Skip to Content
  • Review
  • Open Access

9 December 2019

Climate Change Adaptation Strategies and Approaches for Outdoor Recreation

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
1
USDA Forest Service, 1992 Folwell Ave, Saint Paul, MN 55108, USA
2
Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science, 410 MacInnes Dr, Houghton, MI 49931, USA
3
College of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, Michigan Technological University, 410 MacInnes Dr, Houghton, MI 49931, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Abstract

Climate change will alter opportunities and demand for outdoor recreation through altered winter weather conditions and season length, climate-driven changes in user preferences, and damage to recreational infrastructure, among other factors. To ensure that outdoor recreation remains sustainable in the face of these challenges, natural resource managers may need to adapt their recreation management. One of the major challenges of adapting recreation to climate change is translating broad concepts into specific, tangible actions. Using a combination of in-depth interviews of recreational managers and a review of peer-reviewed literature and government reports, we developed a synthesis of impacts, strategies, and approaches, and a tiered structure that organizes this information. Six broad climate adaptation strategies and 25 more specific approaches were identified and organized into a “recreation menu”. The recreation menu was tested with two national forests in the US in multi-day workshops designed to integrate these concepts into real-world projects that were at the beginning stages of the planning process. We found that the recreation menu was broad yet specific enough to be applied to recreation-focused projects with different objectives and climate change impacts. These strategies and approaches serve as stepping stones to enable natural resource and recreation managers to translate broad concepts into targeted and prescriptive actions for implementing adaptation.

1. Introduction

Outdoor recreation is an essential way that people engage with their natural and cultural heritage. In the United States, federal lands are host to over 938 million recreational visits per year and are an important contributor to the economy [1]. Climate change will alter the dynamics of outdoor recreation and the infrastructure that supports it in a number of ways, and these effects will vary greatly by season, geographic location, and population demographic.
The duration of natural snow cover has decreased and is projected to continue to decrease in the 21st century throughout the northern hemisphere as a result of warmer temperatures and alterations in precipitation [2,3,4]. Although winter precipitation in much of the United States is expected to increase, more will come in the form of rain, including rain-on-snow events, which increases the rate of snowmelt [2,3,4]. In short, climate change projections anticipate shorter winters with less snow. This will place stress on all forms of snow-based winter recreation in the United States, including downhill skiing, cross-country and backcountry skiing, snowmobiling, dog-sledding, snowshoeing, and ice-climbing. In particular, snowmobiling and cross-country skiing are projected to experience marked declines in both participation rates and user days [1,5], with potentially acute economic impacts to communities in New England and the upper Midwest. Developed ski resorts, especially those at lower elevations, represent an investment in infrastructure that is highly vulnerable to the effects of a changing climate. The ski industry at large has been listed as one of the most vulnerable industries to climate change and is expected to continue its trend of contraction and consolidation [6,7].
A longer warm-weather recreational season is being experienced in many parts of the country, as earlier spring snowmelt and later winter onset increase access into areas at times of the year that had previously been impassable due to snow cover and soil saturation [2,3,4]. The sheer number of recreationists tends to increase in step with the general trend of population increase. Additionally, per capita participation in certain activities, such as interpretive site visitation, motorized and non-motorized water-based activities, and fishing, is expected to increase in certain regions given the projected impacts of climate change [5,8]. With increases in both the numbers of recreationists and the length of the warm-weather recreation season, the capacity of public lands to accommodate demand will be tested both in terms of staff, who are often seasonal hires, as well as infrastructure. Access issues and overcrowding may be most pronounced for water-based recreation, the demand for which is projected to generally increase while reservoir levels and baseline summer streamflow in much of the country are concurrently projected to decrease [5,9].
Evolving risks to recreationists and the infrastructure that supports them come in multiple forms. Increased total amount and intensity of precipitation in the Northeast and the Upper Midwest, and an altered hydrologic regime in the Pacific Northwest, stand to test the limits of existing infrastructure. Many of the roads, trails, campgrounds, and other infrastructure that support recreational activities were built near water in areas prone to high soil moisture and flooding. Much of this infrastructure was constructed in a manner that restricted stream-channel flow and reduced floodplain connectivity, which today has produced an inability to adequately accommodate higher peak flows and flooding, especially during extreme precipitation events [10]. While these roads and trails have become the principal means of recreational access to public lands, hydrologic extremes have also become more frequent, creating a situation in which access is increasingly compromised by interrelated climate change impacts [10]. Maintenance of this infrastructure stands to increase in frequency and cost, especially in heavily trafficked areas, as extreme precipitation events become more common [11].
Warmer temperatures and greater rainfall both create conditions that are conducive to the expansion of the range and intensity of public health threats [12]. Outdoor recreationists are now at increased risk to human disease vectors, especially mosquitoes and ticks, and of noxious plants, including poison ivy [13,14]. The incidence of Lyme disease, an illness transmitted by a bacterium found in ticks of the genus Ixodes, has risen exponentially in the eastern United States, partly related to rising winter temperatures [15]. Impacts of climate change also project a longer pollen season throughout much of the United States, with associated impacts to those suffering from allergies, respiratory impairments, and asthma [12]. It is estimated that pollen levels could more than double by 2040, as pollen seasons initiate earlier than in the past and increased CO2 availability stimulates pollen production [14]. Finally, heat-related illnesses, including dehydration, heat exhaustion, and exertional heat stroke, can be expected to increase as exposure to extreme heat also increases across the country [16]. Recreationists may need to adjust outdoor activities in order to reduce these risks.
Decision makers seeking to maintain or enhance recreational opportunities need tools and resources to assist in translating broad climate adaptation concepts into specific, tangible actions. Currently, these resources are scattered among the peer reviewed and grey literature as well as shared orally among practitioners. There is no single source of information on this topic. We addressed this need by developing a “menu” of adaptation strategies and approaches for recreation, hereafter referred to as the “recreation menu,” building on previously developed adaptation menus for other natural resources as part of the Climate Change Response Framework, which has been tested in over 250 real-world management projects in the United States [17]. The menus are not guidelines and do not make recommendations, but rather provide an array of approaches to resource management that are often complementary, but always chosen by the user as they deem appropriate. The strategies and approaches serve as intermediate “stepping stones” for translating broad concepts into targeted and prescriptive tactics for implementation. They were designed to be used with a step-by-step Adaptation Workbook, which provides a structured, adaptive approach for integrating climate change considerations into planning, decision-making, and implementation [17] (Figure 1). The ultimate goal of the menu is to help mangers make intentional, climate-informed decisions best suited to their objectives, constraints, and perception of climate risks and opportunities. We ensured the strategies and approaches were applicable to real-world projects by testing the recreation menu in concert with the Adaptation Workbook in two recreation projects on two US national forests in Vermont and California, U.S.A.
Figure 1. The recreation menu is used with the adaptation workbook, a five-step process, to develop real-world demonstrations of adaptation as part of the Climate Change Response Framework. Figure modified from Swanston et al. [17].

2. Assembling the Menu

We conducted an extensive review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature pertaining to climate change adaptation and recreation, visitation, and tourism using the Google Scholar search engine. Key words searched were “climate change adaptation” along with the terms: outdoor recreation, infrastructure, recreation management, visitation management, tourism management, and facility management. Much of the adaptation literature is in government reports and other gray literature, so we reviewed the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s National Climate Assessments [18,19] as well as the source literature that contributed to those assessments. The USDA’s Update to the Forest Service 2010 Resources Planning Act Assessment [5], and its supporting publications, were also used as a source of information. It is important to note that our search was focused on land management interventions and did not include actions for changing policies or funding that would support adaptation activities.
We also conducted informal interviews with 30 recreation professionals, climate change adaptation/resilience specialists, and researchers. The goal of these interviews was to elicit expert opinion on recreation management practices that were already being considered or implemented to address the direct or indirect effects of climate change. Of those interviewed, 40% were in positions primarily focused on climate change adaptation and resilience, 37% were in recreation management-focused positions, and the remainder were researchers working on the subject of climate change and outdoor recreation. About half of interviewees were federal employees at natural resource management-focused agencies (48%), while the other half were distributed among non-governmental organizations, universities, private companies, tribal organizations, state, and municipal governments. Interviewees were distributed across the contiguous United States, though most heavily concentrated in the Midwest and Northeast. Notes from these interviews were incorporated into the list of example tactics in the recreation menu (see Supplementary Materials).
We identified adaptation strategies and approaches that were distinct from one another and organized them (along with example tactics) into a tiered list based on the template of a previously developed forestry adaptation menu [17]. We then tested and elicited feedback on the recreation menu at two in-person, two-day adaptation planning workshops on two national forests: The Somerset Integrated Resource Project on the Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont and the Lytle Creek project on the San Bernardino National Forest in California, USA. We also sought feedback from a large audience of outdoor recreation managers and adaptation professionals through a half-day meeting at a national meeting (see Supplementary Materials for agenda).

4. Demonstration Projects: Testing the Recreation Menu

We tested the recreation menu on two national forests in the United States, the Green Mountain and the San Bernardino, to gage whether it captured the range of potential strategies likely to be employed in outdoor recreation management and whether it was useful to aid in brainstorming particular tactics. Feedback from staff on the organization, wording, and utility of the menu was used to refine the strategies and approaches. The menu was used in conjunction with the Adaptation Workbook [17] in facilitated two-day workshops with interdisciplinary teams of national forest staff. The Adaptation Workbook follows a five-step process where practitioners (1) describe their goals and objectives, (2) assess vulnerability, (3) evaluate their objectives in light of climate change, (4) select adaptation strategies, approaches, and tactics, and (5) develop monitoring metrics to evaluate effectiveness. The recreation menu is used in the fourth step as a brainstorming and organizing framework for developing more site-specific tactics. Below, we describe the results of how the Adaptation Workbook and recreation menu were used to developed site-specific adaptation tactics on these two national forest projects.

4.1. Green Mountain National Forest Somerset Integrated Resource Project

The US Forest Service’s Green Mountain National Forest includes more than 400,000 acres of forest and other natural habitats in Vermont. The Somerset Integrated Resource Project is one of many resource management projects undertaken by the forest to meet multiple-use objectives and help implement the 2006 Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). An interdisciplinary team working on the project used the Adaptation Workbook [17] and along with the draft recreation menu to consider climate change impacts during project planning in fall 2018.

4.1.1. Step 1: Location, Project Goals and Objectives, and Time Frames

The Somerset project area is located in southern Vermont on the GMNF’s Manchester Ranger District encompassing all of Somerset County and parts of Stratton, Dover, Searsburg, Wardsboro, Wilmington, Woodford, Glasterbury, and Sunderland Counties. The Somerset project area encompasses over 70,000 acres of which approximately 42,000 acres are National Forest System lands. The area is dominated by primarily mature northern hardwood forest with some mixedwood, softwood, and aspen/birch of varying age and conditions. The project works to achieve several management goals outlined by the Forest Plan to create desirable forest and wildlife habitat conditions and provide for several different recreational uses. Primary goals focused on recreation included:
  • Maintain a high-quality, sustainable trail network across the project area, including segments of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail and the Long National Recreational Trail located within the project area.
  • Improve developed recreation sites at Grout Pond (a 1600 acre recreation area) and other locations to meet Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines.
  • Increase opportunities for backcountry skiing and snowboarding to meet the increased demand for this activity and avoid resource damage for skiing and snowboarding in undesignated forests.

4.1.2. Step 2: Site-Specific Climate Change Impacts and Vulnerabilities

A vulnerability assessment for forest ecosystems for New England was used to identify potential climate change effects across the region. The managers then combined this broad-scale information with their knowledge of the local landscape to identify attributes of the property that they believed would increase or decrease the risks from climate change. For example, extreme rain events are becoming more frequent and severe as a result of climate change [49]; many extreme rain and storm events have damaged recreational resources in the GMNF in recent years [50] and these types of events are expected to continue increasing [51,52]. Many of the winter recreational activities that GMNF visitors value are vulnerable to warmer temperatures and shorter winter seasons, and changes in seasonality are generally expected to change recreational uses and patterns toward warm-season activities [1,6]. Climate change is also expected to affect the forest and natural ecosystems present across the region [52,53]; the location of the project area near the southern extent of the GMNF suggests that forests in this area may be affected before forests farther north, although elevation will exert a strong influence as well.

4.1.3. Step 3: Implications for Management Objectives

Managers explored how climate change introduced opportunities and challenges to recreational resources and opportunities. Many of the challenges were based upon the vulnerabilities identified in the previous step, particularly with regard to extreme rain and altered seasonality. Extreme rainfall and weather events pose significant challenges to maintaining high-quality trails, many of which are in remote locations, as well as to developed campgrounds and sites. Managers pointed to increasing costs for maintaining and upgrading infrastructure in order to ensure that items would hold up under extreme weather. They also suggested that longer summer seasons combined with broader demographic shifts in the region could increase use of hiking trails and developed sites during the warmer months of the year, potentially providing more opportunities for education and outreach about climate change impacts.
Managers at the GMNF were thoughtful about how climate change may affect winter recreational opportunities, with backcountry skiing/boarding being a focus because of increased user interest. Managers considered a new formalized area for backcountry skiing/boarding within the project area as a means to concentrate users into a single location and prevent tree/brush clearing and other undesirable activities that were occurring outside of designated areas. It is uncertain how winter temperatures and snow conditions would change in relation to other locations; warmer conditions may shorten the season or worsen conditions, but the mountainous location on the GMNF may still remain popular by providing opportunities for this activity that are not available elsewhere in the region. Although climate change poses important long-term challenges for winter recreation across the Northeast [46,54], managers felt confident that backcountry skiing/boarding opportunities could be provided over the next several decades. In contrast, team members identified snowmobile trail segments that were already having issues with inconsistent freezing during the winter season, which can lead to significant damage to ecosystems that are not protected by snow cover.

4.1.4. Step 4: Adaptation Approaches and Tactics for Implementation

The project team devised tactics that focused on their concerns about extreme weather events and shorter winter seasons described in Steps 2 and 3 and then identified specific strategies and approaches from the recreation menu to develop actions that would help address key resource concerns as well as climate impacts (Table 2). In general, actions that had been proposed prior to considering climate change were identified as also being valuable in the context of climate change adaptation. For example, improving hiking trail conditions and addressing deferred maintenance to trails would help ensure that trails are well-designed and able to accommodate extreme rain and weather events. Consideration of climate change identified opportunities to improve the design of hiking trails and developed sites (such as campgrounds) to accommodate future climate conditions. For example, team members pointed to an area where an at-risk trail segment would benefit from a boardwalk installation or slight re-routing to ensure its longevity.
Table 2. Sample adaptation actions by recreational activity for the Somerset Integrated Resource Project on the Green Mountain National Forest, Vermont, USA.
Winter recreational activities received the most discussion of potential adaptation activities. For each location, team members considered how the current patterns in visitor use, current condition of the area in question, current and future maintenance needs intersected with future changes in climate. Snowmobile trails that were already experiencing undesirable conditions during the winter season were identified as areas for decommissioning use to prevent further damage to ecosystems. Upgrading infrastructure was identified as too costly in marginal locations, while trails at higher-elevations and without significant winter challenges were maintained. Backcountry skiing/boarding, which takes place at higher elevations and on north- and east-facing slopes within the project area, was expected to remain a viable activity within the scope of the project period. Overall, the use of the recreation menu encouraged managers to consider longer time frames and a greater variety of options as part of their planning.

4.1.5. Step 5: Monitoring and Evaluating Effectiveness

The project team identified some potential monitoring actions that would provide information regarding whether the proposed actions were effective in furthering the goals of this project and the overall Forest Plan. These items generally focused on characterizing and better understanding patterns of visitor use, particularly where alterations were made to address climate concerns. For example, the team pointed to monitoring shoreline improvements in developed recreation areas to determine whether the methods used were effective in reducing erosion from visitor use as well as during extreme events. Several items were identified to better capture information about changes to winter climate and the ensuing effects on recreational activities, such as methods to monitor the relationship between snow depth, suitable winter conditions, and visitor use related to snowmobiling, backcountry skiing/boarding, and other winter activities. These monitoring items were identified as being relevant to this project area, as well as to broader management across the GMNF.

4.2. San Bernardino National Forest Lytle Creek Project

The San Bernardino National Forest (SBNF) sits next to some of Southern California’s largest population centers and provides many of the principle outdoor recreation opportunities for these communities, encompassing 823,816 acres. Lytle Creek, a 29 km stream on the San Bernardino National Forest, is visited by tens of thousands of people each year, who enjoy picnicking, hiking, and cooling off in the creek. This heavy use can cause impacts to water quality, degrade riparian vegetation and habitat, and lead to excessive littering and user conflicts. The Forest is initiating environmental analysis to improve recreation facilities in the Lytle Creek area. In an effort to reduce future climate related risks, an interdisciplinary team used the Adaptation Workbook and the draft recreation menu to consider how they could meet some of their recreation and ecological goals for the Lytle Creek area in a climate-informed way.

4.2.1. Step 1: Location, Project Goals and Objectives, and Time Frames

Lytle Creek lies at the eastern-most extension of the San Gabriel Mountains, serving as a popular recreation destination for the cities of San Bernardino, Rialto, Fontana, and Colton. The area is highly dissected by deep canyons, steep slopes, cliffs, and narrow ridges. Vegetation consists of chaparral-covered hillsides, coastal sage scrub, scattered groves of large sugar pine and big cone Douglas-fir, and areas of riparian vegetation. The area being considered for this recreation improvement project encompasses several commonly used areas alongside the creek, including pullouts, trailheads, waterfalls, a National Forest ranger station, picnic area, and a campground. The creek and riparian habitat support important aquatic species and migratory birds like the endangered Southwestern willow flycatcher.
The core of the Lytle Creek project focuses on providing visitor opportunities that can accommodate the heavy level of use that the area receives, while maintaining the integrity of the Lytle creek ecosystem. Major management goals include developing high-quality and safe recreational facilities and infrastructure, re-directing visitor traffic away from unsafe or sensitive areas, achieving and maintaining natural stream channel conductivity, connectivity, and function, and maintaining high-quality riparian habitat in the Lytle Creek watershed.

4.2.2. Step 2: Site-Specific Climate Change Impacts and Vulnerabilities

Some of the regional Southern California climate changes that stand out as particularly important to this project area included an increase in the number of days with extreme heat, average warmer temperatures, drought and potential for streamflow changes, extreme precipitation events and wildfire activity [55]. The Lytle Creek area is already experiencing heavier use and visitation on very hot days. In addition, the area is prone to periodic heavy flooding that coincides with large rain events over the canyon. Within the project area, there are portions of the stream that stay wet all season long and others that dry out in mid-to-late spring; projected changes in periods of drought could affect the patterns and timing of these drying events. The last wildfire in the project area occurred in 2003, so the vegetation is thick in some areas and could be at an elevated risk of burning. Fortunately, the creek bed is very wide, which could mitigate some of the safety concerns associated with a potential fire. As the climate continues to change, these factors, in particular, could affect the Lytle creek ecosystem, visitation patterns, and visitor safety.

4.2.3. Step 3: Implications for Management Objectives

Climate change is expected to affect the goals and objectives of the Lytle Creek project in a number of ways. Staff from SBNF working on the interdisciplinary team for this project identified several challenges and some opportunities for the project associated with a changing climate. For example, the increase in the number of hot days is expected to exacerbate recreation demands and draw more users to the Lytle Creek area, adding to existing recreation challenges. However, this could also provide an opportunity for visitor revenue. In addition, hot days and periodic flooding and erosion could challenge the infrastructure, kiosks, trails and other facilities that the SBNF wants to build; these facilities will need to take into account cooler areas where people want to recreate, and long-term maintenance. Drought and flooding could also limit the success of revegetation efforts, and in the case of drought, exacerbate current stream connectivity challenges and periodic fish die-offs. However, on the positive side, native vegetation in the Lytle Creek area is adapted to periodic flooding and fire and in relatively good condition. Finally, fire and flooding can both pose safety concerns for visitors that may need to be addressed in the project.

4.2.4. Step 4: Adaptation Approaches and Tactics for Implementation

The project interdisciplinary team used the recreation menu to select potential strategies and approached and develop climate informed actions for the Lytle Creek project. The managers focused on actions that would address the greatest potential risks to the project area, which were generally expected to come from increased recreational demand (due in part to a warmer climate) combined with changes in temperature, hydrologic, and fire regimes. Some of the actions that were discussed and may be under consideration are presented in Table 3, although the project is still in the beginning stages and specific tactics have not yet been selected for implementation. Overall, many of the selected strategies, approaches and tactics focused on managing the anticipated increase in visitor use, directing visitor use away from sensitive areas while developing alternative areas for them to recreate, and maintaining watershed health and connectivity.
Table 3. Sample of some adaptation tactics discussed for the Lytle Creek Project. The team will still need to consider budget, stakeholder input, feasibility and other factors before selecting final tactics.
Managers reported that the recreation menu provided a list of ideas that were useful for brainstorming potential adaptation responses. In particular, consideration of climate change underscored the need to consider a greater variety of environmental risks that could affect visitor use and experience, providing a greater opportunity for the project team to proactively address threats and reduce risks. The menu also generated discussion about how to engage the local community in raising awareness of future management activities.

4.2.5. Step 5: Monitoring and Evaluating Effectiveness

Since the Lytle Creek project is in the very early stages of planning, the SBNF team identified a few potential monitoring actions that they may consider moving forward. Monitoring vegetation gain/loss in areas of interest and tracking the survival of revegetation projects were both identified as important to monitoring the success of adaptation actions. In addition, the team was interested in tracking stream condition, temperature, water quality, and other characteristics before and after implementing elements of the project to see if their actions were leading to improvement. Finally, the team began designing ways to collect data on visitor trends, for example, monitoring user numbers, visitor enjoyment before or after the project, and records of trash collected in the stream to see if infrastructure changes were having a desired effect.

5. Concluding Remarks

The menu of recreation strategies and approaches is the first attempt to synthesize the state of the practice on adapting recreation management to climate change. It builds on tested methods developed as part of the Climate Change Response Framework [17], providing a suite of considerations for adapting recreation management to climate change while working within the goals and objectives of specific organizations and projects. Our process of combining peer-reviewed and gray literature with the expertise of recreation-focused scientists and practitioners resulted in a comprehensive suite of solutions for a wide range of locations. These methods have been used to develop similar menus for other resources and proven to generate thoughtful climate-informed projects across multiple states, ownerships, and resource areas [11,17,56,57,58].
In combination with the Adaptation Workbook, we tested this menu in two sites of highly differing climate conditions and recreational uses and found that tactics selected by both locations fit into our organizing framework. Selected tactics tiered to every strategy in our menu, indicating that we were able to capture the breadth of potential adaptation strategies undertaken by public outdoor recreation managers. The natural resource managers that used our menu reported that it was useful for organizing ideas and suggesting potential courses of action that pertained to their projects. They made helpful suggestions for wording the strategies and approaches in a way that would capture additional example tactics that we had not initially considered. These projects themselves provided useful examples of how a broad organizing framework of strategies could be applied to specific tactics.
There are some limitations to our testing of the menu in only two locations in the same location. Previous research has shown factors such as land ownership and geography can influence the types of adaptation strategies selected by land managers [56]. For example, the need for additional strategies or approaches may have been revealed if we had tested the menu in low-elevation coastal areas that are experiencing challenges from storm surge, hurricanes, or sea-level rise. Likewise, privately owned facilities may have additional adaptation tactics that are not feasible for public land management agencies. We sought to address some of these potential limitations by soliciting feedback from working group participants at a national meeting of adaptation professionals that included representatives from a wide variety of organizations and geographies (see Supplementary Materials). Based on feedback from this event, we made small adjustments to the wording of the strategies and approaches and developed additional example tactics. However, participants did not identify any significant omissions in the list of strategies and approaches. Long-term use of this menu in additional geographies and organizations is nevertheless likely to reveal the need for changes and even generate interest in creating new menus to address related topics, just as previous menus have done [11,17,57,58].
Recreation managers will face unprecedented challenges for managing resources to both provide opportunities and prepare for increased risks from extreme events, higher temperatures, and altered winter weather conditions. Building on tested and proven methods for developing on the ground adaptation actions, we show that the recreation menu is a useful organizing framework for selecting adaptation strategies and developing location-specific tactics in conjunction with the Adaptation Workbook [17]. By testing this menu in two real-world projects with highly differentiated goals and climate change impacts, we have shown that this menu has the potential to be an effective tool for recreation managers.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/24/7030/s1: Appendix A. Additional background information on methods, Appendix B. Example tactics for outdoor recreation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.A.B., C.W.S., and M.K.J.; methodology, C.W.S., M.K.J., P.R.L., P.D.S.; investigation, D.O., M.K.J., K.M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, D.O., M.K.J., K.M.S., and L.A.B.; writing—review and editing, all authors; supervision, C.W.S. and M.K.J.; project administration: L.A.B., M.K.J.; funding acquisition, C.W.S.

Funding

This work was supported by the USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station and USDA Climate Hubs.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the staff of the Green Mountain and San Bernardino National Forests, the recreation and climate change staff that participated in interviews, the USDA California Climate Hub, Lara Buluc, and Jason Ko.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. White, E.; Bowker, J.M.; Askew, A.E.; Langner, L.L.; Arnold, J.R.; English, D.B.K. Federal outdoor recreation trends: Effects on economic opportunities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-945. Portland OR US Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Pac. Northwest Stn. 2016, 46, 945. [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown, R.D.; Mote, P.W. The Response of Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover to a Changing Climate. J. Clim. 2009, 22, 2124–2145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Pierce, D.W.; Barnett, T.P.; Hidalgo, H.G.; Das, T.; Bonfils, C.; Santer, B.D.; Bala, G.; Dettinger, M.D.; Cayan, D.R.; Mirin, A.; et al. Attribution of Declining Western US Snowpack to Human Effects. J. Clim. 2008, 21, 6425–6444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wobus, C.; Small, E.E.; Hosterman, H.; Mills, D.; Stein, J.; Rissing, M.; Jones, R.; Duckworth, M.; Hall, R.; Kolian, M.; et al. Projected climate change impacts on skiing and snowmobiling: A case study of the United States. Glob. Environ. Chang. Hum. Policy Dimens. 2017, 45, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. United States Department of Agriculture. Future of America’s Forests and Rangelands: Update to the 2010 Resources Planning Act Assessment; United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
  6. Dawson, J.; Scott, D. Managing for climate change in the alpine ski sector. Tour. Manag. 2013, 35, 244–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Scott, D.; McBoyle, G. Climate change adaptation in the ski industry. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2007, 12, 1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Perry, E.; Manning, R.; Xiao, X.; Valliere, W. Multiple Dimensions of Adaptations to Climate Change by Visitors to Vermont State Parks. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 2018, 36, 13–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ho, J.J.; Halofsky, J.E.; Peterson, D.L. Climate Risk Management Practices; United States Department of Agriculture, Ed.; Northwest Climate Hub: Portland, OR, USA, 2018; p. 42. [Google Scholar]
  10. Strauch, R.L.; Raymond, C.L.; Rochefort, R.M.; Hamlet, A.F.; Lauver, C. Adapting transportation to climate change on federal lands in Washington State, USA. Clim. Chang. 2015, 130, 185–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Shannon, P.D.; Swanston, C.W.; Janowiak, M.K.; Handler, S.D.; Schmitt, K.M.; Brandt, L.A.; Butler-Leopold, P.R.; Ontl, T. Adaptation strategies and approaches for forested watersheds. Clim. Serv. 2019, 13, 51–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. American Public Health Association. Adaptation in Action: Grantee Success Stories from CDC’s Climate and Health Program; American Public Health Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  13. Dzaugis, M.; Avery, C.W.; Reidmiller, D. The Fourth National Climate Assessment: Frequently Asked Questions. 2018. Available online: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AGUFMPA31D1182D (accessed on 1 December 2018).
  14. Ziska, L.H.; Epstein, P.R.; Schlesinger, W.H. Rising CO2, Climate Change, and Public Health: Exploring the Links to Plant Biology. Environ. Health Perspect. 2009, 117, 155–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wake, C.; Bucci, J.; Aytur, S. Climate Change and Human Health in New Hampshire: An Impact Assessment; University of New Hampshire: Durham, NH, USA, 2014; p. 73. [Google Scholar]
  16. Noe, R.S.; Choudhary, E.; Cheng-Dobson, J.; Wolkin, A.F.; Newman, S.B. Exertional Heat-Related Illnesses at the Grand Canyon National Park, 2004–2009. Wilderness Environ. Med. 2013, 24, 422–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Swanston, C.W.; Janowiak, M.K.; Brandt, L.A.; Butler, P.R.; Handler, S.D.; Shannon, P.D.; Lewis, A.D.; Hall, K.; Fahey, R.T.; Scott, L. Forest adaptation resources: Climate change tools and approaches for land managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-87. Newtown Sq. PA US Dep. Agric. For. Serv. North. Res. Stn. 2016, 87, 1–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Reidmiller, D.R.; Avery, C.W.; Easterling, D.R.; Kunkel, K.E.; Lewis, K.L.; Maycock, T.K.; Stewart, B.C. Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II.; U.S. Global Change Research Program: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; p. 1515.
  19. Melillo, J.M.; Richmond, T.T.; Yohe, G.W. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment; U.S. Global Change Research Program: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; p. 841. [CrossRef]
  20. Schupp, C.A.; Beavers, R.; Caffrey, M. Coastal Adaptation Strategies: Case Studies; National Park Service Report, NPS 99/129700; National Park Service: Ft Collins, CO, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  21. Walsh, J.; Wuebbles, D.; Hayhoe, K. Ch. 2: Our Changing Climate. In Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment; Melillo, J.M., Richmond, T., Yohe, G., Eds.; U.S. Global Change Research Program: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; pp. 19–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Arndt, D.S.; Blunden, J.; Hartfield, G.; Ackerman, S.A.; Adler, R.; Alfaro, E.J.; Allan, R.P.; Allan, R.; Alves, L.M.; Amador, J.A.; et al. State of the climate in 2017. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2018, 99, S1–S310. [Google Scholar]
  23. Beavers, R.L.; Babson, A.L.; Schupp, C.A. Coastal adaptation strategies handbook. NPS 2016, 999, 134090. [Google Scholar]
  24. Rockman, M. Cultural Resources Climate Change Strategy; National Park Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
  25. Cohen, J. The wildland-urban interface fire problem: A consequence of the fire exclusion paradigm. For. Hist. Today Fall 2008, 20–26, 20–26. [Google Scholar]
  26. Jones, J.A. Hydrologic responses to climate change: Considering geographic context and alternative hypotheses. Hydrol. Process. 2011, 25, 1996–2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ahiablame, L.M.; Engel, B.A.; Chaubey, I. Effectiveness of Low Impact Development Practices: Literature Review and Suggestions for Future Research. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2012, 223, 4253–4273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Capon, S.J.; Chambers, L.E.; Mac Nally, R.; Naiman, R.J.; Davies, P.; Marshall, N.; Pittock, J.; Reid, M.; Capon, T.; Douglas, M.; et al. Riparian Ecosystems in the 21st Century: Hotspots for Climate Change Adaptation? Ecosystems 2013, 16, 359–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Furniss, M.J.; Staab, B.P.; Hazelhurst, S.; Clifton, C.F.; Roby, K.B.; Ilhadrt, B.L.; Todd, A.H.; Reid, L.M.; Hines, S.J.; Bennett, K.A. Water, climate change, and forests: Watershed stewardship for a changing climate. DIANE Publ. 2010, 812, 75. [Google Scholar]
  30. Creed, I.F.; Sass, G.Z.; Buttle, J.M.; Jones, J.A. Hydrological principles for sustainable management of forest ecosystems. Hydrol. Process. 2011, 25, 2152–2160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dunne, T.; Leopold, L.B. Water in Environmental Planning; W. H. Freeman and Company: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  32. Rosgen, D.L. Rosgen geomorphic channel design. Stream Restor. Des. Natl. Eng. Handb. Part 2007, 654, 11. [Google Scholar]
  33. Yochum, S.E.; Scott, J.A. Predicting Geomorphic Change during Large Floods in Semiarid Landscapes; United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
  34. Keller, G.R.; Ketcheson, G. Storm Damage Risk Reduction Guide for Low-Volume Roads; United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
  35. Fisichelli, N.A.; Schuurman, G.W.; Monahan, W.B.; Ziesler, P.S. Protected Area Tourism in a Changing Climate: Will Visitation at US National Parks Warm Up or Overheat? PLoS ONE 2015, 10, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Askew, A.E.; Bowker, J.M. Impacts of Climate Change on Outdoor Recreation Participation: Outlook to 2060. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 2018, 36, 97–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hand, M.S.; Smith, J.W.; Peterson, D.L.; Brunswick, N.A.; Brown, C.P. Effects of climate change on outdoor recreation [Chapter 10], Climate change vulnerability and adaptation in the Intermountain Region [Part 2]. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-375. Fort Collins CO US Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Rocky Mt. Res. Stn. 2018, 375, 316–338. [Google Scholar]
  38. Wilkerson, E.; Galbraith, H.; Whitman, A.; Balch, S. Allen-Whitney Memorial Forest: Climate Change Adaptation Plan; Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences: Brunswick, ME, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ferguson, M.D.; Mueller, J.T.; Graefe, A.R.; Mowen, A.J. Coping with Climate Change: A Study of Great Lakes Water-Based Recreationists. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 2018, 36, 52–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Agee, J.K. The influence of forest structure on fire behavior. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Forest Vegetation Management Conference, Washington, DC, USA, 17 January 1996; pp. 52–68. [Google Scholar]
  41. Sarofim, M.C.; Saha, S.; Hawkins, M.D.; Mills, D.M.; Hess, J.J.; Horton, R.M.; Kinney, P.L.; Schwartz, J.D.; Juliana, A.S. The impacts of climate change on human health in the United States: A scientific assessment, by us global change research program. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2016, 82, 418–419. [Google Scholar]
  42. Climate Change and Extreme Heat: What You Can do to Prepare; U.S. EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
  43. Buzinde, C.N.; Manuel-Navarrete, D.; Kerstetter, D.; Redclift, M. Representations and adaptation to climate change. Ann. Tour. Res. 2010, 37, 581–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Salmond, J.A.; Tadaki, M.; Vardoulakis, S.; Arbuthnott, K.; Coutts, A.; Demuzere, M.; Dirks, K.N.; Heaviside, C.; Lim, S.; Macintyre, H. Health and climate related ecosystem services provided by street trees in the urban environment. Environ. Health 2016, 15, 95–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sleeper, D. Riding Winter’s Trails; Hubbard Brook Research Foundation: North Woodstock, NH, USA, 2014; p. 13. [Google Scholar]
  46. Perry, E.; Manning, R.; Xiao, X.; Valliere, W.; Reigner, N. Social Climate Change: The Advancing Extirpation of Snowmobilers in Vermont. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 2018, 36, 31–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Daugherty, D.J.; Buckmeier, D.L.; Kokkanti, P.K. Sensitivity of Recreational Access to Reservoir Water Level Variation: An Approach to Identify Future Access Needs in Reservoirs. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2011, 31, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Askew, A.E.; Bowker, J.M.; English, D.B.K.; Zarnoch, S.J.; Green, G.T. A Temporal Importance-Performance Analysis of Recreation Attributes on National Forests: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service Update of the 2010 RPA Assessment; U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; pp. 1–34.
  49. Vose, J.M.; Peterson, D.L.; Domke, G.M.; Fettig, C.J.; Joyce, L.A.; Keane, R.E.; Luce, C.H.; Prestemon, J.P.; Band, L.E.; Clark, J.S.; et al. Forests. In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II; Reidmiller, D.R., Avery, C.W., Easterling, D.R., Kunkel, K.E., Lewis, K.L.M., Maycock, T.K., Stewart, B.C., Eds.; U.S. Global Change Research Program: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; pp. 232–267. [Google Scholar]
  50. Howarth, M.E.; Thorncroft, C.D.; Bosart, L.F. Changes in Extreme Precipitation in the Northeast United States: 1979–2014. J. Hydrometeorol. 2019, 20, 673–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dupigny-Giroux, L.A.; Mecray, E.L.; Lemcke-Stampone, M.D.; Hodgkins, G.A.; Lentz, E.E.; Mills, K.E.; Lane, E.D.; Miller, R.; Hollinger, D.Y.; Solecki, W.D.; et al. Northeast. In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II; Reidmiller, D.R., Avery, C.W., Easterling, D.R., Kunkel, K.E., Lewis, K.L.M., Maycock, T.K., Stewart, B.C., Eds.; U.S. Global Change Research Program: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; pp. 669–742. [Google Scholar]
  52. Janowiak, M.K.; D’Amato, A.W.; Swanston, C.W.; Iverson, L.; Thompson, F.R.; Dijak, W.D.; Matthews, S.; Peters, M.P.; Prasad, A.; Fraser, J.S.; et al. New England and northern New York forest ecosystem vulnerability assessment and synthesis: A report from the New England Climate Change Response Framework project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-173. Newtown Sq. PA US Dep. Agric. For. Serv. North. Res. Stn. 2018, 173, 1–234. [Google Scholar]
  53. Duveneck, M.J.; Thompson, J.R.; Gustafson, E.J.; Liang, Y.; de Bruijn, A.M.G. Recovery dynamics and climate change effects to future New England forests. Landsc. Ecol. 2017, 32, 1385–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Burakowski, E.; Hill, R. Economic Contributions of Winter Sports in a Changing Climate; University of New Hampshire: Durham, NH, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  55. Hall, A.; Berg, N.; Reich, K. Los Angeles Summary Report. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment; University of California Los Angeles: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  56. Ontl, T.A.; Swanston, C.; Brandt, L.A.; Butler, P.R.; D’Amato, A.W.; Handler, S.D.; Janowiak, M.K.; Shannon, P.D. Adaptation pathways: Ecoregion and land ownership influences on climate adaptation decision-making in forest management. Clim. Chang. 2018, 146, 75–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Janowiak, M.; Dostie, D.; Wilson, M.; Kucera, M.; Howard Skinner, R.; Hatfield, J.; Hollinger, D.; Swanston, C. Adaptation Resources for Agriculture: Responding to Climate Variability and Change in the Midwest and Northeast; U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; p. 72. Available online: https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/AdaptationResourcesForAgriculture.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2016).
  58. Tribal Adaptation Menu Team. Dibaginjigaadeg Anishinaabe Ezhitwaad: A Tribal Climate Adaptation Menu; Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission: Odanah, WI, USA, 2019; p. 54. Available online: https://www.glifwc.org/ClimateChange/TribalAdaptationMenuV1.pdf (accessed on 29 October 2019).

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.