Environmental Impacts of Mountaineering: A Conceptual Framework (SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science) 3030726665, 9783030726669

Citation preview

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE

Michal Apollo

Environmental Impacts of Mountaineering A Conceptual Framework

SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science

SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science present concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical applications across a wide spectrum of environmental fields, with fast turnaround time to publication. Featuring compact volumes of 50 to 125 pages, the series covers a range of content from professional to academic. Monographs of new material are considered for the SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science series. Typical topics might include: a timely report of state-of-the-art analytical techniques, a bridge between new research results, as published in journal articles and a contextual literature review, a snapshot of a hot or emerging topic, an in-depth case study or technical example, a presentation of core concepts that students must understand in order to make independent contributions, best practices or protocols to be followed, a series of short case studies/debates highlighting a specific angle. SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science allow authors to present their ideas and readers to absorb them with minimal time investment. Both solicited and unsolicited manuscripts are considered for publication.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8868

Michal Apollo

Environmental Impacts of Mountaineering A Conceptual Framework

Michal Apollo Department of Tourism and Regional Studies Pedagogical University of Kraków Kraków, Poland

ISSN 2191-5547 ISSN 2191-5555 (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science ISBN 978-3-030-72666-9 ISBN 978-3-030-72667-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72667-6 © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To Professor Viacheslaw Andreychouk

Foreword

I first met the author in Kathmandu in 2018 at a tourism conference during which I presented a keynote address on mountaineering tourism. The author presented a paper on the environmental impact of mountaineering. The author is indeed a very passionate scholar in mountaineering. In 2019, we climbed Mt Aconcagua (Argentina) and Mt Kinabalu (Malaysia) together. This book examines the impacts of mountaineering activities on the natural environment. These are caused by the mountaineers and residents, travel to the mountain region, and the mountaineering equipment. These impacts can occur directly through mountaineering activities and indirectly through auxiliary activities. Land relief, soil, vegetation, fauna, and landscape are all significantly affected by mountaineering activities in the hiking, trekking, and climbing zones. Depending on the type of activity and the zone it takes place in, mountaineering may increase the degradation of tourist routes and rock faces. The use of pack animals significantly intensifies the impact of mountaineering on land relief in the hiking and trekking zones. Fortunately, there is significantly less degradation on cliff faces compared with mountain slopes. The impact of climbing activities on rock surfaces is barely significant compared with the changes caused by natural processes. Changes in soil cover and vegetation are mutually related, and these changes occur in the hiking and trekking zones and the climbing zone. The management of these changes should minimize degradation resulting from trampling, changes in the structure of vegetation cover, or grazing. It should also limit the introduction of new species, prevent felling and the displacement of native species, and minimize scrubbing on rock wall surfaces. The relationship between human activity and the animal world in mountain regions cannot be examined according to the different forms of tourism activities in the area. However, impacts of concern are the disturbance of animal habitats and attracting other animals. Habitat modification resulting from the restriction of foraging areas or the direct departure of animals may lead to population decline, displacement, or even extinction. Improper disposal or storage of food or rubbish vii

viii

Foreword

and careless feeding of animals may lead to dangerous interaction between humans and animals. Environmental pollution caused by human actions could adversely affect human health, living nature, climate, water, and soil. In inhabited mountain regions, the source of anthropogenic environmental pollution is mainly caused by the residents. In tourist areas of the mountains, residents pollute when providing tourist services. In mountainous areas without local people, pollution is solely caused by tourists. In high mountain environments, elements of air, water, soil, and the landscape may be degraded. Environmental pollution includes littering, faecal contamination, noise, light, tourist infrastructure, and climbing equipment. In the concluding chapter of the book, the author provides a comprehensive and systematic description of the major environmental impacts of mountaineering, and develops a comprehensive conceptual framework to examine the impacts. The framework developed could be a useful start for future studies on the environmental impacts of mountaineering. The model emphasizes the connections and interdependencies between individual elements of the natural environment, and each one of them should be considered carefully to bring the best desired effect in the management of environmental impacts in mountain regions. University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Ghazali Musa MD, PhD

Contents

1

2

3

4

Environmental Impacts of Mountaineering: General Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 The Mountain Environment: Universal Character and Representativeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Types of Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Additional Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Structure of the Book (Model) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

1 1

. . . . .

2 3 4 5 5

Violations to the Geological Surface and Changes in Land Relief by Mountaineering Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Creation and Degradation of Tourist Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Degradation of Cliff Face . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 A Brief Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. 9 . 9 . 14 . 18 . 19

Changes in Soil Cover and Vegetation by Mountaineering Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Changes in Soil Cover and Vegetation in the Hiking and Trekking Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Changes in Soil Cover and Vegetation in the Climbing Zone . . . . . 3.3 A Brief Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

23 29 33 33

Faunistic Changes Causes by Mountaineering Activity . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 The General Approach to Wildlife and Tourism Relation . . . . . . . 4.2 Faunistic Changes in the Hiking and Trekking Zones . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Faunistic Changes in the Climbing Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 A Brief Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

39 39 40 42 42 43

. 23

ix

x

Contents

5

Environmental Pollution Causes by Mountaineering Activity . . . . . . 5.1 Littering of the Alpine Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Human Waste Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Noise and Artificial Light Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Landscape Pollution Caused by Tourism Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . 5.5 A Brief Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

45 45 48 53 55 57 57

6

A Conceptual Framework for Investigating the Environmental Impacts of Mountaineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 A Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

61 61 63 63

About the Author

Michal Apollo is an assistant professor at the Institute of Geography, Department of Tourism and Regional Studies, Pedagogical University of Kraków (Poland), and a Fellow of Yale University’s Global Justice Program, New Haven (USA). He received his M.Sc. and Ph.D. in earth science in the field of geography from the Pedagogical University of Cracow, and a PGCert in global development from the University of Warsaw, Poland. Michal is an enthusiastic researcher (research field: man-environment systems), traveller (he has visited more than 60 countries on 6 continents), diver (open water diver), mountaineer (several new climbing routes, including the first ascent on two Himalaya peaks: in 2006, Masala Peak, and in 2012, Forgotten Peak), ultra-runner (100-miler finisher), photographer (a few photo exhibitions), and science populariser (a few hundred pop-science lectures). Michal’s unique background allows him to integrate knowledge from various perspectives into his research and consultancy work. His areas of expertise are tourism management, consumer behaviours, and environmental and socioeconomic issues. In his main research field, he focuses on human presence and well-being in high-mountain regions. Currently, he is working on a concept for the sustainable use of environmental and human resources, as this is the key to the development, prosperity, and well-being of all stakeholders. Michal is a founder and board member of the Polish Chapter of Academics Stand Against Poverty. For more on Michal Apollo, visit his website www.michalapollo.com

xi

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Fig. 2.1

Fig. 2.2 Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.4 Fig. 2.5 Fig. 2.6

Fig. 2.7

Fig. 3.1

Zones of mountaineering activity and the main factors affecting the natural alpine environment .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . Paths in the Himalayas: (a) parallel paths trodden by grazing animals in the Miyar Valley; (b) old animal path transformed into a transport route in the Miyar Valley; (c) the Annapurna Circuit path used by both pack animals and tourists; (d) well-developed asphalted part of the trail leading to Yamunotri Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zoogenic erosion of a slope: (a) Miyar Valley, the Himalayas; (b) Horcones Valley, the Andes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Direct touristic slope erosion (shearing a ground): (a) Horcones Valley, the Andes; (b) Mount Fuji . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interrelations between factors contributing to trail degradation. (Redrawn from Nepal 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Direct touristic degradation of cliff face (polished rock surface) – Kilimanjaro, Machame route, above Barafu Hut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anthropogenic microforms on the rock face: (a) Smoothness – normal route, Fisher Tower, the Great Rift Valley (I outside the route; II route area); (b) scratches – Forgotten Peak summit, the Lahoul Himalaya; (c) anchor holes – Never ending story route – Forgotten Peak, the Lahoul Himalaya; (d) anthropogenic niche – Kramnica wall, Białka River Gorge. (Background photos by M. Zoladek) .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . Items permanently placed in the rocks: (a) spits and ring; (b) anchors for fixing the via ferrata; Marmolada, the Dolomites. (Small fig. b: photo M. Zoladek) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4

11 12 13 15 15

17

18

A simple model of direct and indirect factors of mountaineering affecting soil cover and vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

xiii

xiv

Fig. 3.2

Fig. 3.3

Fig. 3.4

List of Figures

Changes in soil cover and vegetation at the area of the Shira camp, Kilimanjaro: (a) the satellite view of the camp with approach trails (Google Earth); (b) tourists and porters, with Mount Meru at the background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Examples of non-native plants that have invaded mountain environments. By reaching high density, they modify the functioning of the ecosystem: (a) Monterey pine (Pinus radiataI) invading high-elevation native shrubland, Hawaii; (b) Common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale FH Wigg) in the Andes, Horcones Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Effects of the modification of vegetation occurring on the cliff face caused by climbing activity: (a) the removal and destruction of turf while grass-climbing, north face of Giewont (photo M. Zoladek); (b) damage to turf, west face of Rasac, Cordillera Huayhuash, Andes; (c) a path line scrubbed of lichen within the climbing route, Kramnica, Przełom Białki Giewont (photo M. Zoladek); (d) notch in the tree trunk caused by the moving rope, Snozka Quarry, Mount Wdżar, Pieniny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Fig. 4.1

Changes in animal behaviour: (a) a kea (Nestor notabilis) parrot at a mountain camp over the Tasman Glacier with Mount Cook in the background, Southern Alps; (b) a grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the vicinity of the highest peak in the Canadian Rockies, Mount Robson; (c) Four-striped grass mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio) near camp Shira (3766 m), Kilimanjaro; (d) special rubbish bins to prevent opening by animals, especially bears, Mount Rainier, Cascade Mountains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Fig. 5.1

Intentionally dug holes for waste disposable made by trekking agencies in the Miyar Valley: (a) base camp; (b) above Kanjar village . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . Remains of dead animals: (a) remains of a mule that had been used to transport equipment in the Horcones Valley, Andes; (b) corpse of a cow directly polluting the surface water in the Rasac Valley, Cordillera Huayhuash, Andes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The quantitative values of (a) human faeces (in tons) and (b) urine (in cubic metres) left by mountaineers according to the number of visitors and time spent in the mountain. (Redrawn from Apollo 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objects of the mountaineering infrastructure: (a) permanent: in the upper part of the photo upper station of the cable car Aiguille du Midi (3842 m), below the shelter Cosmiques (3613 m), the Mont Blanc, the Alps; (b) seasonal tents used as accommodation, nutrition and accompanying base at Palza de Mulas (4350 m), Aconcagua, Andes . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .

Fig. 5.2

Fig. 5.3

Fig. 5.4

Fig. 6.1

46

47

51

56

Model of environmental effects of mountaineering on different environmental components . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . 62

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table 2.2

Different forms of impact on the trail and their ecological and social effects . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 14 Anthropogenic processes and microforms created by those processes . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . 16

Table 3.1

Anthropogenic effects of the modification of vegetation occurring on the cliff face due to climbing activities and the factors that cause them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table 5.1

Estimated amount of human faeces (dry mass) and urine remaining on Denali after 1092 climbers in 2015, and after 41,976 climbers from 1913 to 2015 (Apollo 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

xv

Chapter 1

Environmental Impacts of Mountaineering: General Introduction

Abstract This book investigates the consequences of mountaineering (hiking, trekking, climbing) on the natural environment. These consequences are divided into three groups: (1) transformations caused by the mountaineer’s, or other people’s, stay in a mountaineering region; (2) transformations caused by the mountaineer’s travel (movement) through a mountaineering region, with the consideration of the ground type (rock, rock and grass, grass, residual soil, snow, ice), and (3) transformations caused by the use of mountaineering equipment. Each of the three groups are examined individually for their direct interference with the environment, i.e. caused by the main activities of climbing, trekking and hiking (both for elite and mass mountaineering) and their indirect interference caused by auxiliary activity (mainly in the case of mass mountaineering). Auxiliary activity includes guide services, transport of equipment, use of base camp facilities and the delivery of artificial support equipment, and supports the main activity. The consequences of mountaineering on the natural environment are characterized in terms of individual components of the environment (land relief, soil, vegetation, fauna, and landscape) and location/zone of mountaineering activity (hiking, trekking or climbing zone). Because of the connections and interdependence between particular components of the environment (biotic and abiotic), only preservation of each of them can bring the desired effect – a reduction in the negative impact of mountaineering. This book addresses the factors that are of importance when confronting the physical impacts of mountaineering on front country and back country mountain environments. This book serves as a platform for more detailed discussion and future studies. Keywords Hiking · Trekking · Climbing · Impact · Natural environment

1.1

Introduction

This book focuses on the environmental impact of hiking, trekking and mountain climbing, broadly defined as mountaineering (Beedie and Hudson 2003; Apollo 2017). Mountain regions are experiencing an increasing level of tourist activity, and this has been growing globally since the 1960s (Nicolson 1959; Dearden and Sewell © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Apollo, Environmental Impacts of Mountaineering, SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72667-6_1

1

2

1 Environmental Impacts of Mountaineering: General Introduction

1985; Zurick 1992; Cordell and Super 2000; Nepal 2000; Jin-Hyung et al. 2001; Nepal and Chipeniuk 2005; Coalter et al. 2010; Nyaupane 2015; Marek and Wieczorek 2015; Pröbstl-Haider et al. 2016; Musa and Sarker 2019; Apollo et al. 2020). Millions of mountaineers (Apollo 2017) may generate a threat to every component (land relief, water, soil, vegetation, fauna, and landscape) of the delicate and fragile mountain environment (Wall and Wright 1977; Liddle 1997; Hammitt et al. 1998; Newsome et al. 2003; Nepal and Chipeniuk 2005; Cole 2009; Barros et al. 2015; Musa et al. 2015; Apollo et al. 2020; Delekta et al. 2020; Apollo and Andreychouk 2020a, b) in both a direct and indirect way. The geographical system is a very complex system, composed of elements of a different nature (abiotic, biotic, anthropic) that connect with each other in many different ways and create the hierarchical entity of ‘reality’ (Andreychouk 2015). That is why in mountain ecosystems – as in any other ecosystems – interactions between tourists and the environment can be seen on every abiotic, biotic and anthropic component (Nepal and Chipeniuk 2005; Karst and Nepal 2019; Huddart and Stott 2020a, b; Apollo and Andreychouk 2020a). This book focuses on abiotic and biotic components that have been exposed to the alien influence of mountaineering activity. Due to the number of interconnections and interdependencies between particular elements of the natural environment, only protecting each individual element will have the desirable effect of minimizing the negative effects of mountaineering. To protect these elements, not only is a proper understanding of all interactions between mountaineering and the mountain environment necessary, it is also important that managers of the mountain environment give special care to every environmental component, because returning to the state before the stimulus appeared (resilience) might be very costly and in some cases even impossible due to limited resources (especially in Global South Countries). The present book aims to provide a comprehensive and systematic description of the major environmental impacts of mountaineering and to develop a comprehensive conceptual framework for examining those impacts.

1.2

The Mountain Environment: Universal Character and Representativeness

Mountain nature in every mountain system in the world has some common features (Barry 2008; Huddart and Stott 2020c). One of the most important is its dynamic and extraordinary sensitivity. The latter is due to the poor biotic geosystem (landscape) associated with a harsh climate, unfriendly topography, etc. Flora, fauna, and soil, as we know, are the main intermediaries in the exchange of material and energy between the elements of a geosystem (ecosystem, landscape), and integrate those elements into a stable, sustainable, and homeostatic system. A geosystem with a poor biotic component is much more susceptible to change from externally generated impacts. Another reason for the sensitivity of alpine nature is its extreme

1.3 Types of Impacts

3

characteristics. The large altitude differences and the resulting terrain (relief) energy, convection and active exchange of air masses (supply of heat from below, flow of cold air downwards) create a high dynamism of geological, geomorphological, hydrological and climatic processes. This book will refer to studies from different mountain ranges, which is clearly a bold approach. However, this is possible because, as mentioned above, mountain nature is similar in all mountain ranges in the world. There are two other serious reasons why this approach will be used. Firstly, there is a lack of studies that cover all environmental components of one specific mountain range. Secondly, this book intends to go a little further and establish some general or universal accuracy for characterizing particular phenomena in the high mountains.

1.3

Types of Impacts

Mountaineering causes many changes in the environment where it takes place. These changes occur at every stage of mountain activity; that is, when travelling from a well-developed city to the last village accessible by road (first stage), the trek between the last village and base camp (second stage), and the trip between base camp and the ultimate mountaineering objective (third stage). The most important changes happen in the second and third stages (for more, see Apollo 2017). To correctly identity user impact zones in mountaineering areas, it is necessary to understand what mountaineering is. Nowadays, mountaineering has been subdivided, re-invented, and redefined (see, e.g., Apollo 2017; Beedie and Hudson 2003; Pomfret 2006). Mountaineering can be precisely subdivided into hiking, trekking, and climbing activity that takes place in the mountain area: • hiking – an exposed-to-danger (objective and subjective) form of hiking on which movement is made without using hands on well-prepared routes (both logistic and infrastructural). • trekking – an exposed-to-danger (objective and subjective) form of hiking with the occasional use of hands made in alpine terrain devoid of tourist infrastructure. Alpine trekking is an intermediate form of hiking and climbing that has evolved from hiking. Currently, hiking in a mountain is called trekking; however, the initial meaning of trekking was just hiking in the wild, dangerous Himalayas. Nowadays, the development of tourism infrastructure in many regions means trekking has been deprived of its true nature, although it is often incorrectly synonymous of any hiking tourism, regardless of where and how it is done. • climbing – an exposed-to-danger (objective and subjective) passage of demanding terrain made with the use of legs and hands in mountains above the forest line. Mountain climbing is synonymous with alpinism. Although alpinism suggests climbing activity in the Alps, every alpine climbing activity, even that in the Himalayas or Andes, is called alpinism as well.

4

1 Environmental Impacts of Mountaineering: General Introduction

Fig. 1.1 Zones of mountaineering activity and the main factors affecting the natural alpine environment

According to the above subdivision, the mountaineer’s impact on the mountain environment can be viewed in terms of three zones (hiking, trekking, and climbing) and four specific areas (last settlement, base camp, advanced base camp, and the summit area) (Fig. 1.1) (conf. Attarian and Keith 2008). Each of the above-defined zones and areas is under permanent influence of mountaineering activity; therefore, the typology of impacts is related to every component of the natural environment. Figure 1.1 also lists the particular elements of the natural environment that are influenced by mountaineering. These are influenced in the following ways: • Changes in land relief (e.g., trampling and path creation, anthropogenic microforms on rocks, activation or acceleration of mass processes); • Changes in vegetation and soil cover (e.g., trampling, introducing non-native plants, modification of soil cover); • Faunistic changes (e.g., disturbance or attracting of animals by tourists); • Pollution to the environment (e.g., pollution of air, water, soil and landscape, also pollution by noise and light).

1.4

Additional Considerations

Mountaineering nowadays is a mass phenomenon. Sensitive to outside influences, the environment of high-mountain areas, cut off from civilisation until recently, has been abruptly exposed to and clearly affected by it.

References

5

Apollo and Andreychouk (2020a) showed that the balance of environmental profit and loss depends on a number of factors and circumstances. Within populated high-mountain areas, mountaineering always exerts a positive impact on the natural environment, contrary to widespread opinions. Although mountaineering itself – like any other kind of touristic activity – usually results in some kind of losses within the natural environment, one should always consider the balance of benefits and losses. Mountaineering supersedes traditional farming, and farming has an unequivocally negative impact on all components of the natural environment. What best attests to this argument is the shrinking acreage of farmland and the amount of livestock. This significantly expands the land available for wild animals and eliminates interference with the vegetative processes of plants (as opposed to herding, for instance), which leads to the gradual regeneration of vegetation and animal habitats and the growing diversity of flora and fauna. Here, however, the focus only on mountaineering impacts will be taken.

1.5

Structure of the Book (Model)

The chapters describe the main components of the natural environment (geological surface, land relief, soil, vegetation, wildlife and landscape) that are affected by mountaineering activity. The effects of mountaineering on the natural environment are described using the scheme adopted in this work (Fig. 1.1), i.e., zone (and area), stimulus (hiking, trekking or climbing), and environmental component (geological surface, land relief, soil, vegetation, fauna, and landscape). By using this scheme, the conceptual framework for investigating the environmental impact of mountaineering can be created.

References Andreychouk V (2015) Cultural landscape functions. In: Luc M, Somorowska U, Szmańda JB (eds) Landscape analysis and planning. Springer, Cham, pp 3–19 Apollo M (2017) The true accessibility of mountaineering: the case of the high Himalaya. J Outdoor Recreat Tour 17:29–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2016.12.001 Apollo M, Andreychouk V (2020a) Mountaineering and the natural environment in developing countries: an insight to a comprehensive approach. Int J Environ Stud 77(6): 942–953. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2019.1704047 Apollo M, Andreychouk V (2020b) Trampling intensity and vegetation response and recovery according to altitude: an experimental study from the Himalayan Miyar Valley. Resources 9:98. https://doi.org/10.3390/RESOURCES9080098 Apollo M, Andreychouk V, Moolio P et al (2020) Does the altitude of habitat influence residents’ attitudes to guests? A new dimension in the residents’ attitudes to tourism. J Outdoor Recreat Tour 31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2020.100312 Attarian A, Keith J (2008) Climbing management: a guide to climbing issues and the development of a climbing management plan. The Access Fund, Boulder

6

1 Environmental Impacts of Mountaineering: General Introduction

Barros A, Pickering C, Gudes O (2015) Desktop analysis of potential impacts of visitor use: a case study for the highest park in the Southern Hemisphere. J Environ Manag 150:179–195. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.11.004 Barry RG (2008) Mountain weather and climate. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Beedie P, Hudson S (2003) Emergence of mountain-based adventure tourism. Ann Tour Res 30:625–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(03)00043-4 Coalter F, Dimeo P, Taylor J (2010) The benefits of mountaineering and mountaineering related activities: a review of literature. University of Stirling, Stirling Cole DN (2009) Impacts of hiking and camping on soils and vegetation: a review. In: Environmental impacts of ecotourism. CABI, New Yotk, pp 41–60 Cordell HK, Super GR (2000) Trends in Americans’ outdoor recreation. In: Gartner WC, Lime DW (eds) Trends in outdoor recreation, leisure and tourism. CABI, Cambridge, pp 133–144 Dearden P, Sewell WRD (1985) From gloom to glory and beyond: The North American mountain experience. Department of Horticulture, Ashford Delekta A, Fidelus-Orzechowska J, Chrobak A (2020) Expert’s perceptions towards Management of Tourist Traffic in protected areas based on the Tatra Mountains. J Environ Manag Tour 11:443. https://doi.org/10.14505//jemt.v11.2(42).23 Hammitt WE, Cole DN, Monz CA (1998) Wildland recreation: ecology and management. Wiley, New York Huddart D, Stott T (2020a) Outdoor recreation. Environmental impacts and management. Springer Nature, Cham Huddart D, Stott T (2020b) Adventure tourism: environmental impacts and management. Springer Nature, Cham Huddart D, Stott T (2020c) Earth environments. Wiley, New York Jin-Hyung L, Scott D, Floyd MF (2001) Structural inequalities in outdoor recreation participation: a multiple hierarchy stratification perspective. J Leis Res 33:427–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00222216.2001.11949953 Karst HE, Nepal SK (2019) Conservation, development and stakeholder relations in Bhutanese protected area management. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 26:290–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13504509.2019.1580628 Liddle M (1997) Recreation ecology: the ecological impact of outdoor recreation and ecotourism. Chapman and Hall, London Marek A, Wieczorek M (2015) Tourist traffic in the aconcagua massif area. Quaest Geogr 34:65–76. https://doi.org/10.1515/quageo-2015-0022 Musa G, Sarker M (2019) History and future of mountaineering tourism. In: Yeoman I, McMahonBeattie U (eds) The future past of tourism: historical perspectives and future evolutions. Channel View Publications, Bristol Musa G, Higham J, Thompson-Carr A (2015) Mountaineering tourism. Routledge, New York Nepal SK (2000) Tourism in protected areas: the Nepalese Himalaya. Ann Tour Res 27:661–681. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0160-7383(99)00105-x Nepal SK, Chipeniuk R (2005) Mountain tourism: toward a conceptual framework. Tour Geogr 7:313–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616680500164849 Newsome D, Moore SA, Dowling RK (2003) Natural area tourism: ecology. In: Impacts and management. Channel View, Bristol Nicolson MH (1959) Mountain gloom and mountain glory. W. W. Norton, New York Nyaupane GP (2015) Mountaineering on Mt Everest: evolution, economy, ecology and ethics. In: Musa G, Higham J, Thompson-Carr A (eds) Mountaineering tourism. Routledge, New York, pp 265–271 Pomfret G (2006) Mountaineering adventure tourists: a conceptual framework for research. Tour Manag 27:113–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.08.003

References

7

Pröbstl-Haider U, Dabrowska K, Haider W (2016) Risk perception and preferences of mountain tourists in light of glacial retreat and permafrost degradation in the Austrian Alps. J Outdoor Recreat Tour 13:66–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2016.02.002 Wall G, Wright C (1977) The environmental impact of outdoor recreation. University of Waterloo, Waterloo Zurick DN (1992) Adventure travel and sustainable tourism in the peripheral economy of Nepal. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 82:608–628. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1992.tb01720.x

Chapter 2

Violations to the Geological Surface and Changes in Land Relief by Mountaineering Activity

Abstract Geological damage caused by mountaineering is practically impossible, as changes that occur in the geosystem due to mountaineering activity are partly the result of geology. However, the influence of mountaineering on land relief, vegetation, soil and even on animal habitats is undeniable. Depending on the type of activity and the zone it takes place in, mountaineering may increase the degradation (erosion) of tourist routes (paths and trails) and rock faces (climbing routes). This can accelerate or even launch mass processes. Keywords Trail · Rock face · Impact · Trekking · Climbing · Mountaineering

2.1

Creation and Degradation of Tourist Routes

Paths, or their marked versions, i.e. trails, are the most visible element determining the appearance and transformation of mountain terrain (Nepal 2003; Tomczyk and Ewertowski 2013a, b). Usually paths are formed along the most convenient (not necessarily the shortest) approach or descent (Farrell and Marion 2001; Li et al. 2005; Hesselbarth and Davies 2007; Jodłowski 2011). They are created from vegetation trampling, which in consequence leads to the removal of the vegetation cover and the formation of bare (trodden) surfaces. The speed of path creation depends on two factors: the resistance (sensitivity) of the vegetation cover and the number of passes (trampling intensity). The more sensitive the environment, the fewer passes required to create a path. Once created, a path requires fewer passes to survive than it required to be created (Monti and Mackintosh 1979; Cole 1987, 2004; Liddle 1997; Hartley 1999; Apollo and Andreychouk 2020a). According to an experimental trampling and statistical analysis (polynomial trend line) by Apollo and Andreychouk (2020a, b) at an altitude above 4000 m in the Himalayas, a path will be created after 1050–1175 passes (depending on the area) and 1175–1275 passes will be enough for the path to survive until the following year. Bare ground was also noted in the experimental trampling area after 200 passes (Apollo and Andreychouk 2020a). Cole (1987), during his three seasons of experimental trampling on five montane forest communities and a © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Apollo, Environmental Impacts of Mountaineering, SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72667-6_2

9

10

2 Violations to the Geological Surface and Changes in Land Relief by. . .

grassland in western Montana, found that vegetation destruction is negligible after 100 passes. In a laboratory simulation, Quinn et al. (1980) determined that naked soil would not appear before 250 passes. A study by Whinam and Chilcott (2003) in sub-alpine and alpine areas showed that prolonged and sustained damage may occur after 100 passes by walkers and the environmental threshold was breached after 200 passes. Mountains paths existed much earlier (even centuries) before the first tourists arrived. The first of them was trampled by wild animals, and by hunters and poachers who followed those animals. As man ventured deeper into the valleys, paths related to agriculture (crop transport) and farming (pastoralism), and in some regions also mining and defence (military paths) were created (see Nepal 2003; Zurick and Pacheco 2006). To this day, paths created and used by farm animals (Fig. 2.1a) and pack animals transporting agricultural products or tourist equipment dominate in many high-mountain regions (Fig. 2.1b). Some transit trade routes have been adapted for tourists and transformed into pack animal and tourist routes (Fig. 2.1c) or tourist routes (Fig. 2.1d) as tourism developed (see course of trade routes with tourist paths, e.g. in Nepal 2003; Zurick and Pacheco 2006). Existing research clearly indicates that in areas devoid of vegetation cover protecting the ground from destructive external factors, mass processes are intensifying (e.g. Surface runoff, mass movements, deflation and needle ice activity). The blame for the destruction of vegetation cover, especially above the upper forest limit (apart from natural factors, see e.g. Zachar 2011) can be blamed mainly on humans – directly in terms of tourism and indirectly in terms of agriculture (pastoralism, farming). At the same time, it is emphasized that agricultural management is making much more significant changes to the terrain than even broadly understood tourism (Apollo and Andreychouk 2020b). Research by Apollo et al. (2018) showed losses of soil thickness on the slope (denudation) as a result of pastoralism (the grazing of yaks, cows, goats and sheep) in the range of 3.5–18.7 mm (depending on the slope of the terrain, whether 45  ) in just 2 weeks compared to the 2 mm loss of soil thickness in the study control area. Mountaineering activity has caused changes in the employment structure, as inhabitants of mountain areas have transitioned from agricultural work to the service sector. This has resulted in the elimination of pastoralism, which has significantly contributed to reducing slope degradation and slowing down denudation processes (Apollo and Andreychouk 2020b). However, grazing has not been completely eradicated. In mountain areas of the Northern Countries, pastoralism is maintained within tradition (e.g. Tatras, Alps). In others (Andean and Himalayan countries), the grazing of pack or riding animals continues to this day, even in protected areas. Pack and riding animals, just like tourists, by destroying the vegetation cover, contribute to the intensification of mass processes. However, due to their total mass (dead weight plus load), the degradation to which they contribute is, when viewed individually (tourist versus pack animal) greater (Weaver and Dale 1978). Cole and Spildie (1998) indicated a maximum of eight times and a minimum of four times greater degradation of the trail caused by a horse compared to degradation caused by a hiker. Other studies show an even clearer difference (Törn et al. 2009). Animals

2.1 Creation and Degradation of Tourist Routes

11

Fig. 2.1 Paths in the Himalayas: (a) parallel paths trodden by grazing animals in the Miyar Valley; (b) old animal path transformed into a transport route in the Miyar Valley; (c) the Annapurna Circuit path used by both pack animals and tourists; (d) well-developed asphalted part of the trail leading to Yamunotri Temple

destroy the terrain by mechanically moving soil or rock crumbs (Fig. 2.2) and accelerate natural denudation, including the slope cut by path benefit surface runoff, usually generated either by rainfall, snowfall or by the melting of snow, or glaciers (Weaver and Dale 1978; Raffaele 1999; Zachar 2011; Apollo et al. 2018). In addition to the indirect tourist factors of pack and riding animals that affect and modify high-altitude trails, many changes are caused by participants of high-altitude climbing tourism, i.e. tourists practicing hiking, trekking or climbing. This is mainly due to intensity (quantitative accumulation of participants), because much larger individual changes are generated by horse riding or mountain biking (Cole and Spildie 1998; Thurston and Reader 2001; Cater et al. 2008; Törn et al. 2009;

12

2 Violations to the Geological Surface and Changes in Land Relief by. . .

Fig. 2.2 Zoogenic erosion of a slope: (a) Miyar Valley, the Himalayas; (b) Horcones Valley, the Andes

Pickering et al. 2010; Tomczyk and Ewertowski 2013b). The direct impact of skiing on terrain, on the other hand, is insignificant (Bliss and Wein 1972; Webber and Ives 1978; Łajczak 2002). In his research, by calculating the amount of eroded material in areas degraded by hiking and skiing, Łajczak (2002) clearly indicated the first as the main source of erosion (90.3% and 9.7%, respectively). Therefore, based on the above, foot tourists are the most intense source of changes to terrain. Moving along often inadequately prepared (unpaved) tourist routes (designated or self-created) degrades these routes. In addition to the obvious impact on the destruction of vegetation cover, the composition of the soil and its compaction (kneading) also change, mass processes are intensified, and direct denudation of the area occurs (Fig. 2.3). When going down an inclined surface, a tourist usually using the back of the heel puts much more pressure on the ground. The resulting static pressure exerted by a person weighing about 70 kg with a shoe size of 41 (about 26.5 cm) may exceed 2 kg per cm2. For comparison, the same person when walking using the entire foot surface exerts a pressure of 0.35 kg per cm2 on the ground (Tomczyk and Ewertowski 2013a). Unpaved routes are most susceptible to degradation, where the process of erosion (soil, rock rubble, etc.) is accompanied by the exposure of tree roots, subsidence, uncontrolled surface runoff, as well as widening the route by creating parallel paths (Table 2.1) (Hammitt et al. 1998; Tyser and Worley 1993; Marion and Olive 2006). Slopes on which paved tourist routes have been created are less easily subjected to erosion. Nepal (2003) showed significantly less degradation of existing routes in the Annapurna Conservation Area Project (ACAP) compared to those from the Sagarmatha National Park. Only 2.1% of the routes in the ACAP, i.e. 6 km out of 285 km, were considered drastically degraded. The greater stability of the Annapurna pathways is associated with the lower location (above sea level) and their

2.1 Creation and Degradation of Tourist Routes

13

Fig. 2.3 Direct touristic slope erosion (shearing a ground): (a) Horcones Valley, the Andes; (b) Mount Fuji

better preparation (Nepal 2003). Most of the tourist routes running through the villages, and often even between them, have been paved with locally occurring granite. Properly prepared and maintained routes protect the terrain against natural denudation processes (e.g. water, wind, mechanical erosion), which can be extremely destructive. Research by Maciaszek and Zwydak (1992) showed that in a simulated downpour with a height of 20 mm and intensity of 3 mm/min, surface runoff led to a much greater degradation of mountain soils near tourist routes in relation to the control zone (83.8% and 7.2% respectively). The above tests were carried out in forest conditions, so it can be assumed that above the upper forest limit, due to, e.g., no perennial plants, greater exposure to the sun, different soil structure or its complete absence, etc., denudation would be even greater. Figure 2.4 shows the main mutual factors affecting the condition and degradation of tourist routes and the relationships between them. They can be classified into three groups: environmental, use-related (Leung and Marion 1996) and socio-economic (Nepal 2003). The most important are environmental factors that affect the location of the tourist route, geological structure of the terrain, climate and the set of morphogenetic processes that affect the routes (Kotarba and Starkel 1972; Leung and Marion 1996). Therefore, path degradation will be different on paths in the montane zone (a small variation in geological base resistance and small falls) and paths in the sub-alpine zone and above (rock series with different resistance) (Gorczyca 2000; Fidelus 2016). Other factors identified by Marion and Olive (2006) are use-related, corresponding to, e.g., the number of tourists, frequency of visits, nature of activity, and manner of behaviour and conduct (personal culture). Some specific changes such as path widening or the creation of alternative (parallel) lateral pathways are highly dependent on user behaviour (Hammitt et al. 1998). The socioeconomic

2 Violations to the Geological Surface and Changes in Land Relief by. . .

14

Table 2.1 Different forms of impact on the trail and their ecological and social effects Form of impact Soil erosion

Exposed roots

Secondary treads Wet soil

Surface runoff water Widening Visitorcreated trails

Ecological effect Changes () in the thickness of the soil and the nutrients it contains (depending on the location), sedimentation (accumulation) on the bends of the trails and ultimately at the foot of the slope, turbidity of surface water, silting of watercourses, acceleration of surface runoff Destruction of roots, mechanical damage (trampling or logging), reduction in the viability and physical condition of the tree, reduced or no tolerance to changing weather conditions (e.g. rainfall, temperature) Loss of vegetation, soil exposure Susceptibility to soil puddling, acceleration of surface runoff, change or loss of plant species Acceleration of denudation processes

Loss of vegetation, soil exposure (increased erosion) Loss of vegetation, division of wildlife habitats

Social effect Difficulties in moving and reduced level of safety of self (tripping over) and others (mechanical dropping of stones)

Difficulties in movement, reduced level of safety (risk of tripping)

Reduced visual (aesthetic) quality Difficulties in getting around wetlands (swamp), reduced level of safety (risk of slipping), creating alternative paths (widening the trails) Difficulties with movement

Reduced visual (aesthetic) quality Reduced visual (aesthetic) quality, evidence of human interference, difficulties in moving on an artificial road during precipitation and frosts (slipping), expensive maintenance and conservation

Source: Modified from (Marion and Olive 2006)

factors introduced by Nepal (2003) indicate that location (cultural and mental considerations), touristic development of the area (amenities), as well as the size of the indigenous population significantly affect path degradation.

2.2

Degradation of Cliff Face

Land relief changes on the cliff face caused by mountaineering activities are mainly associated with climbing. However, as a result of the technique of artificial climbing (see e.g. Wrangham 1955) as well as interfering with the structure of the rock wall (forging platforms, widening rock ledges, etc.), they are also increasingly associated with hiking and trekking (Fig. 2.5). The effect of alpinism on the rock wall can be

2.2 Degradation of Cliff Face

15

Fig. 2.4 Interrelations between factors contributing to trail degradation. (Redrawn from Nepal 2003)

Fig. 2.5 Direct touristic degradation of cliff face (polished rock surface) – Kilimanjaro, Machame route, above Barafu Hut

16

2 Violations to the Geological Surface and Changes in Land Relief by. . .

Table 2.2 Anthropogenic processes and microforms created by those processes Form Smoothness

Factor Rock surface abrasion (rubbing with hands, shoes, clothing and rope)

Effect A different colour and texture of rock

Scratches

Hitting or rubbing with crampons, ice axe, hammer, pitons, trekking poles

Anchor/piton hole

Hammering in and knocking out temporary invasion belay points (removable anchors). Initially, thin rock pitons (e.g. knife) are hammered in and then thicker (e.g. v or diagonal type) Excessive load of rock using belay equipment (temporary), and for winter climbing

Several-centimetre long scratches with a width of approx. 1 mm and a depth of up to 0.5 mm Widening of size of crack/hole leading to accelerating mass processes (erosion)

Recess/cavity Anthropogenic niche

Fig. 7

Removal/detachment of a single rock fragment Removal/detachment of more than one rock fragment

Source: Elaborated from (Balon 1981; Jodłowski 2011)

aesthetic (visual) or physical (specific) degradation (Cater et al. 2008). Visual degradation smoothly moves into physical degradation, e.g. by interfering with the structure of the rock. Although visual degradation of the rock wall (see Chap. 5) is often noticeable and described (e.g. white spots remaining on the rock wall as a result of the use of chalk), physical degradation is definitely more powerful. Jodłowski (2011) points out that the most important physical degradation is the discharge of weathered loose rock fragments or buckthorn. Although this process is natural, it can be – especially within the climbing route – intensified and accelerated by a climber. Waste material lying on rock ledges (e.g. rock blocks, stones) is most often moved intentionally (e.g. to clear the way) or accidentally by a moving climber or by a moving rope (Balon 1981). Under the influence of high-altitude climbing tourism, a number of microforms are created in the rock wall. Balon (1981) described these as smoothness, scratches, anchor holes, recesses/cavities and anthropogenic niches (Table 2.2; Fig. 2.6). Quantitative and qualitative changes in the rock wall depend mainly on the type of material it is made from and the intensity of use. Changes will occur much faster on rock walls built of hardly resistant limestone or sandstone, and slower on very resistant granite or gneiss. Microforms are usually created using climbing equipment, such as various types of pitons, crampons, and ice axes, as well as climbing activities. These forms are particularly visible on the most crowded routes and depend on the nature (type, form) of the passage (Schuster et al. 2001). It should be noted, however, that even individual interference leaves some traces of human presence. Figure 2.6b shows the scratches from crampons formed at Forgotten Peak during the first summit in history (Apollo 2013). Other marks will be created on

2.2 Degradation of Cliff Face

17

Fig. 2.6 Anthropogenic microforms on the rock face: (a) Smoothness – normal route, Fisher Tower, the Great Rift Valley (I outside the route; II route area); (b) scratches – Forgotten Peak summit, the Lahoul Himalaya; (c) anchor holes – Never ending story route – Forgotten Peak, the Lahoul Himalaya; (d) anthropogenic niche – Kramnica wall, Białka River Gorge. (Background photos by M. Zoladek)

bolted routes, and yet others on routes dominated by traditional climbing (Schuster et al. 2001). As Jodłowski (2011) notes, the biggest changes occur as a result of dry-tooling, i.e. wedging ice axes and crampons into rock crevices. This thesis concerns only the damage caused by various types of mountaineering. Transformations of the rock face caused by high-mountain trekkers moving on them are definitely larger than those made by dry-tooling. Some rock faces are subjected to mechanical interference. On many of them, fixed belay points (spits, rings) are used to protect climbers during climbing or to install fixed ropes (static climbing ropes). These types of fixed elements are also

18

2 Violations to the Geological Surface and Changes in Land Relief by. . .

Fig. 2.7 Items permanently placed in the rocks: (a) spits and ring; (b) anchors for fixing the via ferrata; Marmolada, the Dolomites. (Small fig. b: photo M. Zoladek)

placed in the rock when assembling chains or steel ropes, i.e. via ferratas (from Italian: iron road) (Fig. 2.7). The installation of fixed points requires drilling a hole in the rock and installing (sometimes with glue) a special anchor.

2.3

A Brief Summary

The unfavourable processes affecting the relief in the hiking and trekking zones are significantly intensified by the use of pack animals (see Fig. 2.1a, b, c). They are an indirect form of influence of mountaineering. Their environmental pressure is illustrated by the relationship: 300 tourist crossings correspond to 1 pass of a pack animal (Barros and Pickering 2015). Limiting the use of animals will slow down broadly understood - erosive processes. It will also minimize changes in the field of soil cover, vegetation, the world of wild animals and even environmental pollution (animal faeces, decaying dead individuals). The degradation of the cliff face is a phenomenon of a much smaller scale and intensity than that occurring on mountain slopes. The changes in the relief of rock walls related to the climbing activity are insignificant compared to those related to the course of natural processes within them (Jodłowski 2011). Balon (1981) within the Gąsienicowa Valley in the Tatra Mountains estimated anthropogenic strikes at the level of 500 m3 over several dozen years. It is a fraction of those that happen without human participation. Changes in the relief of rock walls as a result of the climbing movement are insignificant and are usually limited to a small section (lane) along the climbing road (Balon 1981; Schuster et al. 2001; Jones and Hollenhorst

References

19

2002; Jodłowski 2003, 2011). These are usually point changes of a linear nature consistent with the course of the climbing route.

References Apollo M (2013) Miyar Valley. Am Alp J 87:310–311 Apollo M, Andreychouk V (2020a) Trampling intensity and vegetation response and recovery according to altitude: an experimental study from the Himalayan Miyar Valley. Resources 9:98. https://doi.org/10.3390/RESOURCES9080098 Apollo M, Andreychouk V (2020b) Mountaineering and the natural environment in developing countries: an insight to a comprehensive approach. Int J Environ Stud 77(6): 942–953. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2019.1704047 Apollo M, Andreychouk V, Bhattarai SS (2018) Short-term impacts of livestock grazing on vegetation and track formation in a High Mountain environment: a case study from the Himalayan Miyar Valley (India). Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040951 Balon J (1981) Morfologiczna działalność taterników na wybranych drogach skalnych Doliny Gąsienicowej. Jagielonian University Barros A, Pickering CM (2015) Impacts of experimental trampling by hikers and pack animals on a high-altitude alpine sedge meadow in the Andes. Plant Ecolog Divers 8:265–276. https://doi. org/10.1080/17550874.2014.893592 Bliss LC, Wein RW (1972) Plant community responses to disturbances in the western Canadian Arctic. Can J Bot 50:1097–1109. https://doi.org/10.1139/b72-136 Cater C, Buckley R, Hales R et al (2008) High impact activities in parks: best management practice and future research. CRC for Sustainable Tourism, Gold Coast Cole DN (1987) Effects of three seasons of experimental trampling on five montane forest communities and a grassland in Western Montana, USA. Biol Conserv 40:219–244. https:// doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(87)90087-5 Cole DN (2004) Impacts of hiking and camping on soils and vegetation: a review. In: Buckley R (ed) Environmental impacts of ecotourism. CABI, New York, pp 41–60 Cole DN, Spildie DR (1998) Hiker, horse and llama trampling effects on native vegetation in Montana, USA. J Environ Manag 53:61–71. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1998.0192 Farrell TA, Marion JL (2001) Trail impacts and trail impact management related to visitation at torredse l paine national park, chile. Leis Loisir 26:2–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/14927713. 2001.9649928 Fidelus J (2016) Slope transformations within tourist footpaths in the northern and southern parts of the Western Tatra Mountains (Poland, Slovakia). Z Geomorphol 60:139–152. https://doi.org/ 10.1127/zfg_suppl/2016/00265 Gorczyca E (2000) Wpływ ruchu turystycznego na przekształcanie rzeźby wysokogórskiej na przykładzie masywu Czerwonych Wierchów i regli Zakopiańskich (Tatry Zachodnie). Pr Geogr 105:369–390 Hammitt WE, Cole DN, Monz CA (1998) Wildland recreation: ecology and management. Wiley, New York Hartley E (1999) Visitor impacts at Logan Pass, Glacier National Park: a thirty-year vegetation study. Proceedings of the George Wright Society, Asheville, pp 297–305 Hesselbarth W, Davies MA (2007) Trail construction and maintenance notebook 2007 Edition Trail construction and maintenance notebook introduction. Missoula Jodłowski M (2003) Wpływ taternictwa na przemiany i sposób funkcjonowania ścian skalnych w Tatrach. Probl Ekol Kraj 11:55–65 Jodłowski M (2011) Zasady dobrej praktyki w zarządzaniu ruchem wspinaczkowym na obszarach chronionych. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Kraków

20

2 Violations to the Geological Surface and Changes in Land Relief by. . .

Jones CD, Hollenhorst SJ (2002) Toward a resolution of the fixed-anchors in wilderness debate. Int J Wilderness 8:15–20 Kotarba A, Starkel L (1972) Holocene morphogenetic altitudinal zones in the Carpathians. Stud Geomorphol Carpatho-Balcanica 6:21–35 Łajczak A (2002) Slope remodelling in areas exploited by skiers: case study of the northern flysch slope of Pilsko Mountain, Polish Carpathian Mountains. In: Allison RJ (ed) Applied geomorphology. Theory and practise. Wiley, Chichester, pp 91–100 Leung Y-F, Marion JL (1996) Trail degradation as influenced by environmental factors: a state-ofthe-knowledge review. J Soil Water Conserv 51:130–136 Li W, Ge X, Liu C (2005) Hiking trails and tourism impact assessment in protected area: Jiuzhaigou Biosphere Reserve, China. Environ Monit Assess 108:279–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10661-005-4327-0 Liddle M (1997) Recreation ecology: the ecological impact of outdoor recreation and ecotourism. Chapman and Hall, London Maciaszek W, Zwydak M (1992) Degradacja gorskich gleb lesnych w poblizu szlakow turystycznych. Zesz Nauk Akad Rol w Krakowie Leśnictwo 22:3–16 Marion JL, Olive N (2006) Assessing and understanding trail degradation: results from Big South Fork National River and recreational area. US Geological Survey, Blacksburg. https://doi.org/ 10.3133/5200309 Monti PW, Mackintosh EE (1979) Effect of camping on surface soil properties in the Boreal Forest Region of Northwestern Ontario, Canada. Soil Sci Soc Am J 43:1024–1029. https://doi.org/10. 2136/sssaj1979.03615995004300050042x Nepal SK (2003) Tourism and the environment. Perspectives from the Nepal Himalaya. Lalitpur, Himal Books Pickering CM, Hill W, Newsome D, Leung YF (2010) Comparing hiking, mountain biking and horse riding impacts on vegetation and soils in Australia and the United States of America. J Environ Manag 91:551–562 Quinn NW, Morgan RPC, Smith AJ (1980) Simulation of soil erosion induced by human trampling. J Environ Manag 10:155–165 Raffaele E (1999) Mallines: aspectos generales y problemas particulares. In: Malvárez A (ed) Tópicos sobre humedales subtropicales y templados de Sudamérica. UNESCO-MAB, Montevideo, pp 27–33 Schuster RM, Thompson JG, Hammitt WE (2001) Rock climbers’ attitudes toward management of climbing and the use of bolts. Environ Manag 28:403–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s002670010232 Thurston E, Reader RJ (2001) Impacts of experimentally applied mountain biking and hiking on vegetation and soil of a deciduous forest. Environ Manag 27:397–409 Tomczyk AM, Ewertowski M (2013a) Quantifying short-term surface changes on recreational trails: the use of topographic surveys and “digital elevation models of differences” (DODs). Geomorphology 183:58–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.08.005 Tomczyk AM, Ewertowski M (2013b) Planning of recreational trails in protected areas: application of regression tree analysis and geographic information systems. Appl Geogr 40:129–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.02.004 Törn A, Tolvanen A, Norokorpi Y et al (2009) Comparing the impacts of hiking, skiing and horse riding on trail and vegetation in different types of forest. J Environ Manag 90:1427–1434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.08.014 Tyser RW, Worley CA (1993) Alien flora in grasslands adjacent to road and trail corridors in Glacier National Park, Montana, (USA). Biol Conserv 64:179. https://doi.org/10.1016/00063207(93)90688-w Weaver T, Dale D (1978) Trampling effects of hikers, motorcycles and horses in meadows and forests. J Appl Ecol 15:451. https://doi.org/10.2307/2402604 Webber PJ, Ives JD (1978) Damage and recovery of tundra vegetation. Environ Conserv 5:171–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900005889

References

21

Whinam J, Chilcott NM (2003) Impacts after four years of experimental trampling on alpine/subalpine environments in western Tasmania. J Environ Manag 67:339–351. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0301-4797(02)00218-9 Wrangham EA (1955) The technique of artificial climbing. Alp J 60: 37–47 Zachar D (2011) Soil erosion. Elsevier, New York Zurick D, Pacheco J (2006) Illustrated atlas of the Himalaya. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington

Chapter 3

Changes in Soil Cover and Vegetation by Mountaineering Activity

Abstract Changes in soil cover and vegetation caused by mutual, close and indisputable relationships should be considered together. Due to the different nature of the changes, the stimulus (type of mountaineering), the intensity of use and, above all, the zone of impact, changes in soil cover and vegetation cover are described in this section in terms of two impact zones: (1) the hiking and trekking zones and (2) the climbing zone (see Fig. 1.1). Keywords Vegetation · Soil · Impact · Trekking · Climbing · Mountaineering

3.1

Changes in Soil Cover and Vegetation in the Hiking and Trekking Zones

Changes in soil cover and vegetation in the hiking and trekking zones are clearly linked to mountaineering. Those changes result from direct impact (trampling, destruction of vegetation) from mountaineers themselves, and indirect impact from all auxiliary activities (equipment transport, camp infrastructure, etc.) (Fig. 3.1). All changes in the soil and vegetation cover result and at the same time depend on the changes made earlier to land relief (see Chap. 2). As a result of activities destroying and modifying the soil cover, e.g. trampling, the structure and composition of soil cover change. Cole (1993) pointed out that trampling affects five typical soil components: mineral matter, water, air, dead particulate organic material (detritus), and living organisms. Each of them, undergoing transformations due to trampling, affects the others, which in turn promotes the processes of slope degradation (see Chap. 2). Trampling of the upper soil layer (organic layer) significantly changes the biological activity of the soil, hinders maintaining proper water relations (reduces absorbency, increases surface runoff), leads to soil compaction (reduces soil elasticity) and gets rid of air, which finally destroys live organisms (flora and fauna) e.g. plant roots, and consequently the plants themselves (Monti and Mackintosh 1979; Cole 1993; Zachar 2011). As in the case of slope degradation, animals used in tourism (riding and pack animals) © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Apollo, Environmental Impacts of Mountaineering, SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72667-6_3

23

24

3 Changes in Soil Cover and Vegetation by Mountaineering Activity

Fig. 3.1 A simple model of direct and indirect factors of mountaineering affecting soil cover and vegetation

have a much greater impact on soil cover than individual tourists (Marion and Olive 2006), as weight is very important. The scale of the damage done by a hiker (approx. 85 kg) is much smaller than that of a horse (approx. 550 kg) (Weaver and Dale 1978). In addition to the weight difference, the static pressure exerted on the ground by the participant is also of great importance, which, due to the smaller pressure area (with a larger mass), is much higher for an animal’s hoof than a tourist’s shoe. The hoofs acts like a razor to the soil (Apollo et al. 2018). Soil cover is also significantly modified in areas designated for camps. Degradation of soil cover is associated with obvious trampling of the area, which due to the accumulation of mountaineers (direct and indirect impact) in a usually small area is much higher in the camps than on the trails. The time that mountaineers, guides, porters, and pack and riding animals spend on the mountain (which depends on the speed of acclimatization of the mountaineer) and the type of infrastructure being created or used (e.g. tents usually deployed during the main climbing season or permanent buildings) are of great importance. Additionally, pitching a tent involves attaching it to the ground with pegs (or stones). The interference of 20–25 cm pegs in the soil structure significantly modifies it. In the case of camps located on popular routes, one can even talk about the degradation of soil cover to a depth of up to ¼ m. This degradation and the destruction of vegetation is illustrated in Fig. 3.2. These are images of the New Shira camp (3766 m) on the Machame Route leading to the top of Kilimanjaro, which is visited by tens of thousands of high-mountain tourists annually (Apollo 2014). The campsite area shown in the aerial photograph clearly depicts a wide degradation of the terrain (Fig. 3.2a) caused by numerous smaller or larger paths and smaller camp satellites. A similar observation can be made for the first camp (Confluencia – 3390 m) located on the normal road to Aconcagua (6962 m). Apollo (2011) noted there significant changes in the vegetation (and thus the soil cover) at a distance of up to 25 metres on average from the camp’s borders. These changes result from tourists walking around the camp. Participants spend 1–2 days going through the process of acclimatization.

3.1 Changes in Soil Cover and Vegetation in the Hiking and Trekking Zones

25

Fig. 3.2 Changes in soil cover and vegetation at the area of the Shira camp, Kilimanjaro: (a) the satellite view of the camp with approach trails (Google Earth); (b) tourists and porters, with Mount Meru at the background

Even in the first studies touching on the ecological consequences of tourism, the topic of changes in vegetation cover was dominant (Meinecke 1928; Bates 1935). Pressure from tourism may reduce the structure of plants, i.e. the size, stem height, leaf area, number of flowers and thus seed production (Speight 1973). These changes lead to reduced viability, less successful reproduction, and consequently to the death of some less resistant plant species (Dale and Weaver 1974; Cole 1993). Plant destruction has a serious consequence: it can adversely impact natural habitats, leading to the loss of vegetation and eventually ground degradation (Zachar 2011; Tomczyk and Ewertowski 2013a, b; Fidelus 2016; Smith and Kraaij 2020). Native vegetation can be devastated or even eliminated by (1) indirect impact (trampling by animals, grazing, introduction of new species) (Fig. 3.1) and (2) direct (trampling, felling of trees and scrubs). Indirect impact on native vegetation, as with soil cover, is caused by auxiliary activities – mainly animal activity. Barros and Pickering (2015) stated that the pack animal causes the same havoc to plant cover as 300 tourist passes. Some species, including the Eleocharis pseudoalbibracteata are more susceptible to being disturbed by animal activity than tourists (Weaver and Dale 1978). Changes in the vegetation cover are also caused by grazing itself, which, despite the obvious and unquestionable environmental impact, is still not given due attention (Parsons 2002; Cole et al. 2004). The monitoring and control of grazing are of great importance in protecting species and maintaining biodiversity in high-mountain regions (Cole et al. 2004; Crisfield et al. 2012). Unfortunately, the use of pack and riding animals for the needs of high-mountain tourism is becoming more and more common. In many areas where they previously did not occur naturally or were not introduced for breeding purposes (pastoralism), these animals are now appearing.

26

3 Changes in Soil Cover and Vegetation by Mountaineering Activity

Fig. 3.3 Examples of non-native plants that have invaded mountain environments. By reaching high density, they modify the functioning of the ecosystem: (a) Monterey pine (Pinus radiataI) invading high-elevation native shrubland, Hawaii; (b) Common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale FH Wigg) in the Andes, Horcones Valley

The problem of degradation caused by pack animals concerns an increasing number of high-mountain areas. This is best represented in works on the Andes (Alzérreca et al. 2006; Byers 2010; Barros et al. 2013, 2014; Barros and Pickering 2014). Prohibiting grazing on experimental training grounds in the Horcones Valley (Aconcagua) for only one vegetative period led to a 30% increase in biomass and a two-fold increase in plant height relative to areas under pressure from animals (Barros et al. 2014). High-mountain areas have ceased to be a barrier to exotic species (Pauchard et al. 2009). These now appear in the Rocky Mountains (Weaver et al. 2001), Andes (Barros et al. 2007) and Himalayas (Khuroo et al. 2007), as well as other places. The native vegetation is thus supplemented or even supplanted by more resistant invasive plant species (Fig. 3.3). The process of introducing new plants can be accelerated or even initiated by tourists who transport seeds consciously or not, including in the hollows of soles of shoes or pockets of clothes, as well as pack animals used in alpine tourism (Barros and Pickering 2014; Smith and Kraaij 2020). Animals grazing at lower heights and defecating at higher ones during their transport activity distribute seeds contained in faeces (Apollo 2014, 2017a; Barros et al. 2007; Whinam et al. 1994). Research by Barros and Pickering (2014) shows that in this way, as many as 21 alien species (mostly originating in Europe) have been introduced in the Horcones Valley (Aconcagua), among which the most common are common bindweed (Latin Convolvulus arvensis), dandelion (Latin Taraxacum officinale FH Wigg.), hedge mustard (Latin Sisymbrium officinale L. Scop.), salt cedar, and fivestems (Latin Tamarix ramosissima Bunge).

3.1 Changes in Soil Cover and Vegetation in the Hiking and Trekking Zones

27

The direct impact of tourism, despite the lower level of qualitative impact compared to indirect (tourist vs. animal), is of much greater importance due to the quantitative aspect. The largest changes are recorded in one- and two-year plants, but bushes and trees also get destroyed. The logging of trees and shrubs in some regions has significantly reduced in recent years. Unfortunately, in many regions, forest surface losses have reached (up to!) 20% in just one decade (Chaplin 2013). However, this is not always the fault of tourism activities, as some researchers have pointed out (Byers and Banskota 1992; Coburn 1984; Gurung and De Coursey 1994; Hinrichsen et al. 1983; JØnness 1980). For example, Hinrichsen et al. (1983) and Coburn (1984) blame tourism for the reduction in native trees in the Everest area. At the same time, they completely underestimate the main reason for this decline, i.e. the increase in population in mountain areas (see e.g. Apollo 2017b), which directly translates into higher wood consumption (e.g. cooking or heating the house in winter). One-and two-year vegetation is subjected to much more serious changes (as a result of tourist interference), which in intensively used areas is exposed to structural changes or even destruction: linear (paths) and local (camps) (see Chap. 2, Fig. 2.1). Most of the researchers describing vegetation transformations use experimental methods to examine the relationship between the intensity of tourism (trampling) and the response of vegetation (Apollo and Andreychouk 2020; Cole 2004; Pescott and Stewart 2014). This approach is used from Wagar’s (1964) early work to the more recent papers of Cole (1995a, b), Hill and Pickering (2009) and Apollo and Andreychouk (2020). Initially, most of the studies related to the relationship between tourism and vegetation concentrated on mountains (Cole 2004); later, numerous studies analysed vegetation trampling resulting from outdoor recreation on various areas (Pescott and Stewart 2014; Hertlová et al. 2016; Kycko et al. 2018). However, only a few of these studies focused on the high-mountain environment (Dale and Weaver 1974; Cole and Bayfield 1993; Cole and Monz 2002; Klug et al. 2002; Willard et al. 2007; Pickering and Growcock 2009; Chardon et al. 2019) at a maximum height of 4480 m (Apollo and Andreychouk 2020). Pescott and Stewart’s (2014) review (upgraded by the author) reported that the responses of vegetation to trampling are affected by the following: trampling intensity (number of human trampling passes; e.g., Apollo and Andreychouk 2020; Cole 1987, 1995a; Whinam and Chilcott 2003), frequency (trampling passes per time period; Apollo and Andreychouk 2020; Cole and Monz 2002), distribution (whether trampling passes are dispersed or clumped for a particular trampling frequency; Gallet et al. 2004), weight of broken biomass (Whinam and Chilcott 2003), season (Gallet and Rozé 2002), weather (Gallet and Roze 2001), habitat (Liddle 1975a; Chardon et al. 2019), species (Cole 1995b; Whinam and Chilcott 2003; Gallet et al. 2004), Raunkiaer life-form (i.e., perennating bud position) and growth-form (Cole 1995b), soil type (Talbot et al. 2003), surface profile (Whinam and Chilcott 2003) and altitude above sea level (Apollo and Andreychouk 2020). Vegetation trampling caused by recreation and tourism can adversely impact natural habitats, leading to the loss of vegetation and the degradation of plant communities. The methodology used for researching the trampling of vegetation

28

3 Changes in Soil Cover and Vegetation by Mountaineering Activity

has evolved over the years (e.g. the length and width of study areas and the number of passes has changed). To enable comparison of results from different parts of the world, Cole and Bayfield (1993) unified this methodology. Overall, the response to trampling is assessed by determining vegetation cover 2 weeks after trampling and 1 year after trampling. Plant cover 2 weeks after trampling has been found to show a strong relationship between the intensity of trampling and changes in species structure (Cole and Bayfield 1993; Cole 1995a, b; Whinam and Chilcott 2003; Apollo and Andreychouk 2020). After 1 year, the relationship was found to be similar and was also connected to the number of passes and type of vegetation. The scale of damage (loss of vegetation) was much higher after a year than 2 weeks after trampling, which also corresponds with the results of tests previously carried out in this area. According to the literature, the situation is even worse after a longer period after trampling. For example, after 500 passes, there is no evidence of recovery during the monitoring period, and this continues up to 2 years after the cessation of trampling (Whinam and Chilcott 2003). Apollo and Andreychouk (2020) found that the linear function is the most appropriate for showing the relationship between trampling and vegetation response. Hylgaard and Liddle (1981) suggested the use of a logistic function, while Cole (1995a) recommended a second-degree polynomial function. It should be noted, however, that several plant species subjected to experimental trampling by Cole (1995a) also showed a strong linear relationship. As each group of plants subjected to a continuous trampling process will consequently be destroyed, it is best to illustrate this trend using a linear function. In addition, the linear function, due to its simplicity, is easy to understand and explain: in the field, the relationship between the number of passes and the scale of damage can be presented to all stakeholders, such as the local population, tour operators or administration. The analysis and models described here show diverse, but generally high correlation rates between trampling intensity and destruction of vegetation cover. This clearly indicates the high destructive potential of trampling and the effectiveness of the selected analysis tool. Trampling and additional grazing of livestock and pack animals in high-mountain valleys undoubtedly affect the transformation of the flora (Apollo et al. 2018). During the growing season (extremely short in high-mountain conditions; see e.g. Barry 2008), the plant must perform the intended vegetation cycle (the entire cycle in the case of annual plants, or a partial cycle in the case of biennial and perennial plants). Disruption of this cycle significantly limits the population, and in some cases can even lead to the plant’s extinction. This is important because in many mountain regions, the growing season coincides with the main tourist season. Based on Apollo and Andreychouk’s (2020) research, it can be noted that trampled soil (complete destruction of vegetation) will only appear after at least 200 people have passed over it. Similar conclusions can be found in the literature (Quinn et al. 1980; Cole 1987; Whinam and Chilcott 2003). This kind of research has an extremely high value (Cole 1995b; Pickering and Growcock 2009). It makes it possible to identify species with the highest and lowest trampling resistance. This knowledge may enable regional managers to direct tourism so that it does not lead to

3.2 Changes in Soil Cover and Vegetation in the Climbing Zone

29

the complete elimination of the most sensitive species of local flora. In addition, the elimination of more sensitive species may lead to the survival of the more persistent and resistant plants (Cole 1995a). The consequence may be the modification of the entire ecosystem. Additionally, the introduction (accidental or intentional) of alien, invasive, exotic plant species (see Barros and Pickering 2014) can contribute to a number of changes and modifications to alpine flora and thus affect other elements of the environment.

3.2

Changes in Soil Cover and Vegetation in the Climbing Zone

In contrast to the soil cover and vegetation changes in the hiking and trekking zones described above, in the climbing zone (see Fig. 1.1), both direct and indirect changes are usually caused by mountaineers. This is typically because (as mentioned earlier) some climbing zones, especially those located on the most popular peaks on Earth have been adapted to allow trekking or hiking activities. Thus, currently, more damage is caused because more mountaineers have access to the climbing zone, previously accessible only to experienced mountain climbers. (see Chap. 2, Fig. 2.5). Difficult access to the training grounds located on several 100-m high rock walls high in the mountains is the main reason for the small amount of work on this aspect. However, research has been conducted on the impact of climbing on the vegetation of rock walls, often not even in the mountains. As many of the rock walls used in this kind of research were at a low altitude – sometimes just a few 100 m above sea level, e.g. coastal cliffs – it can be assumed that the scale of changes in high mountains will be much higher than any results obtained in research. Generally, in the case of rock walls, the vegetation must adapt to the often scarce water conditions, poor soils (usually skeletal soils) or lack thereof, as well as vertical terrain (Larson et al. 2000). The geological structure, climate (Farris 1998) and the number of topographic features that the wall has (cracks and scratches, rock shelves, crevices) are also significant (Kuntz and Larson 2006). The flora on the rock wall must meet repeated (seasonal, daily) endogenous and exogenous changes affecting their growth and development (Coates and Kirkpatrick 1992). Endogenous regulators (including auxin, cytokinin, gibberellins, abscisic acid, ethylene, brassinosteroids, and jasmonic acid) affect cell division, differentiation and growth (Gray 2004), and enable the plant to respond to changes in environmental conditions (Lewak 2012). The most important exogenous factors affecting plant development processes are light, temperature, CO2 concentration, water conditions and mineral compounds contained in the soil. The vegetation of the rock walls must, therefore, meet the demanding and, above all, variable conditions. For example, the temperature to which the vegetation of the walls is subjected can change in just a few hours by up to several dozen degrees Celsius due to the wall being exposed to sunlight or being in the shade. The extreme living environment means that rock cliff species are

30

3 Changes in Soil Cover and Vegetation by Mountaineering Activity

often completely different, even from those growing on the flat ground from which the wall emerges (Robinson 1959; Jarvis 1974; Graham and Knight 2004; Müller et al. 2006). Very often they are also much more sensitive to any pressure affecting the development and growth processes than species inhabiting the flat surfaces of the same zone (Coates and Kirkpatrick 1992; Parikesit et al. 1995; Larson et al. 2000). Disturbances and transformation of the vegetation of rock walls – due to difficult accessibility – are mainly caused by climbers. These changes are usually linear, consistent with the course of the climbing route. The level of damage, similarly to damage to the vegetation in the hiking and trekking zones, depends mainly on the intensity of passes and the resistance of plants. The style of climbing is also of great importance (cf. traditional climbing and a technique of artificial climbing – dry-tooling) and the technical difficulty of the route (Kuntz and Larson 2006; Bomanowska et al. 2014; Clark and Hessl 2015). The difficulty of the route affects the main factor causing changes in the flora, i.e. the intensity of passes, as less demanding routes are chosen much more often. Climbing style and technique (see Eng 2010) is a completely independent factor. Its influences the orientation of climbing pressure on the environment of the rock walls. Traditional climbing will more strongly affect the removal of mosses and lichen than climbing using artificial facilities (e.g. mixed, dry-tooling). On the other hand, mixed climbing or dry-tooling consisting of wedging rock axes and crampons into the rock will have a greater impact (gouging) on the soil cover and vegetation of crevices, depressions and rock shelves than traditional climbing (see Fig. 3.4a, b). The changes in the vegetation of the rock walls caused by climbing must be considered in terms of mechanical damage and modification of the species structure. Mechanical damage consists mainly of observable changes, or visual damage. Changes in the species structure of rock plants require specialized comparative studies to check species composition and the introduction of new plant species, and these studies need to be specific to the rock wall on which they occur. However, studying rock walls in this way needs to also consider two things. First, plant response to climbing pressure usually varies depending on the location of the cluster on the wall (Nuzzo 1995, 1996). Secondly, wall fragments visited by climbers are usually characterized by low vegetation coverage, and this is the reason for their intensive exploration rather than the effect (Jodłowski 2011). Those who practice traditional (summer) climbing, unlike those who prefer winter climbing (e.g., climbing on frozen grass/turf), prefer walls without vegetation. After analysing the vegetation on rock walls, Jodłowski (2011) distinguished several types of vegetation degradation caused by climbing: removal of mosses and lichen, damage and removal of rock grasslands, damage to vegetation at the foot of the walls, damage to trees and shrubs, and inhibition of vegetation succession (Table 3.1; Fig. 3.4). Moss and lichen removal is the most frequently noted and noticeable element in the transformation of rock wall flora (especially in high-mountain areas). Jodłowski (2011) states that the mechanical removal of mosses and lichen is called scrubbing. It occurs as a result of friction between the wall surface and the climber (his/her body;

3.2 Changes in Soil Cover and Vegetation in the Climbing Zone

31

Fig. 3.4 Effects of the modification of vegetation occurring on the cliff face caused by climbing activity: (a) the removal and destruction of turf while grass-climbing, north face of Giewont (photo M. Zoladek); (b) damage to turf, west face of Rasac, Cordillera Huayhuash, Andes; (c) a path line scrubbed of lichen within the climbing route, Kramnica, Przełom Białki Giewont (photo M. Zoladek); (d) notch in the tree trunk caused by the moving rope, Snozka Quarry, Mount Wdżar, Pieniny

mainly hands and shoes). This process, in many cases, manifests itself in the presence of a 1–2 m wide lane consistent with the course of the climbing route (Nuzzo 1995; Jodłowski 2003, 2010; Bomanowska et al. 2014) (Fig. 3.4c). Adams and Zaniewski’s (2012) research on the impact of climbing movement on sandstone rocks covered with lichen on the Sibley Peninsula (Canada) showed a 50% reduction in the lichen if the site was subjected to climbing pressure. Similar conclusions have been reached by others, including Müller (2006), Müller et al. (2006) and Baur et al. (2007), who conducted research in the Swiss Jura, and Farris (1998) in Minnesota.

32

3 Changes in Soil Cover and Vegetation by Mountaineering Activity

Table 3.1 Anthropogenic effects of the modification of vegetation occurring on the cliff face due to climbing activities and the factors that cause them Effect Removal of mosses and lichen Damage and removal of rock grasslands

Damage to vegetation at the base of the rock wall Damage to trees and shrubs

Stopping plant succession

Factor Scrubbing with hands and shoes on a rocky surface covered by mosses and lichen. Damage is greater during summer climbing Stepping on grasslands during both summer and winter climbing. Larger changes occur as a result of trampling with crampons, driving ice axes and/or ice and turf screws, and tearing fragments of plant clusters along with the soil Belayers, climbers and bystanders, e.g. those watching or waiting for their turn, trample and knead the vegetation from a few to several meters away from the rock wall Trees or shrubs appearing on the trail line are used as steps, catches for pulling up or even as anchoring elements or belaying points Repeated and long-term destructive activity (including all of the above factors) can stop the natural process of replacing one plant community with another

Source: Elaborated from Jodłowski (2011)

The impact of climbing on rock wall vegetation is not limited to small organisms or species (Cater et al. 2008). Climbers also trample larger species of plants during passes. Particularly destructive is trampling during winter climbing or dry-tooling, where the hands of the climber are armed with ice axes and feet with crampons. The blades of crampons and ice axes cut woody vegetation, and pierce and pull out clumps of plants (Jodłowski 2011). Moreover, climbers often treat woody vegetation as a hold or even as a place to lay belaying (Fig. 3.4d). This activity often ends with tearing or even breaking the vegetation (Fig. 3.4a, b). Such interference affects both the number of individual species and their condition and development. Kelly and Larson (1997) proved this in their study regarding the effect of climbing on yew trees, specifically Northern white-cedar (Latin Thuja occidentalis L.), on the rock walls of the Niagara Escarpment. They compared the rock walls of four climbing zones with three zones where climbing activity does not occur. The population of live trees was much smaller in the climbing zones, and many of the trees bore evident traces of anthropogenic damage. Camp and Knight (1998) came to similar conclusions when studying trees, shrubs, cactuses and other plants (except grasses) in the Joshua Tree National Park (USA). Figure 3.4d shows incorrect (though often used) belaying on a tree trunk, which results in undercutting: tug-of-war (e.g. when pulling after climbing) acts on the trunk like a wire saw. Climbing activities that destroy the vegetation of rock walls can have a strangely positive effect. As many authors indicate, stopping plant succession by destroying it is beneficial for the protection of xerothermic grasslands. However, this process must take place under appropriate supervision (Attarian and Keith 2008; Jodłowski 2003, 2010, 2011). The mechanical pressure of climbing on the vegetation of the rock wall is accompanied by the dragging of alien species. They usually adapt quickly to the

References

33

environment and often displace native vegetation. McMillan and Larson (2002) examining rock walls in Minnesota (USA) found that the percentage of exotic species was three times higher on the walls where climbing is practiced compared to unclimbed ones. Similar conclusions are found in other research conducted in the Jura Mountains by Rusterholz et al. (2004), the Niagara Escarpment by Kuntz and Larson (2006), and the Kraków-Częstochowa Upland (Mirowska Rock) by Bomanowska et al. (2014).

3.3

A Brief Summary

Management of the protection of soil cover and vegetation cover, due to the close and indisputable relationships should be considered together (Liddle 1975a, b; Manning 1979; Cole 1993, 2004; Larson et al. 2000; Jodłowski 2011). Paying attention to the phenomena described above will minimize degradation phenomena resulting from trampling (e.g. path formation or widening), changes in the structure of vegetation cover, or grazing (e.g. pack animals). It will also limit the introduction (dragging) of new species (e.g. seeds in the stool of pack animals or the sole of a shoe) and thus the displacement of native species (often exotics quickly displace the indigenous flora) and reduce felling (e.g. trees and shrubs for fuel). It will minimize the phenomenon of scrubbing the entire surface of the rock wall, which will enable the survival of many species of mosses and lichens, including the endemic ones. Each of the above-mentioned factors has a significant impact on the flora of the high mountains. Only comprehensive preventive action can slow down this negative impact.

References Adams MD, Zaniewski K (2012) Effects of recreational rock climbing and environmental variation on a sandstone cliff-face lichen community. Botany 90:253–259. https://doi.org/10.1139/B11109 Alzérreca H, Laura J, Loza F et al (2006) Importance of carrying capacity in sustainable management of key High-Andean Puna Rangelands (Bofedales) in Ulla Ulla, Bolivia. In: Spehn EM, Liberman M, Körner C (eds) Land use change and mountain biodiversity. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 167–185 Apollo M (2011) Wpływ turystyki na zmianę środowiska naturalnego gór Korony Ziemi. Aconcagua Aura 8:23–26 Apollo M (2014) Climbing as a kind of human impact on the high mountain environment – based on the selected peaks of Seven Summits. J Selcuk Univ Nat Appl Sci 2:1061–1071 Apollo M (2017a) The good, the bad and the ugly–three approaches to management of human waste in a high-mountain environment. Int J Environ Stud. 74(1): 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00207233.2016.1227225

34

3 Changes in Soil Cover and Vegetation by Mountaineering Activity

Apollo M (2017b) The population of Himalayan regions – by the numbers: past, present and future. In: Efe R (ed) Contemporary studies in environment and tourism. Cambridge Scholar Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp 145–160 Apollo M, Andreychouk V (2020) Trampling intensity and vegetation response and recovery according to altitude: an experimental study from the Himalayan Miyar Valley. Resources 9:98. https://doi.org/10.3390/RESOURCES9080098 Apollo M, Andreychouk V, Bhattarai SS (2018) Short-term impacts of livestock grazing on vegetation and track formation in a High Mountain environment: a case study from the Himalayan Miyar Valley (India). Sustainability. 10(4), 951. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040951 Attarian A, Keith J (2008) Climbing management: a guide to climbing issues and the development of a climbing management plan. The Access Fund, Boulder Barros A, Pickering CM (2014) Non-native plant invasion in relation to tourism use of aconcagua park, Argentina, the highest protected area in the southern hemisphere. Mt Res Dev 34:13–26. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-13-00054.1 Barros A, Pickering CM (2015) Impacts of experimental trampling by hikers and pack animals on a high-altitude alpine sedge meadow in the Andes. Plant Ecol Divers 8:265–276. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/17550874.2014.893592 Barros A, Berlanga P, Prause P (2007) Buenas Prácticas para la Conservación de Ecosistemas de Montaña. In: Junquera J, Natale E, Prause P, Barros A (eds) Capacitación de guias turisticos del monumento natural Puente Del Inca y Laguna De Los Horcones (Parque Provincial Aconcagua). Puente del Inca, Dirección de Recursos Naturales Renovables de Mendoza, pp 185–218 Barros A, Gonnet J, Pickering C (2013) Impacts of informal trails on vegetation and soils in the highest protected area in the Southern Hemisphere. J Environ Manag 127:50–60 Barros A, Monz C, Pickering C (2014) Is tourism damaging ecosystems in the Andes? Current knowledge and an agenda for future research. Ambio 44:82–98 Barry RG (2008) Mountain weather and climate. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Bates GH (1935) The vegetation of footpaths, sidewalks, cart-tracks and gateways. J Ecol 23:470. https://doi.org/10.2307/2256132 Baur B, Fröberg L, Müller SW (2007) Effect of rock climbing on the calcicolous lichen community of limestone cliffs in the northern Swiss Jura Mountains. Nova Hedwigia 85:429–444. https:// doi.org/10.1127/0029-5035/2007/0085-0429 Bomanowska A, Rewicz A, Kryscinska A (2014) The transformation of the vascular flora of limestone monadnocks by rock climbing. Life Sci J 11:20–28 Byers A (2010) Recuperación de pastos alpinos en el valle de Ishinca, Parque Nacional del Huascarán. Implicaciones para la conservación, las comunidades y el cambio climático. Instituto de Montaña, Lima, Perú Byers AC, Banskota K (1992) Environmental impacts of backcountry tourism on three sides of Everest. In: World heritage: twenty years later. Based on papers presented at the World heritage and other workshops held during the IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Caracas, Venezuela, February 1992, pp 105–122 Camp RJ, Knight RL (1998) Effects of rock climbing on cliff plant communities at Joshua Tree National Park, California. Conserv Biol 12:1302–1306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739. 1998.97363.x Cater C, Buckley R, Hales R et al (2008) High impact activities in parks: best management practice and future research. CRC for Sustainable Tourism, Gold Coast Chaplin J (2013) Investigating the impact of tourism on forest cover in the Annapurna Conservation Area through remote sensing and statistical by. University of Waikato Chardon NI, Rixen C, Wipf S, Doak DF (2019) Human trampling disturbance exerts different ecological effects at contrasting elevational range limits. J Appl Ecol 56:1389–1399. https://doi. org/10.1111/1365-2664.13384 Clark P, Hessl A (2015) The effects of rock climbing on cliff-face vegetation. Appl Veg Sci 18:705–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/avsc.12172

References

35

Coates F, Kirkpatrick JB (1992) Environmental relations and ecological responses of some higher plant species on rock cliffs in northern Tasmania. Aust J Ecol 17:441–449. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1442-9993.1992.tb00827.x Coburn BA (1984) Sagarmatha: managing a Himalayan World Heritage Site. Parks 9:10–13 Cole DN (1987) Effects of three seasons of experimental trampling on five montane forest communities and a grassland in Western Montana, USA. Biol Conserv 40:219–244. https:// doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(87)90087-5 Cole DN (1993) Minimizing conflict between recreation and nature conservation. In: Smith DS (ed) HPC (ed) ecology of greenways: design and function of linear conservation areas. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 105–122 Cole DN (1995a) Experimental trampling of vegetation. II. Predictors of resistance and resilience. J Appl Ecol 32:215–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(96)83222-8 Cole DN (1995b) Experimental trampling of vegetation. I. Relationship between trampling intensity and vegetation response. J Appl Ecol 32:203. https://doi.org/10.2307/2404429 Cole DN (2004) Impacts of hiking and camping on soils and vegetation: a review. In: Buckley R (ed) Environmental impacts of ecotourism. CABI, New York, pp 41–60 Cole DN, Bayfield NG (1993) Recreational trampling of vegetation: standard experimental procedures. Biol Conserv 63:209–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(93)90714-C Cole DN, Monz CA (2002) Trampling disturbance of high-elevation vegetation, Wind River Mountains, Wyoming, U.S.A. Arct Antarct Alp Res 34:365–376. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 1552194 Cole DN, Van Wagtendonk JW, McClaran MP et al (2004) Response of mountain meadows to grazing by recreational pack stock. J Range Manag 57:153–160. https://doi.org/10.2111/15515028(2004)057[0153:rommtg]2.0.co;2 Crisfield V, MacDonald S, Gould A (2012) Effects of recreational traffic on alpine plant communities in the northern Canadian Rockies. Arctic Antarct Alp Res 44:277–287. https://doi.org/10. 1657/1938-4246-44.3.277 Dale D, Weaver T (1974) Trampling effects on vegetation of the trail corridors of North Rocky Mountain Forests. J Appl Ecol 11:767. https://doi.org/10.2307/2402226 Eng R (2010) Mountaineering: the freedom of the hills. Mountaineers Books, Seattle Farris MA (1998) The effects of rock climbing on the vegetation of three Minnesota cliff systems. Can J Bot 76:1981–1990. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjb-76-12-1981 Fidelus J (2016) Slope transformations within tourist footpaths in the northern and southern parts of the Western Tatra Mountains (Poland, Slovakia). Z Geomorphol 60:139–152. https://doi.org/ 10.1127/zfg_suppl/2016/00265 Gallet S, Roze F (2001) Resistance of Atlantic heathlands to trampling in Brittany (France): influence of vegetation type, season and weather conditions. Biol Conserv 97:189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00111-7 Gallet S, Rozé F (2002) Long-term effects of trampling on Atlantic heathland in Brittany ( France ): resilience and tolerance in relation to season and meteorological conditions. Biol Conserv 103:267–275 Gallet S, Lemauviel S, Roze F (2004) Responses of three heathland shrubs to single or repeated experimental trampling. Environ Manag 33:821–829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-0040017-x Graham L, Knight RL (2004) Multi-scale comparisons of cliff vegetation in Colorado. Plant Ecol 170:223–234. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:VEGE.0000021675.32902.7f Gray WM (2004) Hormonal regulation of plant growth and development. PLoS Biol 2:1270–1272 Gurung CP, De Coursey M (1994) The Annapurna conservation area project: a pioneering example of sustainable tourism? In: Cater E, Lowman G (eds) Ecotourism: a sustainable option? John Wiley, London, pp 177–194 Hertlová B, Popelka O, Zeidler M, Banaš M (2016) Alpine plant communities responses to simulated mechanical disturbances of tourism, case study from the High Sudetes Mts. J Landsc Manag 7:16–21

36

3 Changes in Soil Cover and Vegetation by Mountaineering Activity

Hill R, Pickering C (2009) Differences in resistance of three subtropical vegetation types to experimental trampling. J Environ Manag 90:1305–1312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman. 2008.07.015 Hinrichsen D, Lucas PHC, Upreti BN (1983) Saving Sagarmatha. Ambio 12:203–205 Hylgaard T, Liddle MJ (1981) The effect of human trampling on a sand dune ecosystem dominated by Empetrum nigrum. J Appl Ecol 18:559. https://doi.org/10.2307/2402417 Jarvis SC (1974) Soil factors affecting the distribution of plant communities on the cliffs of Craig Breidden, Montgomeryshire. J Ecol 62:721. https://doi.org/10.2307/2258952 Jodłowski M (2003) Wpływ taternictwa na przemiany i sposób funkcjonowania ścian skalnych w Tatrach. Probl Ekol Kraj 11:55–65 Jodłowski M (2010) Postrzeganie sposobów ochrony przyrody i regulacji dotyczących taternictwa powierzchniowego w Tatrzańskim Parku Narodowym przez wspinaczy. In: Przyroda Tatrzańskiego Parku Narodowego a człowiek. Nauka a zarządzanie obszarem Tatr i ich otoczeniem. PTPNoZ, TPN, Zakopane Jodłowski M (2011) Zasady dobrej praktyki w zarządzaniu ruchem wspinaczkowym na obszarach chronionych. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Kraków JØnness IM (1980) Ecological conflicts and economic dependency on tourist trekking in Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park, Nepal. An alternative approach to park planning. Nor Geogr Tidsskr – Nor J Geogr 34:119–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291958008552058 Kelly PE, Larson DW (1997) Effects of rock climbing on populations of presettlement eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis) on cliffs of the Niagara escarpment, Canada. Conserv Biol 11:1125–1132. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.96248.x Khuroo AA, Rashid I, Reshi Z et al (2007) The alien flora of Kashmir Himalaya. Biol Invasions 9:269–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-006-9032-6 Klug B, Scharfetter-Lehrl G, Scharfetter E (2002) Effects of trampling on vegetation above the timberline in the Eastern Alps, Austria. Arctic Antarct Alp Res 34:377–388. https://doi.org/10. 1080/15230430.2002.12003508 Kuntz KL, Larson DW (2006) Influences of microhabitat constraints and rock-climbing disturbance on cliff-face vegetation communities. Conserv Biol 20:821–832. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15231739.2006.00367.x Kycko M, Zagajewski B, Lavender S et al (2018) The impact of tourist traffic on the condition and cell structures of alpine swards. Remote Sens 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10020220 Larson DW, Matthes U, Kelly PE (2000) Cliff ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Lewak S (2012) Regulacja procesów fizjologicznych przez czynniki endogenne. In: Kopcewicz J, Lewak S (eds) Fizjologia roślin. PWN, Warszawa, pp 137–166 Liddle MJ (1975a) A selective review of the ecological effects of human trampling on natural ecosystems. Biol Conserv 7:17–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(75)90028-2 Liddle MJ (1975b) A theoretical relationship between the primary productivity of vegetation and its ability to tolerate trampling. Biol Conserv 8:251–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(75) 90002-6 Manning RE (1979) Impacts of recreation on riparian soils and vegetation. J Am Water Resour Assoc 15:30–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1979.tb00287.x Marion JL, Olive N (2006) Assessing and understanding trail degradation: results from Big South Fork National River and Recreational Area. US Geological Survey McMillan MA, Larson DW (2002) Effects of rock climbing on the vegetation of the Niagara escarpment in southern Ontario, Canada. Conserv Biol 16:389–398 Meinecke E (1928) A report on the effect of excessive tourist travel on the California redwood parks. California State Printing Office, Sacramento Monti PW, Mackintosh EE (1979) Effect of camping on surface soil properties in the boreal Forest region of Northwestern Ontario, Canada. Soil Sci Soc Am J 43:1024–1029. https://doi.org/10. 2136/sssaj1979.03615995004300050042x Müller S (2006) Human impact on the vegetation of limestone cliffs in the northern Swiss Jura mountains. University of Basel, Basel

References

37

Müller SW, Rusterholz HP, Baur B (2006) Effects of forestry practices on relict plant species on limestone cliffs in the northern Swiss Jura mountains. For Ecol Manag 237:227–236. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.09.048 Nuzzo VA (1995) Effects of rock climbing on cliff goldenrod (Solidago sciaphila Steele) in Northwest Illinois. Am Midl Nat 133:229–241. https://doi.org/10.2307/2426387 Nuzzo VA (1996) Structure of cliff vegetation on exposed cliffs and the effect of rock climbing. Can J Bot 74:607–617. https://doi.org/10.1139/b96-077 Parikesit P, Larson DW, Matthes-Sears U (1995) Impacts of trails on cliff-edge forest structure. Can J Bot 73:943–953. https://doi.org/10.1139/b95-103 Parsons DJ (2002) Understanding and managing impacts of recreation use in mountain environments. Arctic Antarct Alp Res 34:363–364 Pauchard A, Kueffer C, Dietz H et al (2009) Ain’t no mountain high enough: plant invasions reaching new elevations. Front Ecol Environ 7:479–486 Pescott OL, Stewart GB (2014) Assessing the impact of human trampling on vegetation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental evidence. PeerJ 2014. https://doi.org/10. 7717/peerj.360 Pickering CM, Growcock AJ (2009) Impacts of experimental trampling on tall alpine herbfields and subalpine grasslands in the Australian Alps. J Environ Manag 91:532–540. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jenvman.2009.09.022 Quinn NW, Morgan RPC, Smith AJ (1980) Simulation of soil erosion induced by human trampling. J Environ Manag 10:155–165 Robinson H (1959) Lichen succession in abandoned fields in the Piedmont of North Carolina. Bryologist 62:254–259. https://doi.org/10.1639/0007-2745(1959)62[254:lsiafi]2.0.co;2 Rusterholz HP, Müller SW, Baur B (2004) Effects of rock climbing on plant communities on exposed limestone cliffs in the Swiss Jura mountains. Appl Veg Sci 7:35–40. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1654-109X.2004.tb00593.x Smith K, Kraaij T (2020) Research note: Trail runners as agents of alien plant introduction into protected areas. J Outdoor Recreat Tour 31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2020.100315 Speight M (1973) Outdoor recreation and its ecological effects: a bibliography and review. University College, London Talbot LM, Turton SM, Graham AW (2003) Trampling resistance of tropical rainforest soils and vegetation in the wet tropics of North East Australia. J Environ Manag 69:63–69. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0301-4797(03)00119-1 Tomczyk AM, Ewertowski M (2013a) Quantifying short-term surface changes on recreational trails: the use of topographic surveys and “digital elevation models of differences” (DODs). Geomorphology 183:58–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.08.005 Tomczyk AM, Ewertowski M (2013b) Planning of recreational trails in protected areas: application of regression tree analysis and geographic information systems. Appl Geogr 40:129–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.02.004 Wagar JA (1964) The carrying capacity of wild lands for recreation. Society of American Foresters, Washington Weaver T, Dale D (1978) Trampling effects of hikers, motorcycles and horses in meadows and forests. J Appl Ecol 15:451. https://doi.org/10.2307/2402604 Weaver T, Gustafson D, Lichthardt J (2001) Exotic plants in early and late seral vegetation of fifteen northern Rocky Mountain environments (HTs). West North Am Nat 61:417–427 Whinam J, Chilcott NM (2003) Impacts after four years of experimental trampling on alpine/subalpine environments in western Tasmania. J Environ Manag 67:339–351. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0301-4797(02)00218-9 Whinam J, Cannell EJ, Kirkpatrick JB, Comfort M (1994) Studies on the potential impact of recreational horseriding on some alpine environments of the central plateau, Tasmania. J Environ Manag 40:103–117. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1994.1007 Willard BE, Cooper DJ, Forbes BC (2007) Natural regeneration of alpine tundra vegetation after human trampling: a 42-year data set from Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, U.S.A. Arct Antarct Alp Res 39:177–183 Zachar D (2011) Soil erosion. Elsevier, New York

Chapter 4

Faunistic Changes Causes by Mountaineering Activity

Abstract Most of the research on the relationship between human activity and the animal world in mountainous areas covers all forms of tourism that were practiced in the area. This is due to the inability (in many cases) to identify the field of mountain tourism (e.g. hiking, climbing, skiing) responsible for the transformation of animal behaviour in a given area. For this reason, the impact of various types of tourism in a mountain area is usually considered collectively. However, as has been done in this study, these influences can be partly considered in terms of the animals’ living area, i.e. the hiking, trekking and climbing zones (see Chap. 1). Keywords Wild animals · Impact · Trekking · Climbing · Mountaineering

4.1

The General Approach to Wildlife and Tourism Relation

Human interference in high-mountain ecosystems has far more far-reaching effects on fauna than in the plant world described in Chap. 2. Animals, even when moving from one place to another, remember past experiences. They are able to teach their offspring, so responses to imbalances can be passed on from generation to generation (Cole 1993). In addition, due to movement (migrations), the true impact of humans on animals is not as obvious as it is for plants (Cole 1993; Knight and Cole 1995; Buckley 2004; Jodłowski 2011). In general, every human tourist activity can affect wild animals in three main ways (modified from Cole (1993): • Natural habitats of animals can be transformed (consciously or unconsciously). For example, creating trails or marking climbing routes can have a significant impact on the population size and behaviour of mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians and invertebrates. • The consequence of polluting the environment with rubbish and/or food will modify animal behaviour and sometimes even cause their suffering and/or death.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Apollo, Environmental Impacts of Mountaineering, SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72667-6_4

39

40

4 Faunistic Changes Causes by Mountaineering Activity

For example, bears accustomed to being fed by environmentally unaware tourists must consequently be shot to avoid dangerous encounters. • Too close and intrusive contact between tourists and animals in their natural environment can cause irreversible changes in their behaviour. For example, moving the migration route (corridor) to a quieter place may eliminate specific species from specific areas.

4.2

Faunistic Changes in the Hiking and Trekking Zones

The increase in tourist activity (e.g. hiking, skiing, horse riding) in areas inhabited by wild animals significantly limits their foraging areas, disrupts the population and changes their behaviour (Knight and Cole 1995). Many animals also bypass old feeding areas that are currently being used for tourism (Gander and Ingold 1997). Others, such as grizzly bears, if they detect a mountain tourist in their area, change their behaviour, including spending 53% less time feeding, 52% more time navigating the foraging area (marking their presence) and up to 23% more time behaving aggressively compared to individuals who have not encountered humans (White et al. 1999). This modification of behaviour indicates the high stress in which animals under tourist pressure live. This is confirmed by cardiological research on mountain sheep. MacArthur et al. (1982) noted a rapid increase in heart rate among sheep that suddenly noticed people emerging from behind a ridge. If the tourists were accompanied by dogs, the pulse jump was even higher. The escape distance also increased. Reactions of mountain sheep to tourists were much more serious than to traffic or a flying helicopter or aeroplane. Similar reactions were demonstrated by the northern chamois (Latin Rupicapra rupicapra) (Hamr 1988; Zwijacz-Kozica et al. 2013) and the Pyrenees ibex (Latin Capra pyrenaica) (Pérez et al. 2002). Many animals return to areas abandoned during a previous escape after some time. However, stressful situations have a significant impact on the energy balance and survival of individuals or even the entire population (Dorrance et al. 1975). Particularly dangerous are disturbances in the life processes of animals during the winter, when energy demand is higher and food resources are limited (Dorrance et al. 1975; Cole 1993; Rehnus et al. 2014; Formenti et al. 2015). In opposition to animals stressed by the presence of humans are those who have become accustomed to communing with them. By changing their behaviour, they give up natural ways of foraging. They feed on abandoned human food or rubbish, and often also feed on people who are unaware of their erroneous deeds. This problem applies to virtually all regions of Earth. In the New Zealand Alps, the mountain parrot kea (Latin Nestor notabilis), notoriously fed by tourists, often visits rubbish dumps (Gajdon et al. 2006). In the Kilimanjaro massif, you can find the fourstriped grass mouse (Latin Rhabdomys pumilio), which can transmit the plague (Stewart 2012), occurring in the natural environment up to a height of 2300 m

4.2 Faunistic Changes in the Hiking and Trekking Zones

41

(Coetzee and van der Straeten 2008). Its largest population is around the Horombo camp (3760 m) (Stewart 2012). In the mountains of Alaska or the Rockies, grizzly bears (Latin Ursus arctos horribilis) have become so familiar with people that they break into tents, cars or baskets in which food has been left (Fig. 4.1).

Fig. 4.1 Changes in animal behaviour: (a) a kea (Nestor notabilis) parrot at a mountain camp over the Tasman Glacier with Mount Cook in the background, Southern Alps; (b) a grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the vicinity of the highest peak in the Canadian Rockies, Mount Robson; (c) Four-striped grass mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio) near camp Shira (3766 m), Kilimanjaro; (d) special rubbish bins to prevent opening by animals, especially bears, Mount Rainier, Cascade Mountains

42

4.3

4 Faunistic Changes Causes by Mountaineering Activity

Faunistic Changes in the Climbing Zone

Steep slopes and rock walls, so attractive to climbers, are above all a place of foraging, breeding and shelter for many animals (Knight and Gutzwiller 1995). The specificity of rock walls means that the influence of climbing usually concerns avifauna (Knight and Skagen 1988; Margalida et al. 2003; Rossi and Knight 2006). However, climbers also influence, among others, the conservation of the Pyrenean ibex (Latin Capra pyrenaica) (Pérez et al. 2002) and the snail population (McMillan et al. 2003). Any change in behaviour or number of populations can have far-reaching consequences. Pérez et al. (2002) described the resignation of ibex from foraging in areas favourable to them because climbers appeared there. McMillan et al. (2003) examined the snail population and found smaller numbers and smaller species diversity along climbing routes compared to areas not visited by climbers. The decrease in the population of snails, which occupy an important place in the food chain, can cause changes in the network of food dependencies, and thus modify the entire ecosystem (McMillan et al. 2003). Cymerys (1988) and Camp and Knight (1998), in their works on the impact of climbing on avifauna, clearly indicated a change in bird behaviour and population reduction. Attarian and Keith (2008) presented the potential consequences of the negative impact of climbing on avifauna. Scaring the bird out of the nest during the breeding season may lead to damage to the nest and thus result in exposure to danger for the eggs or landing (e.g. predators, inclement weather). In addition, the constant presence of climbers in the nesting area may disturb the feeding of offspring, for example, when adult birds stay away from the nest for too long.

4.4

A Brief Summary

Every human interference with the world of wild animals can have far-reaching consequences, both for animals and humans. Based on the behavioural changes in fauna described above, the most important problematic aspects that must be taken into account when designing the principles of climbing management in order to minimize the negative impacts of mountaineering activity on the wild animals. These aspects are: • Disturbance of the animals. Habitat modification as a result of the restriction of foraging areas or direct departure of animals (especially by humans accompanied by dogs) can lead to population decline, displacement or even extinction (if endemic species are involved). • Attracting of the animals: Improper disposal or storage of food or rubbish, as well as careless feeding of animals, may lead to a too courageous approach to people of dangerous species (e.g. grizzly bears). It may also result in an increase in the population which, by adapting to human food, will displace other less adaptive species.

References

43

In both cases (disturbance and attracting) the most important thing is to educate mountain tourists. High-mountain region managers should distribute special leaflets informing about the consequences of not complying with the guidelines. The participant should be aware that by feeding (directly or indirectly) a wild animal condemns itself or eats it to death. For example, a bear tempted by improperly stored food will approach people dangerously and will be shot away if it threatens them.

References Attarian A, Keith J (2008) Climbing management: a guide to climbing issues and the development of a climbing management plan. The Access Fund, Boulder Buckley R (2004) Environmental impacts of ecotourism. CABI, Cambridge Camp RJ, Knight RL (1998) Effects of rock climbing on cliff plant communities at Joshua Tree National Park, California. Conserv Biol 12:1302–1306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739. 1998.97363.x Coetzee N, van der Straeten E (2008) Rhabdomys pumilio. The IUCN red list of threatened species 2008 Cole DN (1993) Minimizing conflict between recreation and nature conservation. In: Smith DSHPC (ed) Ecology of greenways: design and function of linear conservation areas. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 105–122 Cymerys M (1988) Raptors of the pinnacles National Monument: past and present nesting and possible impacts of rock climbers. Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, Davis Dorrance MJ, Savage PJ, Huff DE (1975) Effects of snowmobiles on White-tailed deer. J Wildl Manag 39:563. https://doi.org/10.2307/3800399 Formenti N, Viganó R, Bionda R et al (2015) Increased hormonal stress reactions induced in an alpine black grouse (Tetrao tetrix) population by winter sports. J Ornithol 156:317–321. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10336-014-1103-3 Gajdon GK, Fijn N, Huber L (2006) Limited spread of innovation in a wild parrot, the kea (Nestor notabilis). Anim Cogn 9:173–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-006-0018-7 Gander H, Ingold P (1997) Reactions of male alpine chamois Rupicapra r. rupicapra to hikers, joggers and mountainbikers. Biol Conserv 79:107–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207 (96)00102-4 Hamr J (1988) Disturbance behaviour of chamois in an Alpine tourist area of Austria. Mt Res Dev 8:65–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/3673407 Jodłowski M (2011) Zasady dobrej praktyki w zarządzaniu ruchem wspinaczkowym na obszarach chronionych. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Kraków Knight RL, Cole DN (1995) Wildlife responses to climate change. In: Knight RL, Gutzwiller K (eds) Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, pp 51–69 Knight RL, Gutzwiller KJ (1995) Wildlife and recreationists. Island Press, Washington Knight RL, Skagen SK (1988) Agonistic asymmetries and the foraging ecology of bald eagles. Ecology 69:1188–1194. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941273 MacArthur RA, Geist V, Johnston RH (1982) Cardiac and Behavioral responses of mountain sheep to human disturbance. J Wildl Manag 46:351. https://doi.org/10.2307/3808646 Margalida A, Garcia D, Bertran J, Heredia R (2003) Breeding biology and success of the bearded vulture Gypaetus barbatus in the eastern Pyrenees. Ibis (Lond 1859) 145:244–252. https://doi. org/10.1046/j.1474-919X.2003.00148.x

44

4 Faunistic Changes Causes by Mountaineering Activity

McMillan MA, Nekola JC, Larson DW (2003) Effects of rock climbing on the land snail community of the Niagara Escarpment in southern Ontario, Canada. Conserv Biol 17:616–621. https:// doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01362.x Pérez JM, Granados JE, Soriguer RC et al (2002) Distribution, status and conservation problems of the Spanish Ibex, Capra pyrenaica (Mammalia: Artiodactyla). Mammal Rev 32:26–39. https:// doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2907.2002.00097.x Rehnus M, Wehrle M, Palme R (2014) Mountain hares Lepus timidus and tourism: stress events and reactions. J Appl Ecol 51:6–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12174 Rossi LG, Knight RL (2006) Cliff attributes and bird communities in Jefferson County, Colorado. Nat Areas J 26:331–338. https://doi.org/10.3375/0885-8608(2006)26[331:CAABCI]2.0.CO;2 Stewart A (2012) Kilimanjaro: a complete Trekker’s Guide: preparations, practicalities and trekking routes to the “Roof of Africa.”. Cicerone Press Ltd, Milnthorpe White D, Kendall KC, Picton HD (1999) Potential energetic effects of mountain climbers on foraging grizzly bears. Wildl Soc Bull 27:146–151 Zwijacz-Kozica T, Selva N, Barja I et al (2013) Concentration of fecal cortisol metabolites in chamois in relation to tourist pressure in Tatra National Park (South Poland). Acta Theriol (Warsz) 58:215–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-012-0108-7

Chapter 5

Environmental Pollution Causes by Mountaineering Activity

Abstract Environmental pollution is the unfavourable alteration of our surroundings, wholly or largely as a by-product of human actions that can adversely affect human health, living nature, climate, water and soil. This pollution can have natural and anthropogenic sources. In the inhabited high-mountain environment, the source of anthropogenic environmental pollution is mainly caused by residents. Indirectly, however, in areas popular with tourists, residents pollute when providing tourist services (e.g. disposal of tourist waste). In mountainous areas without local people, pollution is caused only by tourists. During tourist activities, all elements of the highmountain natural environment (air, water, soil and landscape, including visual and acoustic landscape) may be degraded. The main factors causing this are littering, human faecal pollution, and noise or light pollution. Tourist infrastructure is also not without significance, which together with the climbing equipment can have a negative impact on the environment. Keywords Pollution · Littering · Human waste · Noise · Trekking · Climbing · Mountaineering

5.1

Littering of the Alpine Environment

Littering usually results from improper (accidental or intentional) handling of waste. The impeccability of the environment (mainly visual) has a decisive impact on the tourist’s aesthetic feelings (Noe et al. 1997) as well as the choice of tourist destination itself (Godde et al. 2009). In addition to affecting visual quality, littering of the environment affects many elements of nature, including water, soil, and air. There are several reasons behind mindless littering by people. Attarian and Keith (2008) mention the following: (1) the way people behave, which suggests that littering is okay (e.g. throwing a cigarette butt out of a car window is an acceptable practice for many people); (2) people do not acknowledge that they are partly responsible for the area they usually litter (e.g. parks); (3) people believe that someone else will clean up their litter; and (4) people are more likely to litter when the area they are visiting is already littered. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Apollo, Environmental Impacts of Mountaineering, SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72667-6_5

45

46

5 Environmental Pollution Causes by Mountaineering Activity

Fig. 5.1 Intentionally dug holes for waste disposable made by trekking agencies in the Miyar Valley: (a) base camp; (b) above Kanjar village

Kinnaman and Fullerton (1995) drew attention to five features that must exist in society for waste management to function properly and non-invasively: (1) communities must feel and experience a clean environment; (2) landfills must be open to the public; (3) social inequalities should be low; (4) the price of secondary raw materials should be marketable; and (5) recycling programs should be present in the economy. In order to properly describe the problem of littering in the alpine environment, it is necessary to acknowledge all of the above. Nothing justifies the thoughtless dumping of rubbish and littering the environment by tourists who, without exception, should be guided by the principles of Pack It In, Pack It Out or Leave No Trace. However, when assessing residents, one should be aware that high-mountain areas (especially the Global South), usually being home to the poorest people in the world, are often marginalized politically and economically by national and local administrations (Messerli and Ives 1997). By participating in tourism services, residents of high-mountain areas (or local guides) litter the reception area. The social system does not provide them with any of the five above features required for non-invasive waste management. Therefore, illegal and uncontrolled landfills usually affect developing countries and are a common method of waste disposal (Stebbins 1993). Although the subject of this book is the impact of mountaineering on the alpine environment, the factor of the local population, their habits and approach to the topic of rubbish cannot be omitted. Often, rubbish carried by tourists, e.g. to the nearest settlement, is taken from them by the inhabitants, who then treat it incorrectly (bury, burn, throw into rivers) (Fig. 5.1). Porters do the same. Some residents know that this is incorrect behaviour, but they have no other options (Apollo 2015; Apollo et al. 2020). Even environmentally conscious high-altitude tourists can fall under the wrong impression that it is the organizer of the expedition or trek that is completely

5.1 Littering of the Alpine Environment

47

Fig. 5.2 Remains of dead animals: (a) remains of a mule that had been used to transport equipment in the Horcones Valley, Andes; (b) corpse of a cow directly polluting the surface water in the Rasac Valley, Cordillera Huayhuash, Andes

responsible for the rubbish rather than them. They believe that the organizer will deal with the rubbish responsibly. The practice of abandoning unwanted things may not pose a problem to the environment in three cases: (1) the waste decomposes very quickly; (2) the density of tourists in the area of the camp is low; and (3) the number of users is small (Cullen 1986). Unfortunately, these circumstances never actually occur in high-mountain conditions. For point (1), in polar conditions (including alpine), the decomposition process is significantly extended, e.g. a sheet of paper can take several years or even decades to decompose (Price 1981, 1985; Roe et al. 1997); for point (2), due to the terrain, the area of the camp is usually very small, thus the density of tourists is often high; and for point (3), mountain regions are an extremely popular tourist destination second only to coastal areas (Mieczkowski 1995). As a result, many of Earth’s highmountain tourist regions are often littered with debris left behind by previous expeditions. This includes food and all packaging it came in, fuel containers, ropes, used climbing equipment and clothes, batteries, broken glass, 35 mm film packaging, oxygen cylinders, and cooking equipment with dishes and cutlery. As Cullen (1986) accurately points out, the chronology of expeditions throughout the entire twentieth century can be created based on the things found left at the camps. Litter is particularly dangerous for animate nature, including humans. Dead animals (Fig. 5.2) and even remains of people who died while climbing (e.g. Green Boots on Everest) may pose a serious threat to the health of mountaineers. Transporting animals weighing several hundred kilograms is unprofitable, which is why they are often left to decompose naturally, risking polluting the ecosystem. In the case of human bodies, which are usually above the death zone only accessible to mountaineers, lifting them requires people who want to make

48

5 Environmental Pollution Causes by Mountaineering Activity

huge financial and physical investments (which are often impossible to cope with). In 2008, Eco Everest Expedition participants removed five bodies as well as rubbish from the mountain, and these were then buried or burned. The evidence of littering in the high-mountain environment, apart from observation (visual evidence), is the amount of rubbish carried from the mountains during various cleaning operations. One of the first such initiatives to cleanse the Himalayas was carried out in 1984 on Mount Everest. A total of 1800 loads of rubbish (one load corresponds to a standard large bin) were lifted out by the First Sagarmatha Preservation Expedition, which was then mostly burned (Salisbury 1985). According to the Sagarmatha Pollution Control Committee, in 2011, 12 tons of paper and plastic waste and over 11 tons of human excrement were removed in spring alone (SPCC 2015) (see next Sect. 5.2). The first items of rubbish were already found a short distance from the villages. Similar conclusions come from other mountain ranges in the world. In 1993, when entering Kilimanjaro, two tourists on the 10 km route picked up all the rubbish found solely on the trail. They collected over 4500 individual pieces. This included all kinds of packaging, cigarette butts and plastic bottles (Roe et al. 1997). Mountain cleaning campaigns are organized by various foundations and associations virtually every year. Unfortunately, each time, through them, volunteers collect a disturbingly large amount of rubbish. This is directly related to the growing number of visitors to high-mountain regions. However, it must be admitted that the amount of rubbish that tourists left behind decreases, as the organizers themselves point out. This is illustrated by the example of one of the world’s busiest mountains – Kilimanjaro, in which, in proportion to the increase in tourism in just 3 years, the amount of rubbish generated increased from 87 t (2003) to 125 t (2006). However, the effectiveness of its removal from the massif improved from 64% (2003) to 94% (2006) and there is currently much less rubbish on the mountain (Kaseva and Moirana 2010). Data from the Clean Tatra Mountains, a cleaning action initiated by A. Marciniak, is similar, as from 2012 to 2015, nearly 3.4 tons of rubbish were collected. The amount of rubbish on the Tatras (on the Polish side: 175 km2) decreases from year to year (1500, 860, 580, 440 kg, in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively). Despite this, half a ton of rubbish from Tatra tourists that needs to be cleaned up is still an unacceptable amount.

5.2

Human Waste Pollution

The contamination of the high-mountain environment by products of defecation and/or voiding, due to its nature, is often overlooked by researchers (McLaughlin et al. 2005; Goodwin et al. 2012; Apollo 2014, 2016, 2017; Stevenson et al. 2020). Many of them, as well as climbers themselves (Kedrowski 2009) indicate the seriousness of the impact of non-toilet excrement on soil, water, the aesthetic quality of the landscape and even health. This type of pollution cannot be blamed only on tourists/climbers who cannot fully control their excretion. It should be noted,

5.2 Human Waste Pollution

49

however, that there are scientists who believe that human faeces should be covered by the rules of non-invasive tourism and should be treated as, e.g., rubbish that needs to be removed by tourists themselves (Meyer 1994). However, these views are isolated, mainly due to the problematic mode of transport for faeces, practically impossible in areas below the 0  C isotherm. The problem of human excrement in popular and tourist-populated high-mountain regions boils down to two aspects: (1) the policy of the authorities managing (and supervising) the area, and (2) compliance with this policy by tourists visiting the region (Apollo 2014). The second aspect is completely dependent on the first – the tourist can only adapt or not to the guidelines of the authorities (Apollo 2017). Apollo (2017) showed that management techniques can address the issue of human waste in three ways: • complete (non-invasive) – the use of sealed toilet containers, 100% waste disposal and recycling, with no interference with the natural environment and the quality of the visual landscape; • partial (superficial) – hiding the problem using leaky toilet tanks and a lack of recycling, maintaining only the apparent cleanliness of the landscape; • invasive – leaving the tourist on his/her own, without any environmental solutions, ignoring the problem possibly due to lack of financial resources. The partial and invasive approaches are associated with the persistence of human excrement in the mountain environment. Due to the lack of disposal, this type of excrement can be described as non-toilet. To minimize the impact of non-toilet excrement and urine on nature, tourists should bury it at a minimum depth of 15 cm while maintaining at least a 100 m distance from reservoirs or watercourses (Kirkpatrick and Bridle 1999). Although frequently underestimated, urine, due to its wealth of nutrients (mainly nitrogen), indirectly affects plants. It supports those species that tolerate it and even need it at the expense of others, for which it can be destructive. Plants that accept urine substances usually change their structure (size, height, colour, etc.). The general characteristics of the flora community exposed to urine are also subject to modification. This is illustrated by the much more abundant flora along paths and next to shelters. Kirkpatrick (1997) describes rings of lush vegetation surrounding shelters associated with products of micturition. Often these are exotic plants, meaning that urine is conducive to the development of alien plant species dragged to the area by tourists. Human faeces containing many bacteria pose a greater threat to living organisms than urine (Carr et al. 2002). For example, the salmonella bacterium that can be found in human faeces infects many animal species and can survive in the wild for a very long time (Liddle 1997). Studies show that buried 20 cm (although depth does not matter completely) under the surface of the earth, salmonella bacteria can survive for up to 51 weeks (Temple et al. 1982). The scale of the problem of human excrement is best illustrated by the example of the highest mountain in the Australian continent. The Charlotte Pass to Mount Kosciuszko route is traversed by between 5000 and 8500 tourists annually (Hill

50

5 Environmental Pollution Causes by Mountaineering Activity

and Pickering 2006). The problem of human excrement was noted there in the summer of 1995/96. The Kosciuszko National Park authorities, not realizing the scale of the problem, installed two portable toilets on the Rawson Pass and the Charlotte Pass – both were filled the same day (!). The subsequent monitoring of their emptying gave a picture of the amount of previous faeces still poisoning the Kosciuszko Mountain massif. In the 1998/99 season, toilets only from these two locations collected 38,540 l of human excrement (Leary 2000). The only research on the amount of faeces and urine that remain after climbers leave the high-mountain area is the work of Apollo (2014, 2017). Based on research conducted in 12-day periods (preceded by 5-day dehydration) in 2012 and 2013 in the Himalayan Miyar Valley at altitudes between 3745 and 5100 ms, average excrement amounts were estimated. Based on this, the average daily amount of excrement for one human was calculated; i.e. faeces weighing approx. 128 g (32 g without water: approx. 75% of the weight of human faeces is affected by water content (Feachem et al. 1983)) and approx. 1.8 l of urine. The results somewhat coincide with the estimates from the Aconcagua Provincial National Park and the values adopted by Goodwin et al. (2012) for research in Alaska. Aconcagua Park authorities assume that 300–500 kg of faeces remain above the base camp Plaza de Mulas (Camp II) every year (Barros et al. 2007). This value is similar to results obtained by Apollo (2017) – 582 kg. In research conducted in Denali (formerly Mount McKinley), 106 g was assumed as the average daily mass of stool excreted by a human (Goodwin et al. 2012), which also coincides with the results of Apollo’s (2014) research and calculations (128 g). Stool weight in different parts of the world depends on the diet and can range from 72 to 470 g per day (Cummings et al. 1992). In human biology, the average weight for a healthy adult staying in normal conditions is approx. 250 g per day (approx. 63 g without water) (House 1981). This seemingly large (almost double) difference between the values given by Apollo (2014, 2017) and House (1981) is very simple to explain, and results from a simple relationship. The body is supplied with a much smaller amount of food (low availability) and with a much greater need for nutrients at high altitudes. Scientific research as well as information contained in mountain guides indicates that during mountain climbing, the body’s demand can be as much as 6000 calories and up to 5.7 l of water per day to maintain body weight and prevent deterioration of health (Soles 2008). The climber’s body needs more calories and water than can be obtained, especially when climbing at high altitudes. During Apollo’s (2014) experiment, the diet contained 4000 ( 500) calories and 3.8 ( 1) l of water (contained in drinks and food). The scale of the problem of human waste is best illustrated in Fig. 5.3. It shows the estimated amount of faeces and urine remaining in the mountains after tourists have left; depending on the number of tourists and the time spent in the mountains. It is easy to see the scale of the problem. For example, over 600,000 tourists (pilgrims) visited the sacred cave of Amarnath (3888 m) in 2011. The estimate shows that they would have left over 77 t of faeces and over 4300 m3 of urine during their trek (on average 4 days) (Apollo 2017). The word ‘over’ – although inaccurate – makes sense because the daily values of faeces and urine for the formula relate to climbing

5.2 Human Waste Pollution

51

Fig. 5.3 The quantitative values of (a) human faeces (in tons) and (b) urine (in cubic metres) left by mountaineers according to the number of visitors and time spent in the mountain. (Redrawn from Apollo 2017) Table 5.1 Estimated amount of human faeces (dry mass) and urine remaining on Denali after 1092 climbers in 2015, and after 41,976 climbers from 1913 to 2015 (Apollo 2017)

Camp I II III IV V Total

Toilet Yesa No No Yesa No

Residence time in the camp [days] 3 1 2 8 4 18

Faeces [kg] 2015 1913–2015 104.83 4029.70 34.94 1343.23 69.89 2686.46 279.55 10,745.86 139.78 5372.93 628.99 24,178.18

Urine [square meters] 2015 1913–2015 5.90 226.67 1.97 75.55 3.93 151.11 15.72 604.45 7.86 302.22 35.38 1360.02

a

Existing toilets of camps I and IV are included in the total because they are drilled in the ice (so-called ‘pit toilets’), and the excrement left there is not removed at all

activities, not hiking, during which the availability of food and drink is much greater. It can be presumed that the actual values of waste products for the Amarnath cave area are much higher. Focusing exclusively on high-mountain climbing, the estimates of human excrement remaining after mountaineers have left the mountains are more precise. The study of Denali (Apollo 2017) is presented below. Based on the developed formula, the amount of excrement remaining on this mountain after one season was estimated (Table 5.1). Describing the amount of faeces and urine, the existing research on the negative impact of excrement on the health and well-being of high-mountain tourists was also presented in Apollo’s (2017) work. Considered to be the coldest mountain in the world (except for the Arctic areas), Denali has faced the problem of human excrement since the 1970s. It contaminated the surface of glaciers flowing down from the massif, mainly the Kahiltna Glacier

52

5 Environmental Pollution Causes by Mountaineering Activity

(Goodwin et al. 2012; Apollo 2017). Faeces and urine were not only associated with a decrease in visual quality, but also and mainly with a serious epidemiological threat – the only source of drinking water in the massif is obtaining it from snow/ice. Research from McLaughlin et al. (2005) showed that nearly 30% of climbers after descending Denali had ailments associated with acute gastroenteritis. This problem was indirectly solved with the introduction of the faecal disposal system in 2001, i.e. the Clean Mountain Can (CMC) portable toilet. CMCs are given to every team of climbers going to Denali. The set consists of a dozen or so biodegradable bags and a toilet can. The sack is placed in in the can and used like a toilet bowl. After it is filled, the sack is tied up and thrown into a deep ice gap. However, this does not provide a solution to the problem, but conceals it, because the flowing excrement is transported down the valley to the Kahiltna River. Interest and concern in this matter is expressed not only by scientists (Goodwin et al. 2012), but also half of those climbing the highest mountain in the North American continent (Kedrowski 2009). The values from Table 5.1 are terrifying just from 2015 – about 630 kg of faeces and over 35 m3 of urine – but it must be remembered that since the first entry in 1913, tens of thousands of high-mountain tourists have visited the mountain. It is similar in the case of Aconcagua (6962 m), where according to the authorities’ estimates, above Camp II, i.e. in the camps of Canada (4910 m), Nido de Condores (5250 m) and Berlin (5780 m), there are from 300 to 500 kg of faeces (Barros et al. 2007). Estimates obtained using the formula developed by Apollo (2014) indicate 582 kg. The excrement that remains after climbers leave the area (582 kg of faeces and over 57 m3 of urine) affects surface water pollution, and in this dry massif, surface water is one of the few drinking water resources. Carr et al. (2002) found (similarly to Denali) the occurrence of many diseases among climbers directly related to water pollution from faeces within the camps, as well as along the entire route on Aconcagua. The irresponsible behaviour of mountaineers themselves is also a serious problem. People on climbing, trekking, or hiking routes often do not see a threat in the products of micturition and defecation, either epidemiological (due to lack of knowledge) or visual. Contamination of the landscape with human excrement is due to all the reasons given by Attarian and Keith (2008) (see Sect. 5.1). Mindlessness combined with human behaviour tells the tourist: littering is an accepted practice, the littering area is not my property, someone will clean up after me, it was already dirty. Even the best solution proposed by managers will not bring the expected results if tourists themselves do not comply with them. Thus, the most important thing is to change the behaviour of climbers. This is perfectly illustrated by the example of the Muir camp (3105 m) on the slopes of Mount Rainier (4392 m) in the Cascade Mountains, where many climbers handle the snow directly, while the shelter is equipped with a toilet. Everything in life has an economic aspect. The chosen method for managing the waste of mountaineers in a high-mountain environment also truly depends on monetary resources (however, as it will be proven shortly, this is an incorrect conclusion), mostly because proper handling of human waste at a high altitude requires its complete removal. In most cases, due to inaccessibility, there is only

5.3 Noise and Artificial Light Pollution

53

one possibility: helicopter transport; and thus, the costs are high. For example, Parque Provincial Aconcagua allocates for removing of human waste approx. US $36,000 per year (Barros and Pickering 2015), while Mount Rainier National Park approx. US$51,000 (Mt. Rainier National Park 2015). This amount may be charged to mountaineers: it is only (!) US$5 in both cases. Every mountaineer would definitely agree to pay this for spending time in a clean environment (Apollo 2017).

5.3

Noise and Artificial Light Pollution

Noise and artificial light are products of modern civilization. Their impact on environmental pollution is not as obvious as rubbish or as perceptible as excrement, but should definitely be considered a degradation factor. In high-mountain conditions, every loud sound (e.g. human scream, hammering a piton, a cable car, a snowmaking machine) negatively affects both the perception of the environment (sound landscape) and silence, which is perceived as the audibility of nature sounds undisturbed by anthropogenic noise. Unfortunately, as sound ecologist G. Hempton argues, there is no longer a place in the US that is 100% free from human noise (Hempton and Grossmann 2009). However, as he himself pointed out in his work One Square Inch of Silence (2009), there are still places (or rather there were), where silence intervals were up to 15 min. In 1984, in the US state of Washington, he identified 21 such places, of which only three remained in 2007. One of them was located in the Olympic National Park, in the valley of the Hoh River originating from the glacier of the same name. The conclusion of the work of Hempton and Grossmann (2009) is that silence is an increasingly scarce resource that should be protected not only in urban areas. In recent years, an invasion of noise has been observed, which even enters valuable natural areas to the detriment of both animate nature and the aesthetic feelings of tourists visiting it (Bernat 2011). Disturbance of natural silence by noise also affects species biodiversity (Waugh et al. 2003). When influenced by different sounds, animal behaviour changes, which can lead to irreversible ecological changes. Even in cities, animals exposed to loud, though familiar, sound, are disturbed. In isolated (wild) areas, the reaction to even a simple scream can be much more serious. Anthropogenic sounds can lead an animal, e.g., to anxiety or change of habitat, which during the breeding season is associated with the loss of offspring and a decrease in population. Some birds change their song to a higher and louder song to break through the adverse sounds (Hu and Cardoso 2009). Others increase the tempo and reduce the duration of singing (Bernat 2014). The main sources of noise emissions are street and rail traffic, residential areas, industry, air traffic, ports, construction sites, and recreational activity (Votsi et al. 2012). Among these sources, recreational activity only seemingly appears to be the weakest noise emitter. This is perfectly demonstrated by the research of Wagner et al. (2006) regarding noise pollution at the Tatra National Park, Poland. Based on their work, it was found that the noise level was 34.7–62.5 dB on hiking routes,

54

5 Environmental Pollution Causes by Mountaineering Activity

48.6–57.5 dB in places where tourists group together, 64.2–70 dB on traffic routes, and 42.5–60 dB around sport and technical infrastructure. The acoustic background (silence) was at the level of 30–35 dB. The level of noise in the Kościeliska Valley was 62 dB, which corresponded to a busy street (!) rather than a trail in a national park (Wagner et al. 2006). It is interesting to note that according to the European Union, the vehicle noise limit is 55–65 dB, and if the noise is higher, the road administrator is obligated to build a noise barrier (also called a soundwall). According to that, one should be built in the national park. In the case of strictly climbing activities, the level of noise pollution might be even higher (although research in this area has not yet been conducted). Sounds of climbing commands e.g. on belay, safe (meaning “belay position ready”), let out, pay out, slack (meaning “give more rope”), climbing, climb (meaning “go”) are shouted very loudly because the climbers are separated by distances up to 60 m (the most common rope length). These sounds have to be shouted out due to the land relief (e.g. overhangs, bulges). Climbers distant from each other by several or several dozen metres hear each other very poorly, while their commands are heard several 100 m away (e.g. around the mountain lake Czarny Staw in the Tatra Mountains). The analysis of these few, although extremely loud, commands should become the subject of research in the future. Mountainous regions, which are now eagerly visited by tourists, are particularly exposed to noise pollution. In many places, the mountain landscape is not used to tourists or is seeing them for the first time. The problem of noise concerns both animals and humans, because, as Bernat (2011) points out, noise can become a source of social conflict. According to surveys of high-mountain communities (see e.g. Apollo 2015; Apollo et al. 2020), noise emitted by the movement of highaltitude climbing tourism is a major inconvenience for residents. For example, the population of the Annapurna region indicates in their talks that the citizens of China and Israel are the most loud and therefore annoying (own research, Annapurna region 2013). It should be noted, however, that tourists as a source of income for residents of many high-mountain regions are treated indulgently by them. Noise poses a much greater threat to wildlife living in high mountains. In many cases, the very presence of humans in a sensitive mountain environment further enhanced by the sound of speech (shouting) significantly affects animal behaviour (see Sect. 3.4). Noise contributes to the reception of nature sounds. Soundscape, being an indispensable element of the environment, determines the aesthetic value of its surroundings (see Bernat 2008). As Bernat (2014) points out, although the sense of sight provides the most information about the landscape, it must be remembered that perception can be dominated by more than one sense. The quality of the highaltitude sound landscape that was once a mainstay of harmony and silence is increasingly being reduced. The evolution of high-altitude climbing tourism (from elite to mass) has caused a depreciation of sound sensations. In high-mountain shelters on the popular peaks, although not only there, you cannot find silence. It has been replaced with buzz or even music flowing from speakers. For example, at the Confluencia Camp (the first camp at Aconcagua), there is a restaurant where loud music plays and tourists can be found with glasses filled with wine.

5.4 Landscape Pollution Caused by Tourism Infrastructure

55

Sounds can improve the perception of a landscape and enhance its assessment, but they must necessarily be associated with the natural environment, e.g. vegetation, water, wind (Carles et al. 1999). Otherwise, they increase negative feelings. Tourists visit mountain regions to get away from the urban noise (Godde et al. 2009), but silence on Earth’s most popular peaks is gone. Light pollution of natural ecosystems is a phenomenon even less known than the disturbances resulting from the emission of unnatural sounds. Although environmentalists have long studied the key role of natural light in regulating the interdependence of species, only a few have dealt with the modification of behaviour caused by artificial night lighting (Longcore and Rich 2004; Hussein et al. 2020). This is strange because in 1917, a Californian ornithologist noticed a correlation between the directions of night flights of birds and the light emitted by lighthouses (Squires and Hanson 1918). Economic development has meant that the scope and intensity of artificial night lighting has increased so much that it has a significant impact on the biology of wild species. The negative impact of artificial light on animal behaviour is clearly indicated by the works of Verheijen (1960, 1985), Longcore and Rich (2004), Newport et al. (2014) and Macgregor et al. (2015). Research usually concerns cities and areas with a high level of urbanization, but not always. The work of Ściȩzor et al. (2012) indicates that even Polish mountain regions far away from urban areas and local tourist centres are affected by light pollution, which degrades the environment in both ecological and touristic terms (Ściȩzor et al. 2012). In high mountains, the scale of artificial light pollution is much lower than in cities, suburban parks or protected areas. But for the sensitive alpine environment, poor in biotic elements, even seemingly slight light pollution can have negative consequences. Some animals that are not accustomed to or surprised by the additional intense (artificial) night light may be disturbed. Others, on the contrary, can be attracted (e.g. insects) even by the smallest light emission. Modern mountain flashlights or headlamps emit a very intense beam of light, whose range can exceed 100 m.

5.4

Landscape Pollution Caused by Tourism Infrastructure

High-altitude mountaineering tourist infrastructure, similarly to tourist infrastructure, refers to all kinds of tourist facilities and equipment whose purpose is to meet the needs of tourists visiting them in the hiking, trekking and climbing zones. This infrastructure is a kind of pollution of the natural landscape and often results in a violation of the natural spatial order. Elements of the tourist infrastructure of the hiking and trekking zones are trails, their reinforcement, protection elements (like chains or barriers), as well as permanent (Fig. 5.4a) or seasonal (Fig. 5.4b) buildings of accommodation, gastronomy, and accompanying facilities. They are often inadequately integrated into the

56

5 Environmental Pollution Causes by Mountaineering Activity

Fig. 5.4 Objects of the mountaineering infrastructure: (a) permanent: in the upper part of the photo upper station of the cable car Aiguille du Midi (3842 m), below the shelter Cosmiques (3613 m), the Mont Blanc, the Alps; (b) seasonal tents used as accommodation, nutrition and accompanying base at Palza de Mulas (4350 m), Aconcagua, Andes

landscape (wrong location, poor building materials, or improper colours), which reduces landscape aesthetic values. The landscape of rock walls is particularly polluted by numerous belay points left by climbers on most climbing routes (e.g. during descents) or deliberately placed in the rock (Jodłowski 2011). Pitons, spits or rings placed in the rock (see Chap. 2; Fig. 2.7) are usually accompanied by coloured tapes that can be seen from a considerable distance. Initially, permanent anchorages were made of steel (or other metal alloys), which after a certain period of time corroded, dying the rock below to a dark-rust colour. Currently, these elements are made of stainless steel (silver colour) with high resistance, which do not show this effect. However, the silver colour reflects sunrays (light reflections), and the safety elements mounted in the dark rock stand out (Attarian and Keith 2008; Jodłowski 2011). The visual degradation beyond permanent security points is influenced by, among others, handrail ropes and chains, ladders, via ferratas (see Chap. 2; Fig. 2.7), as well as white hand prints around the grips resulting from the use of chalk for drying hands (cf. Carr, 2007). Chalk is exactly magnesium carbonate (MgCO3), which under standard conditions is a white or colourless crystalline substance, practically insoluble in water. Climbing area managers typically treat magnesium traces only as visual degradation (Attarian and Keith 2008), but some authors in the specialist climbing literature indicate that magnesium and sweat can accelerate the solubility of rock-building minerals – especially carbonate rocks (MacGowan 1987). Others question this view for lack of reliable research (Swineford 1987).

References

5.5

57

A Brief Summary

Articles on littering the environment, not only the high mountain one, draw attention to user behavior. According to the climbers themselves, a cluttered and polluted environment significantly reduces the aesthetic value of the visited area (Monz et al. 2005). Pro-environmental education should be the most important element in shaping the behavior of tourists, and special chapters devoted to specific examples of disposal time (e.g. cigarette approx. 2 years, glass bottle 4000 years) should be included in each guide. An important role (apart from the above-mentioned initiatives) in shaping the participant’s behavior patterns during active tourism and in modeling his behavior in the future is played by guides who, referring to the prestige of their profession, exert an influence on the group (Wagstaff and Wilson 1988).

References Apollo M (2014) Experimental method for measuring non-toilet Mountaineer’s excrement. J Environ Sci Eng A 3:123–129. https://doi.org/10.17265/2162-5298/2014.02.005 Apollo M (2015) The clash–social, environmental and economical changes in tourism destination areas caused by tourism the case of Himalayan villages (India and Nepal). Curr Issues Tour Res 5:6–19 Apollo M (2016) Mountaineer’s waste: past, present and future. Ann Valahia Univ Targoviste Geogr Ser 16:13–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/avutgs-2016-0002 Apollo M (2017) The good, the bad and the ugly–three approaches to management of human waste in a high-mountain environment. Int J Environ Stud. 74(1): 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00207233.2016.1227225 Apollo M, Andreychouk V, Moolio P et al (2020) Does the altitude of habitat influence residents’ attitudes to guests? A new dimension in the residents’ attitudes to tourism. J Outdoor Recreat Tour 31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2020.100312 Attarian A, Keith J (2008) Climbing management: a guide to climbing issues and the development of a climbing management plan. The Access Fund, Boulder Barros A, Pickering CM (2015) Impacts of experimental trampling by hikers and pack animals on a high-altitude alpine sedge meadow in the Andes. Plant Ecolog Divers 8:265–276. https://doi. org/10.1080/17550874.2014.893592 Barros A, Berlanga P, Prause P (2007) Buenas Prácticas para la Conservación de Ecosistemas de Montaña. In: Junquera J, Natale E, Prause P, Barros A (eds) Capacitación de guias turisticos del monumento natural Puente Del Inca y Laguna De Los Horcones (Parque Provincial Aconcagua). Puente del Inca, Dirección de Recursos Naturales Renovables de Mendoza, pp 185–218 Bernat S (2008) Dźwięk w krajobrazie jako przedmiot badań interdyscyplinarnych. POLIHYMNIA, Lublin Bernat S (2011) Krajobraz dźwiękowy jutra. Pr Kom Kraj Kult 15:193–205 Bernat S (2014) Strefy ciszy w krajobrazie rekreacyjnym\Quiet areas in recreational landscape. Probl Ekol Kraj 27:35–42 Carles JL, Barrio IL, De Lucio JV (1999) Sound influence on landscape values. Landsc Urban Plan 43:191–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00112-1 Carr C (2007) Variation in environmental impact at rock climb areas in Red River gorge geological area and adjacent Clifty wilderness. Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky Carr CE, Berris MJ, Hilstad MO, Allen PB (2002) Water quality and Fecal contamination on Mt. Implications for Human Health at High Altitude, Aconcagua

58

5 Environmental Pollution Causes by Mountaineering Activity

Cullen R (1986) Himalayan Mountaineering Expedition Garbage. Environ Conserv 13:293–297. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900035335 Cummings JH, Bingham SA, Heaton KW, Eastwood MA (1992) Fecal weight, colon cancer risk, and dietary intake of nonstarch polysaccharides (dietary fiber). Gastroenterology 103:1783–1789. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-5085(92)91435-7 Feachem R, Mara D, Bradley D (1983) Sanitation and disease. Wiley, Washington Godde PM, Price MF, Zimmermann FM (2009) Tourism and development in mountain regions: moving forward into the new millennium. In: Godde PM, Price MF, Zimmermann FM (eds) Tourism and development in mountain regions. CABI, Wallingford, pp 1–25 Goodwin K, Loso M, Braun M (2012) Glacial transport of human waste and survival of fecal bacteria on Mt. McKinley’s Kahiltna glacier, Denali National Park, Alaska. Arctic Antarct Alp Res 44:432–445. https://doi.org/10.1657/1938-4246-44.4.432 Hempton G, Grossmann J (2009) One square inch of silence: one man’s search for natural silence in a noisy world. Simon and Schuster, New York Hill W, Pickering CM (2006) Vegetation associated with different walking track types in the Kosciuszko alpine area, Australia. J Environ Manag 78:24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2005.04.007 House D (1981) The biogas handbook. Peace Press, Culver City Hu Y, Cardoso GC (2009) Are bird species that vocalize at higher frequencies preadapted to inhabit noisy urban areas? Behav Ecol 20:1268–1273. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arp131 Hussein AAA, Bloem E, Fodor I et al (2020) Slowly seeing the light: an integrative review on ecological light pollution as a potential threat for mollusks. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:5036–5048 Jodłowski M (2011) Zasady dobrej praktyki w zarządzaniu ruchem wspinaczkowym na obszarach chronionych. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Kraków Kaseva ME, Moirana JL (2010) Problems of solid waste management on Mount Kilimanjaro: a challenge to tourism. Waste Manag Res 28:695–704. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0734242X09337655 Kedrowski JJ (2009) Climber's perceptions on Denali (Mount McKinley): climber demographics, hazards, and crowding concerns. U.S. Department of the Interior, Denali National Park Investigator's Annual Report (IAR) OMB #1024-0236, Permit #DENA-2009-SCI-0005, Study #DENA-00789, 48 pp. Kinnaman TC, Fullerton D (1995) How a fee per-unit garbage affects aggregate recycling in a model with heterogeneous households. In: Bovenberg AL, Crossen S (eds) Public economics and the environment in an imperfect world. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 135–159 Kirkpatrick JB (1997) Alpine Tasmania: an illustrated guide to the Flora and Vegetation. Oxford University Press, Melbourne Kirkpatrick JB, Bridle K (1999) Environmental and floristics of ten Australian alpine vegetation formations. Aust J Bot 47:1–21 Leary C (2000) Waste management in Kosciuszko National Park. In: Civil K, McNamara B (eds) Human waste management workshop. Australian Alps Liaison Committee, Canbera-Jindabyne, pp 123–126 Liddle M (1997) Recreation ecology: the ecological impact of outdoor recreation and ecotourism. Chapman and Hall, London Longcore T, Rich C (2004) Ecological light pollution. Front Ecol Environ 2:191. https://doi.org/10. 2307/3868314 MacGowan D (1987) Reliving the chalk wars, a geochemical view. Climbing April Macgregor CJ, Pocock MJO, Fox R, Evans DM (2015) Pollination by nocturnal Lepidoptera, and the effects of light pollution: a review. Ecol Entomol 40:187–198 McLaughlin JB, Gessner BD, Bailey AM (2005) Gastroenteritis outbreak among mountaineers climbing the West Buttress route of Denali-Denali National Park, Alaska, June 2002.

References

59

Wilderness Environ Med 16:92–96. https://doi.org/10.1580/1080-6032(2005)16[92: GOAMCT]2.0.CO;2 Messerli B, Ives JD (1997) Mountains of the world: a global priority. Parthenon Publishing Group, New York Meyer K (1994) How to shit in the woods: an environmentally sound approach to a lost art. Ten Speed Press, Berkeley Mieczkowski Z (1995) Environmental issues of tourism and recreation. University Press of America, Lanham Monz C, Smith K, Knickerbocker L (2005) Climbers’ attitudes toward recreation resource impacts in the Adirondack Park. In: Peden JG, Schuster RM (eds) Proceedings of the 2005 Northeastern recreation research symposium. U.S. Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, pp 10–12 Mt. Rainier National Park (2015) Mountaineering Report 2014. Available online at: www.nps.gov Newport J, Shorthouse DJ, Manning AD (2014) The effects of light and noise from urban development on biodiversity: implications for protected areas in Australia. Ecol Manag Restor 15:204–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12120 Noe FP, Hammitt WE, Bixler RD (1997) Park user perceptions of resource and use impacts under varied situations in three national parks. J Environ Manag 49:323–336. https://doi.org/10.1006/ jema.1995.0093 Price LW (1981) Mountain and man. University of California Press, Berkeley Price MF (1985) Impacts of recreational activities on alpine vegetation in western North America. Mt Res Dev 5:263–278. https://doi.org/10.2307/3673358 Roe D, Leader-williams N, Dalal-clayton B (1997) Take only a photographs, leave only footprints: the environmental impacts of wildlife tourism. Environmental Planning Group, International Institute for Environment and Development, London Salisbury RA (1985) First Sagarmatha preservation expedition. Am Alp J 27:261–262 Ściȩzor T, Kubala M, Kaszowski W (2012) Light pollution of the mountain areas in Poland. Arch Environ Prot 38:59–69. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10265-012-0042-4 Soles C (2008) Climbing: training for peak performance. Mountaineers Books, Seattle SPCC (2015) Sagarmatha pollution control committee Squires WA, Hanson HE (1918) The destruction of birds at the lighthouses on the coast of California. Condor 20:6–10. https://doi.org/10.2307/1362354 Stebbins KR (1993) Garbage imperialism: health implications of dumping hazardous wastes in third world countries. Med Anthropol 15:81–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.1992.9966083 Stevenson LC, Allen T, Mendez D et al (2020) Is open defaecation in outdoor recreation and camping areas a public health issue in Australia? A literature review. Health Promot J Austr 31:525–532 Swineford S (1987, July) Chalk talk. Rock and Ice Temple KL, Camper AK, Lucas RC (1982) Potential health hazard from human wastes in wilderness. J Soil Water Conserv 37:357–359 Verheijen FJ (1960) The mechanisms of the trapping effect of artificial light sources upon animals. Arch Néerland Zool 13:1–107 Verheijen FJ (1985) Photopollution: Artificial light optic spatial control systems fail to cope with. Incidents, causations, remedies. Exp Biol 44:1–18 Votsi NEP, Drakou EG, Mazaris AD et al (2012) Distance-based assessment of open country Quiet Areas in Greece. Landsc Urban Plan 104:279–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011. 11.004 Wagner M, Nowakowski W, Czarnowska K (2006) Zanieczyszczenie hałasem Tatrzańskiego Parku Narodowego. Aura Ochr Środowiska 9:32–34 Wagstaff MC, Wilson BE (1988) The evaluation of litter behavior modification in a river environment. J Environ Educ 20:39–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1988.9942779 Waugh D, Durucan S, Korre A et al (2003) Environmental quality objectives. Noise in Quiet Areas. Synthesis report. Environmental Protection Agency Wexford, Wexford

Chapter 6

A Conceptual Framework for Investigating the Environmental Impacts of Mountaineering

Abstract The concluding chapter of this book summarizes the consequences of the impact of mountaineering on natural environment. Overall, the present book aims to provide a comprehensive and systematic description of the major environmental impacts of mountaineering and to develop a comprehensive conceptual framework for examining those impacts. Thus, the final chapter finishes with a model of environmental effects of mountaineering on different environmental components. The model presented here may serve as a platform for more detailed, future studies. Keywords Environment · Model · Trekking · Climbing · Mountaineering

6.1

A Conceptual Framework

Any human interference with the untouched natural environment has negative effects. With the development of high-mountain tourism, even the highest areas of the high mountains have been exposed to adverse effects. It is difficult to unequivocally indicate who or what is guilty of environmental degradation. While the climbing zone, accessible only to qualified mountaineers, is degraded only by climbing activities, identifying one guilty party for degradation in the trekking zone is very difficult and in the hiking zone virtually impossible (see e.g., Apollo and Andreychouk 2020). Despite this difficulty, the author of this book has made such an attempt. Based on Chaps. 2, 3, 4 and 5, the Wall and Wright (1977) and Barros et al. (2015) model’s, a model for the influence of mountaineering on individual elements of the natural environment (i.e. soil, land relief, vegetation, wildlife and water) has been developed (Fig. 6.1). The main elements of the model are described below. • Mountaineering affects soil in two opposite ways: it compacts or loosens it. Compaction (kneading) caused by trampling is much more common. It has a negative effect on the main soil components (mineral matter, dead organic matter, air, water) and its temperature (change in heat absorption by the changed soil © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Apollo, Environmental Impacts of Mountaineering, SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72667-6_6

61

6 A Conceptual Framework for Investigating the Environmental Impacts of. . .

62

Organic matter

Minerals

Gases Liquids

I n g r e d i e n t s (±) c h a n g e s

Organisms (e.g., earthworms)

Mechanical soil displacement

Solifluction

Wetland creation

Erosion

Visual degradation (esthetic)

Mechanical rock waste displacement

Soil compaction

physical degradation

Soil scarification

Nutrients

Oxygen level

Other pollutants

Aquatic fauna

Pathogens

Macroforms LAND RELIEF

W A T E R

V E G E T A T I O N

Mountaineering

WILDLIFE Feeding Garbage Behavioural change

Supersession of native animals

Destruction of natural settings

Scratches

Jagged edges

Aquatic plant growth

Changes in migratory corridors

Smoothness

Fixed anchors

Microforms

Soil temperature SOIL

Attracting

Initiate and/or speed up mass wasting

Population change

Introducing new nonnative/exotic species

Disturbance

Anthropogenic niches

Anchor/piton holes Breaches

Changes in plant species

Number of plants Trampling

Grazing Introducing new nonnative/exotic species

Supersession of native plants

Logging Destruction of bushes and trees

Noise Human disturbance

Scrubbing Stress

Death

Killing Structural changes

Fig. 6.1 Model of environmental effects of mountaineering on different environmental components

structure), which reduces the soil’s biological activity. Additionally, compaction limits the water absorption of the soil and can lead to swamping of the area, e.g. slightly above the path on a slightly inclined slope. Both loosening (e.g. caused by tent pins) and compaction strengthen natural and mechanical terrain denudation processes. • Morphodynamic processes that shape the earth’s surface (land relief) that are intensified by tourist traffic cause visual and proper degradation. Seemingly innocent, aesthetic, degradation (e.g. creation of paths, stains from chalk) accelerates natural processes. The proper degradation of the terrain is best illustrated by the mechanical displacement of weathering (e.g. cutting the soil) and interference in the rock wall (introducing solid elements, formation of micro- and macroforms). Mountaineering stimulates denudation processes, but in terms of natural mass processes, mountaineering role is marginal. This is especially true for rock walls. • Changes in vegetation are the most frequently noted changes caused by tourism in reception areas. Mountaineering can affect vegetation both directly (by the participants themselves) or indirectly (by auxiliary activities). Both affect the population of individual plant species and their diversity. Factors affecting changes in vegetation are trampling (e.g. paths), grazing (e.g. from pack or riding animals),

References

63

introduction of a new species (e.g. seeds in the stool of pack animals or in shoe soles), displacement of native species (exotics quickly displace native flora), felling (e.g. trees and shrubs for fuel), scrubbing (e.g. mechanical removal of moss and lichens), stopping plant vegetation (e.g. in camps) or damage to bushes and trees. Each of these factors has a significant impact on the vegetation of high mountains. • Hardly accessible high-mountain areas have been a refuge for wild animals for centuries. Mountaineering, especially in commercialized areas, has significantly restricted this refuge. Tourists entering animals’ foraging areas cause changes in their behaviour, which negatively (directly as a result of killing or indirectly as a result of stress) or positively (e.g. attraction through feeding) affects their numbers. The change in behaviour resulting from human contact also causes change to habitats (e.g. moving to a more isolated place), migration corridors (e.g. as a result of running a trail), and even the complete displacement of some species. • Mountaineering significantly affects the quality of surface water. Pollution associated with rubbish and products of voiding and defecation (pathogens) or the introduction of other biogenic pollutants into the environment (mainly phosphorus and nitrogen) make it unfit for consumption. The consequence of excessive surface water pollution and the use of detergents (directly or indirectly in the vicinity of water reservoirs) is the eutrophication of lakes. A similar problem occurs in watercourses where flowering of phytoplankton, e.g. cyanobacteria or algae, can occur. Unfortunately, clear water is already a scarce commodity in many mountain ranges.

6.2

Conclusion

The presented model, both in its descriptive and graphic part, can provide substantive support for people preparing plans for nature protection in high-mountain areas. Due to the number of connections and interdependencies between individual elements of the natural environment, only care for the protection of each element will bring the desired effect: minimizing the negative impact of mountaineering that is hiking, trekking and mountain climbing.

References Apollo M, Andreychouk V (2020) Mountaineering and the natural environment in developing countries: an insight to a comprehensive approach. Int J Environ Stud 77(6): 942–953. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2019.1704047 Barros A, Pickering C, Gudes O (2015) Desktop analysis of potential impacts of visitor use: a case study for the highest park in the Southern Hemisphere. J Environ Manag 150:179–195. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.11.004 Wall G, Wright C (1977) The environmental impact of outdoor recreation. University of Waterloo, Waterloo