t i o n of the  the experience c a t e g o r i e s ,  presents  The s c o p e  p o l i c i e s to  p o l i c i e s and  experience c l a s s i f i c a t i o n provides a useful  they  tourism  tourism.  b r o a d , r a n g i n g from general  t h i s broad range i n c l u d i n g r e g i o n a l  the Yukon.  o f use both t o  concerned with  to  The and  approach level  help  - 239 estimates. planners,  The r e v i e w  of a n a l y t i c a l  presents  the t h e o r e t i c a l  it  procedures also i s  shortcomings of d i f f e r e n t approaches  This  o f an o v e r a l l  broad p e r s p e c t i v e  analysts  analysis,  study.  to investigate  order to determine tourism p o t e n t i a l s .  for  The c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y  calculations.  i t was  assessments  assessment.  in  The f r a m e w o r k  also  in carrying  study  of every  T h u s , t h e method r e p r e s e n t s  saving for analysts,  they  in  has  components  and  can use i t  approach  be  capacity possible  and r e l a t i o n s h i p was u n d e r t a k e n t o d e t e r m i n e p e r t i n e n t f o r the method.  them  general.  to analyse  an e x h a u s t i v e  framework  a n d how t o r e l a t e  c o n c e p t demands a s y s t e m s a n a l y s i s  the f a c t o r s  Hence,  approached  The c o n c e p t u a l  studies of other tourism potential  tourism potential  used t o i d e n t i f y  use.  p r o v i d e s a c o n t e x t f o r d e s i g n i n g and  i d e n t i f i e s which v a r i a b l e s  for  could  tourism potential  i n t e r p r e t i n g the c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y  applications  to  p r o b l e m s , a s s u m p t i o n s , and  A l t h o u g h t h i s was a c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y from the p e r s p e c t i v e  useful  variable  ingredients  a tremendous  and a v o i d d o i n g t h e  time initial  research.  The r e v i e w  o f m e t h o d s i d e n t i f i e d many p r o b l e m s w i t h c u r r e n t  capacity  approaches  capacity  c a n be q u a n t i f i e d f o r r e g i o n a l  study  and r e f u t e d a w i d e l y  held b e l i e f  that  concept  in regional  analyses,  namely,  carrying  planning purposes.  i d e n t i f i e d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e way t o u s e t h e c a r r y i n g a s an a n a l y t i c a l  t o u r i s m p o l i c y d e v e l o p m e n t and management o f t o u r i s m  carrying  The  capacity  tool  in  resources.  - 240 R e s o u r c e managers This  study  affect  are charged w i t h p r o t e c t i n g resource  identifies all  tourism quality.  identify  the s o c i a l  and b i o l o g i c a l  The m a n a g e r c a n u s e t h i s  quality.  thresholds  information  a r e a s a p p r o a c h i n g a u s e t h r e s h o l d and t a k e s t e p s  quality  degradation before i t  Finally  the approach i s  inexpensive.  to prevent  occurs.  useful  The m e t h o d i s  to  which  to analysts  because i t  is  relatively  p r i m a r i l y b a s e d on a l i t e r a t u r e  review  and s y n t h e s i s of e x i s t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n .  On t h e n e g a t i v e s i d e , t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y a t r e m e n d o u s amount o f work f o r three-quarters  the b e n e f i t  it  o f the e f f o r t expended i n t h i s  provided.  carrying capacity. value;  Moreover,  the actual  the c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s are  More  t h e s i s went  c o l l e c t i n g and a n a l y s i n g d a t a f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f  required than  towards  calculating  c a l c u l a t i o n s have l i m i t e d  t h e main c o n t r i b u t i o n o f  the  study.  L I M I T A T I O N S OF THE STUDY The main s h o r t c o m i n g o f t h i s  study  is  t h a t the complementary  s t u d y was n o t c o m p l e t e d .  As a r e s u l t r e s o u r c e a l l o c a t i o n  t o u r i s m p o l i c y makers are  not provided with  the t o u r i s m  demand  and  potential  a s s e s s m e n t r e q u i r e d t o make i n f o r m e d d e c i s i o n s .  The c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y  estimates  numerous d a t a d e f i c i e n c i e s  are very  inaccurate  and a s s u m p t i o n s d i s c u s s e d  due t o  the  previously.  - 241 The e x p e r i e n c e c a t e g o r i e s  are  b a s e d on  s t u d i e s o f d i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n s and m a r k e t s and may be  entirely  irrelevant  Finally,  are  hypothetical.  f o r t h e Yukon R i v e r  the a n a l y s i s  They  Corridor.  and a p p r o a c h i s  b a s e d on s e v e r a l  assumptions  which i n c l u d e the f o l l o w i n g : -  p e o p l e seek  -  individual  to s a t i s f y  needs  (basis f o r the conceptual  approach),  e x p e r i e n c e s c a n be g r o u p e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e  needs  they  satisfy, -  t o u r i s t s are a t t r a c t e d and a t t r a c t i v e n e s s  -  activities  feature  and h a v e t h e same  (basis for carrying capacity  these u n d e r l y i n g assumptions are  f i n d i n g s may be  7.4  evaluation),  (basis of resource  w i t h i n an e x p e r i e n c e c a t e g o r y  requirements If  to d e s t i n a t i o n s  resource  estimates).  i n c o r r e c t then the approach  and  invalid.  RECOMMENDATIONS The c o n c e p t u a l all  types  framework  is  recommended a s t h e t h e o r e t i c a l  of tourism potential  analyses.  It  i d e n t i f i e s the  c o n c e p t s on w h i c h t o b a s e t h e a n a l y s e s  thereby  or incomplete a n a l y s e s .  t h e Yukon T o u r i s m  Strategy, analysis.  For  instance,  the e x i s t i n g t o u r i s m p o l i c y , Yet t h i s  study's  framework  demand s h o u l d be i n v e s t i g a t e d  is  realistic,  achievable  preventing  correct  incorrect Development  both supply  i n order to determine the  and  potential  U n d o u b t e d l y a more  t o u r i s m p o l i c y f o r t h e Yukon T e r r i t o r y  h a v e been d e v e l o p e d f r o m a c o m p l e t e  for  b a s e d on a s u p p l y  suggests that  and f e a s i b i l i t y o f t o u r i s m d e v e l o p m e n t s .  basis  analysis.  would  - 242 Further  study  of the  f o l l o w i n g areas i s  -  potential  markets  -  potential  demand f o r  -  the  feasibility  including  cultural-social biophysical  -  empirical  services  data  facilities;  facilities  f o r each  l e a r n i n g , a c t i v e outdoor sports  experience and  experiences; deficiencies;  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of C o r r i d o r  M o n i t o r i n g of the l i t e r a t u r e theoretical  experiences; and  of developing  social  -  for Corridor  recommended:  is  experiences.  recommended t o e n s u r e  a s s u m p t i o n s on w h i c h t h e  study  is  that  the  based remain  valid.  OBSERVATIONS ON CORRIDOR'S TOURISM POTENTIAL The p u r p o s e o f t h i s the  region's  Corridor's known.  section  overall  about markets  i n the course  is  of  several  some o f t h e intuitive  facts  are  insights  Nevertheless,  further  the  Wilderness  a t Dawson and F o r t S e l k i r k . presence  are  resources  historic  o f smoke r a c k s ,  and  dominate most of the  also strong a t t r a c t i o n s ,  Cultural  They  study.  endowed w i t h w i l d e r n e s s ,  although h i s t o r i c features  the  study  only  the  h e r e s h o u l d be r e g a r d e d a s p r e l i m i n a r y .  liberally  resources.  regarding  Our u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f  sketchy,  the  o r be r e f u t e d w i t h  The C o r r i d o r i s  now, b u t ,  some c o n c l u s i o n s  and f a c i l i t i e s w e r e g a i n e d .  conclusions presented  cultural  to offer  tourism p o t e n t i a l .  tourism potential  But,  may c h a n g e  is  attractions handicrafts  are  area  particularly  largely  and an  unused  Indian  -  243  population which, to a large of  hunting,  With the  a Wilderness is  Appreciation  are  these  life  resources  could  potential.  settlements, (IB)  the  Corridor currently  experience.  The p r e s e n t  use  level,  this  Thus, a p o l i c y d e c i s i o n which d e f i n e s  the  type  Corridor will  have s h o u l d be made b e f o r e  offers  of  some o f  the  precluded.  experiences.  uses  and d e v e l o p m e n t s  a l s o may p r e c l u d e  The p r o p o s e d h y d r o power d e v e l o p m e n t ,  o u t most w i l d e r n e s s  tourism policy decisions patterns  that  a traditional  for  resource  would wipe  suggest  lives  acceptable  t o u r i s m use t h e  Future  still  c l o s e t o t h e maximum amount  experience.  options  tourism  e x c e p t i o n of the  however,  degree,  f i s h i n g and t r a p p i n g  have c o n s i d e r a b l e  -  are  follow society's  experience  needed t o  wishes  for  of  future  tourism  instance,  opportunities.  ensure  instead  some  Again,  tourism  being a r r i v e d  at  by  default.  Services  and f a c i l i t i e s  potential. services presented the -  Several  studies  and f a c