visitor impacts on trails in the sagarmatha (mt. everest) national park, nepal

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, researchlibraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.

Visitor Impacts on Trails in the Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park, NepalAuthor(s): Sanjay K. Nepal and Stella Amor NepalSource: AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 33(6):334-340. 2004.Published By: Royal Swedish Academy of SciencesDOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-33.6.334URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1579/0044-7447-33.6.334

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, andenvironmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books publishedby nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance ofBioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.

Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiriesor rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-33.6.334

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1579/0044-7447-33.6.334

http://www.bioone.org

http://www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2004http://www.ambio.kva.se

334 Ambio Vol. 33 No. 6, August 2004

Visitor Impacts on Trails in the Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park, Nepal

Sanjay K. Nepal and Stella Amor Nepal

This study summarizes findings of a visitor impact study conducted in the Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park, Nepal. The effect of visitor use, and the influence of en-vironmental characteristics on trail conditions are inves-tigated. Seven trails divided into 208 trail segments, and with a total length of 90 kilometers were included in the assessment. A four-class rating system has been used for the assessment of trail conditions. Arc/Info and Arc/View geographic information system (GIS) are used to analyze spatial patterns of impacts. The study indicates a strong correlation between visitor use and trail degra-dation. However, locational and environmental factors are equally important variables. The study concludes that more systematic, and experimental studies are needed that can make a clear distinction between human-in-duced trail damage and the effects of natural factors.

Report

INTRODUCTIONEcological studies of visitor impacts on hiking trails include a variety of problems, such as loss of vegetation cover, incision, soil loss on the tread surface, tread widening, soil compaction, proliferation of informal trails, and the results of various depreci-ative behaviors such as littering and cutting of trail switchbacks. There are few such studies, although some notable contributions have been made recently (1, 2). Studies on ecological impacts of recreation, particularly on campsites, have indicated the cur-vilinear relationship between visitor use levels and impacts, i.e. most impacts occur during the initial period of use, and tend to level off after a certain period (3–6). This has been found to be true for hiking trails also (7–10). The curvilinear relationship be-tween use and impacts may not apply to all impact parameters, for example, loss of tree seedlings on campsites are highly af-fected even by very low levels of site use, whereas the exposure of mineral soil occurs later in the progression of impacts, and is related to use intensity in a more linear fashion (4). Research has also shown that it is not the visitor number but the type and timing of activity, and ecological characteristics that determine the severity of impacts (11–14). Thus, proper visitor management strategies that take into account a multitude of variables including visitor numbers, use type, timing, and ecological characteristics are crucial to minimize impacts and enhance visitor satisfaction. The importance of research on visi-tor impacts on trails must be seen from this perspective. In the mountain context, one of the most extensive trail sur-veys was conducted in 1982 in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (12). A similar study was undertaken in 1994 in the same park (15). The earlier study found that trail impacts mainly related to a number of environmental variables including vegetation type, elevation, trail slope, and location of slope was found to be the most important factor (12). This study lacked information on the type and amount of use, which were found to be important determinants of trail condition in the latter study. Heavily used trails had significantly more soil erosion and tree

root exposure, while trails receiving a high proportion of horse use had been significantly wider and muddier (15). Furthermore, it was found that there is a strong correlation between soil ero-sion and the geographic position of trails; more erosion occur-ring on upper-slope and ridge-top trails. Soil erosion was also related to the presence of wet soil. Root exposure was found to be less common on trails occupying drainage-bottom landform positions, a likely indication that increased soil depth in such positions results in deeper penetration of roots. Wet soil, exces-sive gradient, presence of excessive roots and horse use were important factors explaining trail width and multiple treads. Owing to the lack of comparable and longitudinal studies, and comparable impact variables, findings of trail research con-flict at times. For example, an early study found that locational effects such as underlying soil and geology, probably, are more important variables than the amount of recreational use (16). In a later study, Bright (17) found that trampling and trailside veg-etation each influenced trail width more than slope or soil type. While soil and vegetation are important determinants of the magnitude and extent of impacts at the site level, impacts greatly vary also between different types of ecosystems, e.g. riparian habitats, grasslands, forests, and deserts (14). Nevertheless, the type and amount of visitor use are considered to be important factors that influence trail degradation (15). This paper reports the results of a trail impact study conduct-ed in the Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park, Nepal, during 1997–1998. Visitor-induced damage to park trails is examined and factors that influence the severity of damage analyzed. This study is part of a larger study, which examined the relationship between tourism development and associated environmental changes (18). Trail deterioration as a result of increased levels of use and intensity of visitor-related activities is the focus of this paper.

RESEARCH DESIGN

The Study Area

Located in the northeastern highlands of Nepal, along the Nepal-China border, the Sagarmatha National Park’s (SNP) 1150 km2 area is a World Heritage Site. It consists of rugged landscape of high mountains, glaciers, hanging valleys and constricted fluvial terraces, and is dissected by four main valleys: Bhote Koshi in the west, Dudh Koshi in the middle, and Imja Khola with its two forks namely Lobuche Khola and Imja Khola proper, in the east (Fig. 1). The Park can be broadly divided into three vegetation zones based on altitude: the lower altitudinal belt (below 3800 m) consisting of temperate forests and woodlands; the middle zone (3800 – 4200 m) of subalpine forests and shrubland; and the upper zone (above 4200 m) of tundra vegetation. The soils in the high valleys are primarily Entisols, with shallow depths of less than 65 cm. Below 4000 m, Spodosols have developed in forested areas, which are mainly located in the north-facing slopes. The extensive grassland and shrubland areas, mainly in the southern slopes below 3750 m have Inceptisol and Entisol


Ambio Vol. 33 No. 6, August 2004 335

soils (19). The climate in the Park ranges between temperate to arctic conditions depending on altitude and aspect. The mean daily temperature recorded in Namche Bazaar, where the Park headquarter is located, at an altitude of 3400 m, is -0.4°C in January and 12°C in July. Precipitation is highly seasonal, peak-ing during the period between June and September, and varies regionally with local topographic conditions (20).

The Park supports rich wild animal populations, and bird species. The most commonly sighted animals are the Himala-yan thar (Hemitragus jemlahicus), a species of wild goat, and musk deer (Moschus moschiferus). At least 118 bird species are found in the Park, which include resident birds, summer nesters and winter migrants. It is also home to the Danphe or Impeyan pheasant (Lophophorus impejanus), the national bird of Nepal. Jefferies (21) provides details of the animal and bird species found in the Park.

Trails in a Dynamic Environment

Most previous researchers have made only passing reference to trail conditions, and none of them have indicated that it may be a major problem (20, 22, 23). The 1979 SNP Management Plan stated that “…track erosion in the park is not a severe problem, and the degree of track wear caused by visitors is negligible compared to that caused by local foot and animal traffic” (20). During that period, the annual number of Park visitors was less than 5000. One of the early photographs, which shows a heav-ily eroded part of a trail in Syangboche illustrates the localized, but substantial trail erosion problems in the Park (24). Similarly, some trails around Namche Bazaar were noted to “…have been deeply cut into the original upper soil horizons…heavily used, compacted, steep, and exhibit considerable rilling, and gullying” (19). Trail erosion problems were also discussed later in Stevens (25) and Byers and Banskota (26), however, a detailed trail as-sessment has never been conducted in the Park. The Everest trail network is in a dynamic state, often influ-enced by local ecological, and economic conditions. For exam-ple, Vuichard and Zimmermann (27) report that due to the burst-ing of the moraine-dammed lake in 1985, several trails, most notably in Thame, Thamo, Jorsalle, Benkar, Phakding and Ghat (the latter three are located outside the Park boundary) were

altered severely. Similar outbursts in the past along the Imja Khola have forced people to either construct temporary routes or to establish new routes. The Park trails have been intensively used since the beginning of trade between Khumbu (the region where the Park is located; also referred to as the Everest region) and Tibet. Prior to tourism, the Thame route was the most in-tensively used route, as Khumbu traders used it to access the

Nangpa La (pass) to cross over into Tibet (Fig. 1). The onset of mountaineering on Everest increased the use of Kala Patthar route by the early mountaineers, and later, by trekkers. Thus, the transition from ag-riculture and trade-based economies to a tourism-based economy also changed the importance of different routes.

Data Sources and Methods of Analysis

The procedures for assessing ecological impacts on campsites and along trails have been well established (1, 8, 15). The pro-cedures are standard qualitative techniques, and are replicable in a variety of ecological settings. Based on these procedures, a trail survey manual was prepared with detailed instructions on collecting qualitative and quantitative data. However, it must be em-phasized that evaluation of impacted sites is based on visual, qualitative assessments combined with some quantitative data, which identify the location, nature and se-verity of impacts, not the impacts per se. For example, it does not involve any pedo-

logical research requiring laboratory work for detailed analysis of impact parameters such as soil texture, vegetation composition, and organic litter. The trail manual was developed by Marion (15), and field-test-ed by the author in Sagarmatha National Park (SNP) in November 1996. The original manual was then modified to suit local condi-tions, as it was prepared for the US national parks and wilderness areas where permanent human habitation is not found. The Park under investigation has permanent human settlements; as such, trails are intensively used. Therefore, environmental features and impact parameters had to be re-defined, the values indicating se-verity of impacts had to be modified, and information on other human aspects such as the location of lodge accommodations had to be included in the survey manual.

The preliminary survey indicated that the Park trails exhibited high levels of impacts, and the lineal distances for several impact indicators were considerable, for example, there were several trail segments of deeply incised (> 30 cm) trail surface with a lineal ex-tent of more than 50 m. A similar magnitude and extent were noted for multiple treads, trail width, muddiness, and exposed bedrock. Based on this observation, a four-class rating system was devel-oped, and each trail segment was independently assigned a cat-egory ranging between Class I to Class IV (See Box). The length of each trail segment varies greatly, from 50 m to several hundred meters, and any segment less than 50 m was excluded from the assessment, as it was considered relatively less problematic. Trail segment length was based on uniform tread characteristics, for ex-ample, if the trail width increased from 100 to 120 cm and contin-ued for a lineal distance of more than 50 m, then the segment with 120 cm trail width was assigned a new identification and assessed independently. In certain cases, the majority rule was applied, for example if there were three parallel treads along more than 80% of a trail segment, then the entire trail segment was considered to be characteristic of multiple treads.

Figure 1. Trail network in Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park.



Each trail segment was further evaluated based on location-specific environmental aspects, resource conditions, and mainte-nance features. A measuring wheel (120 cm circumference) was

pushed along the trail. The locational data consists of trail posi-tion, altitude, aspect, trail gradient, tread type, soil type, mois-ture, vegetation type, and cover. Some discrete features such as moisture have been interpreted only in generic terms, such as dry, moist or wet soil. Impact variables include trail width and corridor, multiple treads, incision, outslope, root exposure, landscar, trail displacement, muddiness, and running water on trail. Maintenance features include information on retention wall, constructed trail, stone steps, and bridges. The above vari-ables were measured using an assorted range of mechanical in-struments including a global positioning device (GPS), altimeter, measuring wheel, clinometer, and pocket soil penetrometer. Measurements were recorded on the field forms, and several ref-erence photographs were taken depicting the condition of the trail. Use-related data, such as numbers and density of visitors, packstock and lodges were calculated based on data collected during the field survey.

This paper summarizes the main results of the trail survey, and illustrates the applications of a geographic information sys-tem (GIS) in trail impact assessment. Descriptive and qualitative

methods of data interpretation are used in this pa-per. Data related to trail assessment were processed using SYSTAT 8.0 (28). A semistructured database was developed using Microsoft Access and pro-vides a basis for future monitoring. PC Arc/Info GIS was used to digitize relevant information on contour, trail, land use, settlement, and drainage from the latest topographical map (1: 50 000 scale) of the Park (29). Based on the background informa-tion and field data, GIS was used to map the trail conditions. The ArcView version 3.1 was used for overlay analysis and final output showing locations of degraded trail segments (30, 31). Severely de-graded trail segments or ”hot spots” were mapped using the GPS-generated data, directly linked into the GIS system. It should be noted here that due to the long his-tory of trail use by the resident population and live-stock, it is difficult to measure accurately the effects of tourism on trail degradation. However, some statistics demonstrate how much tourism may have been responsible for the degradation. For example, the 1997 lodge data shows a total of 155 lodges in the Park, which is almost 24% of the total hous-ing units in the Park. There were more than 17 000 foreign visitors at the time of this trail survey com-pared to less than 3100 permanent residents. If for-eign visitors, and accompanying guides and porters are combined, this visitor figure can double. Simi-larly, there are slightly more than 4400 head of live-stock in the Park. It could be argued that the resident population and domestic animals use the Park trails much more intensively than the visitors. However, given the intensity of tourism and the large number of visitors, it is safe to say that tourism has aggra-vated the problem to some extent.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Trail Use Intensity

Visitor and packstock surveys were conducted for three months during the period September to De-cember 1997. These are interpreted in terms of number of visitors on one kilometer of a trail on any given day, during the peak tourist season between September and December. Lodge counts were com-pleted during the same period. Data on trail-use in-tensity indicate that Namche has the highest visitor

and packstock traffic (Table 1). There are more lodge accommo-dations along the Namche trail, followed by Kala Patthar I, and then evenly distributed along the Thame, Gokyo, and Chhuk-hung trails.

Box. Four-class rating system for trail conditions.Class Description

I Lightly Damaged Trail Either one or a combination of several impact features is present.Trail width is no more than 150 cm; no more than three treads apparent; low to moderate potential for trail expansion; some muddy spots may be present; incision is less than 15 cm; some exposed and loose soil may be present on the trail surface. Overall, a trail under this classification is stable and does not need any maintenance as long as the conditions do not deteriorate further.

II Moderately Damaged TrailThe degree and magnitude of trail damage is significant enough to prescribe some management actions. Trail segment clearly shows deteriorating conditions. Either a single impact feature with significant damage, or a combination of more than two impact features is present: trail is wider than 150 cm; inci-sion between 15 and 30 cm (incision of 45 cm in the absence of any other features will satisfy the condition itself); more than three treads are present; muddiness and running water on trail; trail is displaced; and soil is uncon-solidated.

III Highly Damaged TrailThis is a potential trail ‘hotspot,’ showing either one type of impact feature or a combination of several features. Both the magnitude and extent of damage are significant. Basic impact features include trail width, multiple treads, and incision. Usu-ally these are present in combined forms, for example, trail braiding leading to excessive width. In certain cases, trail width is less but several treads are present, some of which are deeply incised ( > 45 cm ). Trail segments under this classification also show high potential for expan-sion, for example, a very wide and open trail corridor. Frequently, exposed bedrock and root exposure are present in addition to other impact features. A trail affected by landslides or localized slope failures also qualifies as a highly damaged trail.

IV Severely Damaged Trail or ‘Hot Spot’Either a single criterion or a combination of several impact features qualifies this category. The basic parameters are trail width, multiple treads, and trail incision, and are significantly damaged in extent and magnitude compared to Class III. Other impact features being satisfactory, if the basic parameters show heavy damage, it is considered as severely damaged. A trail under this classification exhibits excessive width ( > 3 m ), multiple treads (more than five), and incision > 45 cm. It may also exhibit signs of downhill sliding. Soil on trail surface is unconsolidated, and no organic layer is present; exposed bedrocks are frequent; trailside is highly eroded; root exposure is excessive; trail is very muddy requiring its circumvention; trail outslope is greater than 10%. Overall, a trail under this classification needs urgent repair and maintenance, without which land degradation is inevitable in the near future. Damage is likely to spread out both vertically (depth) as well as horizontally (across space).

Table 1. Indicators of trail use intensity.Trail Trail length

(km)Trail use intensity

(km day-1)Lodge

(no. km-1)Visitor Pack stock

NamcheThameKala Patthar IKala Patthar IIGokyoChhukhungChola

14.09.2

17.916.620.4

4.56.6

14.45.27.36.74.07.66.3

1.21.80.50.20.20.30.0

3.31.02.50.71.10.90.3



Trail Impact Features

Trail impact features are roughly grouped into five categories including vertical, lateral, structural, wetness-related, and oth-ers. These categories should not be interpreted in the strict sense, as all forms of trail degradation constitute more than one type of the damage sources mentioned above. Impacts are interpreted in terms of the total lineal distance per kilometer (for example, trail incision of > 45 cm – 200 m km-1). The total length of the impact features does not take into account impacted trail segments less than 25 m. Vertical damage. This type of trail degradation refers to trail incision, exposed and loose, erosion prone soil, and exposed bedrock. However these characteristics are not strictly limited to vertical damage but are also a result of lateral damage, which usually occurs at a later stage. The trail assessment classified in-cision into five categories: depth of less than 15 cm, 15 to 30 cm, 30–45 cm, 45–60 cm, and greater than 60 cm. Incisions greater than 30 cm are considered to bo excessive. This, however, is an arbitrary decision and is applied only in the context of the Park under investigation. Trail incision occurs mainly due to the removal of topsoil, which is a combination of various factors including heavy foot use (compaction caused by trampling), or surface erosion processes such as running water (rills and gul-

lies). Incision on steep slopes is a combination of surface ero-sion coupled with downhill movement of unconsolidated soil and compaction. On flat surfaces such as in meadows where soil is generally moist, it is a function of compaction and water-in-duced erosion. Unconsolidated, heavily exposed soil is highly prone to ero-sion, and is a major trail-related problem. It occurs when trail surface is intensively used or eroded due to natural processes. Erstwhile cohesive soils no longer hold together, and are easily swept away by water or wind. Exposed bedrock is also a result of soil erosion and compaction. Soil penetration tests conducted on various on- and off-trail sites throughout the Park indicated that the trail surface is highly compacted. Compaction on trail surface exceeded the penetration measuring capacity of the soil pocket penetrometer used, while off-trail soil compaction varied between 0.75 and 3.75 kg cm-2. Overall, vertical damage of trails is most severe along the Namche trail, closely followed by Kala Patthar II, both having more than 350 m km-1 of excessively damaged trail. Next in or-der of severity are the second order Kala Patthar I and Gokyo trails, both having around 250 m km-1. The Chola and Thame trails are in the third order with less than 150 m km-1, while Chhukhung is the least damaged trail.

1. Cross-section of a highly incised trail near Pangboche. The incision at this spot is more than 45 cm deep and 41 cm wide. 2. Trail sliding downhill. The original tread is seen on the upper left section. Increased use eventually causes the trail to be displaced altogether. 3. Muddy section of a trail on a meadow. Trekkers tend to circumnavigate the trail to avoid the muddy part. The original tread is in the far right sec-tion. 4. Root exposure and tree damage. High levels of soil compaction (bulk density > 4 kg cm-2) eventually results in root exposure contributing to the slow death of the tree.All photos: S. K. Nepal.



Lateral damage. Lateral damage refers to excessive trail width (> 3 m), excessive tread (> 6 treads), and trail expansion potential. The qualifications for excessive width and tread are ar-bitrary. Wider trails in the Park are mostly the result of increased trail traffic and use of packstock, which consist of yak and jop-kio (crossbreed of yak and cattle). Unlike mules and donkeys, which usually tend to walk one after the other, yak and jopkio walk side by side thus requiring more space. Wider trails are also a result of increased two-way human traffic, while constructed trails are naturally made wider to facilitate unrestricted human and packstock access. Multiple treads are common in areas of unobstructed, open space such as on alpine meadows. Overall, the lateral spread of trails is most common along Kala Patthar II (899 m km-1), closely followed by Chhukhung (827 m km-1), followed by Kala Patthar I (604 m km-1), Namche (515 m km-1), and Gokyo (446 m km-1). Chola and Thame trails have the lowest lineal distance of less than 400 m km-1. Structural damage. This type of damage refers to a dis-placed part of a trail, either as a result of localized slope failure or outward slide. Either the trail is displaced totally (e.g., due to a landslide), or a part of the trail begins to slide downhill (perpen-dicular to the prevailing landform slope) and is likely to collapse in the event of accelerated erosion. Both features are common on mountain trails, particularly on steep locations. Landslides and slope failures are products of tectonic activities (e.g., along the Gokyo valley), fluvial erosion, caused by the undercutting of slopes adjacent to river basin (e.g., along Churo-Dingboche), or major precipitation events. A total of 25 locations of slides and 27 slope failures were recorded along the trail. Trail displacement was not observed along the Chhukhung trail, primarily due to its valley-bottom position. Overall, trail displacement is a significant problem on Chola and Kala Patthar I, where 15 and 14 such locations were recorded, respectively. However, in terms of the total length and lineal distance per kilometer, Chola and Thame trails top the list. Water-related damage. If adequate measures are not in place, wet and muddy trail conditions and running water sig-nificantly contribute to trail erosion and degradation. Although this is a seasonal issue, water may remain throughout the year in shallow depressions on the trail. While small-scale running water may not be a contributing factor to trail degradation, it is often the main cause for erosion on steep slopes eventually resulting in ruts, rills, and gullies. Wet and muddy conditions on trails force hikers to circumnavigate such areas, thus widening the trail after only a short period of use. Altogether, 69 locations of running water were observed along and across the trails. Other impact features. The last two impact features, root ex-posure and the absence of ground litter on trail surfaces are consid-ered in this category, are applicable to some trails only. Trailside vegetation is important in controlling downhill soil erosion and preventing lateral expansion of the trail. In forested areas, absence of ground litter on the trail is an indicator of intensive human and animal trampling. Removal of ground litter can also cause changes in the mi-cro-climate (32). Root exposure, when severe, poses a direct threat to the tree, and is an indicator of soil erosion and compaction. Exposed roots were ob-served on all trails that were located in forested areas.

Trail Degradation Based on Condi-tion Class

Results from the condition class assess-ment indicate that there are 69 Class I, 58 Class II, 16 Class III, and 65 Class

IV trails. About 44% of the total length of the Park trails (89.1 km) is degraded in one form or another (Table 2). The total length of Class I is 12.4 km; Class II 10 km; Class III 3.4 km; and Class IV 11.6 km. Irrespective of the condition class catego-ries, overall, Kala Patthar II and I are the most affected trails, followed by Gokyo and Namche. However, if the highest level of degradation (i.e., Class IV) is considered, Namche tops the list with 19% of its trail exhibiting these conditions, followed by Kala Patthar II (14.9%), Gokyo (12.8%), Kala Patthar I (11.9%), Chhukhung (11.1%), Thame (9.3%), and Chola (5.7%). This is understandable because Namche and Everest Base Camp are the most popular trails in the region. The Namche trail provides the only access to the Park from outside; only a few visitors come from the westerly direction by crossing the Tashi Lapcha pass to reach Thame. The Everest Base Camp is located at the terminus of Kala Patthar Route II, and is the most popular trekking destination in the Park.

Mapping Trail Degradation

Data on condition class assessment, and impact variables were collected for 208 trail segments. One of the objectives was to map these conditions with the aid of a geographic information system. Initially, the intention was to show only the “hot spots”. However, it was deemed important to show all classes of trail segments and site-specific impact features, so as to illustrate the relationships between impact types and local topographical con-ditions such as altitude, vegetation, and cluster of lodges. Re-quired features were digitized from four sheets of most recent topographical maps, and separate layers of trails, contours, land use, settlements and drainage were prepared. The trail segment data showed 52 different combinations of various impact fea-tures, which were grouped into three categories: i) trails with only one impact feature present; ii) trails with a combination of two impact features; and iii) trails with three or more impact features. The initial 52 combinations of various impact features were grouped together into 12 impact features. A breakdown of all impact features by the four condition class types is shown in Table 3.

Table 2. Trail assessment based on condition class system (fig-ures in meters).

Trail route Length of degraded trail by condition class PercentdegradedI II III IV Others1 Total

Namche 1579 797 408 2702 198 5684 40.6Thame 1009 1186 34 854 338 3421 37.2Kala Patthar I 2361 1444 1674 2119 541 8139 45.6Kala Patthar II 2236 2740 1079 2466 138 8659 52.3Gokyo 3078 2993 123 2605 431 9230 45.3Chhukhung 946 0 118 506 68 1638 36.2Chola 1212 811 0 377 239 2639 39.9Total 12 421 9971 3436 11 629 1953 39 410 44.21 This includes trail segments less than 25 meters.

Table 3. Data used in mapping trail conditions (refer to Figure 2).Impact Id* Trail Impact Feature Condition Class Total

I II III IV1 Incision 7 4 0 0 112 Multiple treads 11 2 0 0 133 Exposed soil/bedrock 16 4 1 3 244 Wet/muddy/running water 7 10 1 0 185 Other (any one impact feature) 3 1 0 0 46 Width/corridor and multiple treads 8 8 3 8 277 Width/corridor/multiple treads and incision 1 2 0 7 108 Wet/muddy/running water and other (id 5) 2 5 0 0 79 Others (any two impact features) 3 8 0 2 13

10 Width/corridor/multiple treads, incision, and exposed bedrock 6 3 4 28 4111 Others (more than two impact features) 2 3 4 12 2112 Sliding trail/slope failure 4 8 2 5 19

Total number of trail segments 70 58 15 65 208* These identification numbers are shown on Figure 2.Source: Nepal (18, p. 141).



Based on the above information, all 208 trail segments were assigned new impact identification (e.g., id 1 to 12). The trail segment database consisted of information on Route-id, Trail Segment-id, Impact-id, Total Length, Begin Distance, and End Distance. This information was integrated into the GIS system, and a trail map was produced (Fig. 2). This map shows multidi-mensional information and includes the impacted trail length, type of impact (impact feature), condition classification, and location of impacts. Impacts can also be related in terms of proximity to human settlements, altitude, and land use. Ap-parently, Class III and Class IV trail segments are clustered around the settlements and/or on high altitudes (> 4000 m). A few problems were encountered when mapping trail con-ditions, for example the difference in map distance and actual ground distance. On a 1:50 000 scale, map distance on steep slopes is shorter than the actual distance, which posed a practi-cal problem when calculating the distance for individual trail segments using the built-in commands of the ArcInfo GIS. This is a typical problem encountered when mapping linear features in mountainous environments. Thus, manual segmentation was done on the basis of the 65 GPS-referenced points, and detailed locational information collected during the field survey. Thus, the accuracy of the location of individual segments has been affected, but not significantly. The trail map provides a visual perspective on spatial patterns of impacts in relation to other topographical features and land use. Highly degraded trail seg-ments are located along the more popular tourist trails, i.e. the Kala Patthar I and II, which together have 35 “hot spots”. They are highly correlated with shrub and grassland zone, which consists of more than 40 segments or 60% of the total Class

IV type trails. Thus, visitor density, vegetation zone, location of tourist facilities (e.g., lodge accommodation), and altitude appear to be significant factors influencing the magnitude and extent of trail degradation.

CONCLUSIONSThe visitor and trail survey points to a number of important conclusions. For example, the surey shows which trail sections are crowded, which are in a critical state of damage, and the site-specific problems. These are important factors in consider-ing decisions about trail maintenance and design. This requires the development of effective policies on visitor management, and specific guidelines on trail construction and repairs. For example, if visitor management policies require regulation of visitor flow and mobility patterns within the Park, then alterna-tives for opening new routes or closing crowded routes should be explored. The visitor flow data suggests a very high concen-tration of visitors on Namche and Kala Patthar trails. Oppor-tunities for establishing new trails along Namche are currently limited, and would not seem wise given the protected status of the Park. However, there are several existing trails in other areas, which are very little used by visitors at the moment. For example, the Khumjung-Mong La, and Phortse-Na Lha trails along Gokyo can be developed as alternative overflow routes. Similarly, a new trail section could be developed between Trashinga and Deboche, which would bypass the steep climb to Tengboche. There are traces of a trail along the Imja Kho-la, which was probably swept away by previous catastrophic

Figure 2. Assessment of trail conditions in Sagarmatha National Park.



floods. Currently, most visitors to the Everest Base Camp trek via Tengboche, which receives a very high number of visitors during the peak trekking seasons. An alternative route from Phunki Tenga would lessen the crowding on Phunki-Tenga-Tengboche-Milingo, while visitors would still have on oppor-tunity to visit Tengboche when backtracking. This study does not aim to estimate the share of tourism on trail impacts, given the complexities involved. However, it suggests a strong correlation between trail degradation and vis-itor use. While intensive use by visitors is certainly one of the main factors that cause trail degradation, natural factors such as altitude, gradient, vegetation, soils, landslides, and high re-lief are equally responsible. This is indicated by the degraded condition of trails on some of the lesser used trails. One of the outcomes of this trail survey is a database, which could be used for long-term monitoring of trail conditions. Such monitoring should serve as a basis for decisions regard-ing trail maintenance, restoration, improved layout and design, and visitor management. A more systematic, experimental trail impact assessment on various types of landforms is also essen-tial to accurately predict the effects of visitor use.

References and Notes

1. Marion, J.L. and Leung, Y.F. 2001. Trail resource impacts and an examination of alternative assessment techniques. J. Park Recr. Adm. 19, 17-37.

2. Farrell, T.A. and Marion, J.L. 2001/2002. Trail impacts and trail impact management related to visitation at Torees del Paine National Park, Chile. Leisure/Loisir 26, 31-59.

3. Boucher, D.H., Aviles, J., Chepote, R., Gil, O.E. and Vilchez, B. 1991. Recovery of trailside vegetation from trampling in a tropical rain forest. Environ. Mgmt 15, 257-262.

4. Marion, J.L. 1998. Recreation ecology research findings: implications for wilder-ness and park managers. Proc. Nat. Outdoor Ethics Conf., April 18-21, 1996, St. Louis, MO. Izaak Walton Leage of America, Gaithersburg, MD. pp. 188-196.

5. Marion, J.L. 1995. Capabilities and management utility of recreation impact moni-toring programs. Environ. Mgmt 19, 763-771.

6. Stohlgren, T.L. and Parsons, D.J. 1986. Vegetation and soil recovery in wilderness campsites closed to visitor use. Environ. Mgmt 10, 375-380.

7. Mortensen, C.O. 1989. Visitor use impacts within the Knobstone Trail Corridor. J. Soil Water Cons. 44, 156-159.

8. Cole, D. 1983. Assessing and Monitoring Backcountry Trail Conditions. Research Pa-per INT-303. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Burlington, Ver-mont, 10 pp.

9. Sun, D. and Liddle, M.D. 1993. A survey of trampling effects on vegetation and soil in eight tropical and subtropical sites. Environ. Mgmt 17, 497-510.

10. Weaver, T., Dale, D. and Hartley, E. 1979. The relationship of trail condition to use, vegetation, user, slope, season, and time. In: Proc. Recreational Impact on Wild-lands. Ittner, R., Potter, D., Agee, J.K. and Anschell, S. (eds). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, pp. 94 –100.

11. Wall, G. 1994. Ecotourism: old wine in new bottles. Trends 31, 4-9.12. Bratton, S.P., Stromberg, L.L. and Harmon, M.E. 1982. Firewood-gathering impacts in

backcountry campsites in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Environ. Mgmt 6, 63-71.

13. Root, J.D. and Knapik, L.J. 1972. Trail Conditions along a Portion of the Great Di-vide Trail Route, Alberta and British Columbia Rocky Mountains. Report No. 72-5. Research Council of Alberta, Edmonton.

14. Liddle, M.J. 1997. Recreation Ecology: The Ecological Impact of Outdoor Recre-ation and Ecotourism. Chapman & Hall, London. 639 pp.

15. Marion, J.L. 1994. An Assessment of Trail Conditions in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. U.S. Department of Interior, National Parks Service, Southeast Re-gion. Atlanta, Georgia. 155 pp.

16. Helgath, S.F. 1975. Trail Deterioration in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Re-search Note INT-193. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Og-den, Utah.

17. Bright, J.A. 1986. Hiker impact on herbaceous vegetation along trails in an ever-green woodland of central Texas. Biol. Conserv. 36, 53-69.

18. Nepal, S. 1999. Tourism Induced Environmental Changes in the Nepalese Himala-ya: A Comparative Analysis of the Everest, Annapurna, and Mustang Regions. PhD Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Swit-zerland. 239 pp.

19. Byers, A. 1987. A Geoecological Study of Landscape Change and Man Accelerated Soil Loss: The Case of Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park, Khumbu, Nepal. PhD Thesis, Department of Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder, USA, 354 pp.

20. Garratt, K.A.J. 1981. Sagarmatha National Park Management Plan. Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, Kathmandu.

21. Jefferies, M. 1985. Sagarmatha Mother of the Universe - The Story of Mt. Everest National Park. Cobb/Horwood Publications, Auckland, 192 pp.

22. Hinrichsen, D., Lucas, P.H.C., Coburn, B. and Upreti, B.N. 1983. Saving Sagar-matha. Ambio 3-4, 203-205.

23. Bjønness, I. 1980. Ecological conflicts and economic dependency on tourist trekking in Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park, Nepal. An alternative approach to park planning. Norsk Geogr. Tiddskr. 34, 119-138.

24. Andrews, C. 1983. Photographs and notes on tourism and deforestation in the Solu Khumbu, Nepal. Mountain Res. Devel. 3, 182-185.

25. Stevens, S.F. 1993. Claiming the Highground. Sherpas, Subsistence, and Environ-mental Change in the Highest Himalaya. University of California Press, Berkeley, 537 pp.

26. Byers, A. and Banskota, K. 1992. Environmental impacts of backcountry tourism on three sides of Everest. In: World Heritage Twenty Years Later. IUCN, Gland, pp. 105-122.

27. Vuichard, D. and Zimmermann, M. 1987. The 1985 catastrophic drainage of a mo-raine-dammed lake, Khumbu Himal, Nepal: cause and consequences. Mountain Res. Devel. 7, 91-110.

28. Statistical Package for Social Sciences 1998. SYSTAT 8.0. SPSS Inc., Chicago.29. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal 1997. Solu-Khumbu District, Topographical Map,

1: 50 000 scale. Map sheets No. 2786 - 03 and 04, and 2886 - 15 and 16. Survey De-partment, Kathmandu, Nepal.

30. Environmental Systems Research Institute 1996. ArcView v. 3.0. ESRI, Redlands, California.

31. Trail segment refers to a contiguous part of the trail, defined by common ecological characteristics, for example, similar soil and vegetation types, trail width, etc. The length of trail segments varies considerably, between 50 meters to several hundred meters.

32. Hammitt, W.E. and Cole, D.N. 1998. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management (2nd ed). John Wiley, New York, 361 pp.

33. Funding for this research was provided by the Swiss Foundation for Alpine Re-search, Zurich. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support. Comments from the two anonymous referees are also greatly appreciated.

34. First submitted 15 Oct. 2002. Revised manuscript recieved 3 March 2003. Accepted for publication 29 Mar. 2003.

Sanjay K. Nepal teaches and conducts research on tourism in alpine areas, ecological impacts of back-country recreation, park and people relations, and community attitudes towards conservation. His ad-dress: Department of Recreation, Parks and Tour-ism Sciences, Texas A & M University, 2261 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-2261, [email protected]

Stella Amor Nepal has a MSc. in rural and regional planning, and an advanced diploma in GIS. She is interested in GIS applications in regional planning and natural resource management. Her address: 856 Pilot Street, Prince George, BC V2M 5J5, [email protected]

visitor impacts on trails in the sagarmatha (mt. everest) national park, nepal

Documents