See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/378105687

Exploring the application of environmental impact assessment to tourism and

recreation in protected areas: a systematic literature review

Article in Environment Development and Sustainability · February 2024

DOI: 10.1007/s10668-024-04532-6

CITATIONS READS

4 305

3 authors:

Gabriela Pegler Clara Carvalho Lemos

University of São Paulo Rio de Janeiro State University
12 PUBLICATIONS 31 CITATIONS 17 PUBLICATIONS 245 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Victor Ranieri
University of São Paulo
61 PUBLICATIONS 514 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gabriela Pegler on 22 January 2025.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Environment, Development and Sustainability
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04532-6

REVIEW

Exploring the application of environmental impact

assessment to tourism and recreation in protected areas:
a systematic literature review

Gabriela Francisco Pegler1 · Clara Carvalho de Lemos2 ·

Victor Eduardo Lima Ranieri1

Received: 21 December 2022 / Accepted: 13 January 2024

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2024

Abstract
Over the years, concerns regarding the effects of tourism and recreational activities on pro-
tected areas have been consistently raised. The establishment of recreation ecology dates as
far back as the 1920s and 1930s, marking efforts to address these concerns. Throughout the
development of this field, a variety of tools and procedures were proposed for managing
and monitoring the impacts of recreation, such as the recreation opportunity spectrum, lim-
its of acceptable change, visitor activity management process, visitor impact management
(VIM), visitor experience and resource protection, and the protected area VIM. In addition
to these tools, environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a valuable approach for inform-
ing decision-making processes and predicting the environmental consequences of activities
that may cause significant environmental degradation, thus aligning tourism and recreation
with the goals of preserving protected areas. The purpose of this paper is to identify and
critically discuss how environmental impact assessment is contributing to improving deci-
sion-making and management of public use in protected areas, with a focus on methodo-
logical approaches, the extent of its application and reported outcomes. To achieve this, we
conducted a systematic literature review and established a preliminary connection between
the methodologies for evaluating and monitoring the impacts of public use proposed in
the reviewed articles and EIA. Our findings indicate that EIA can contribute in four main
ways: firstly, by being applied prior to the implementation of the activity, secondly, by
using methods to identify and predict impacts, thirdly, by applying monitoring procedures,
and finally, by providing tiered steps to facilitate better decision-making.

Keywords Visitor use · Impact assessment · Impact monitoring · Decision-making

processes

1 Introduction

Protected areas are widely recognized as the cornerstones of biodiversity conservation,

playing a crucial role in achieving many global conservation goals and Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals (CBD, 2020; UNEP-WCMC et al., 2018). In addition to their natural values,

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 G. F. Pegler et al.

the cultural and spiritual significance of these areas, particularly in terms of their contribu-
tion to the physical and mental well-being of individuals, have become increasingly appar-
ent in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic (Hockings et al., 2020; Verschuuren et al.,
2021).
However, leisure and recreational activities have the potential to cause environmen-
tal changes, with each activity affecting water, soil, vegetation, and/or wildlife to varying
degrees (Hammit et al., 2015; Leung et al., 2018; Marion et al., 2016; Spenceley et al.,
2015). While local communities are often viewed as direct beneficiaries of tourism devel-
opment in protected areas, it is important to recognize that tourism can also have nega-
tive socioeconomic impacts both inside and around these areas (Eagles et al., 2002; Leung
et al., 2018; Spenceley et al., 2015).
Addressing the adverse impacts of tourism development is a complex task that is often
hindered by contradictions in how tourism is approached in different planning contexts
(Hall, 2019; Milano et al., 2019). Although sustainable tourism planning approaches (Hall
& Page, 2006) have gained widespread acceptance and legitimacy in recent years, these
contradictions persist due to the involvement of diverse actors, institutions, organizations,
and governments.
In many cases, the success of tourism is still measured by its scale and volume, which
can be at odds with the principles of sustainability (Gössling et al., 2020). This has led
some experts to argue that the sustainability of alternative tourism models may be limited
to an "involvement" stage within the destination life cycle, with the potential to become
less sustainable over time (Weaver, 2006).
The economic approach that prioritizes tourism growth (Hall & Page, 2006; UNWTO,
2013) is still prevalent in various destination types, political systems, and socioeconomic
contexts (WTTC, 2021). As a result, tourism policies and strategies often focus on maxi-
mizing the potential of tourism to create jobs and boost income, with destinations encour-
aged to remove barriers to growth and create favorable conditions to attract investment.
The economic paradigm that emphasizes tourism growth and development, often at the
expense of sustainability, has persisted despite growing evidence of its contradictions and
negative impacts on the environment. Recent crises such as biodiversity loss, economic
inequality, and climate change have highlighted the urgent need for a critical reassessment
of this model (Chakraborty, 2021; Hall, 2019). In particular, the COVID-19 pandemic has
exposed the fragility and unsustainability of the tourism industry, which is often driven
by profit and resource exploitation rather than responsible and equitable development
(Gössling et al., 2020; Robina-Ramírez et al., 2022).
In the context of protected areas, there are often conflicting goals between promoting
sustainable practices and economic growth by encouraging increased revenues. Prior to the
COVID-19 pandemic, these protected areas registered approximately eight billion visitors,
resulting in an estimated US$600 billion per year in direct expenditures in various coun-
tries (Balmford et al., 2015). However, recent studies analyzing the impact of the pandemic
on the management of protected areas and the surrounding communities have highlighted
the potential negative consequences of relying heavily on tourism and recreation for rev-
enue, with many areas struggling to maintain their sustainability (Hockings et al., 2020;
Smith et al., 2021; Spenceley et al., 2021).
Over time, the tensions and contradictions surrounding tourism in protected areas
have led to various approaches in dealing with the negative impacts of this activity. One
prevalent approach considers the increasing scale of visitation as an inherent threat,
but a necessary evil. Strategies predominantly focus on biophysical impacts and aim
to address the well-documented evidence of negative visitor-related effects in natural

13
Exploring the application of environmental impact assessment…

areas. Such strategies aim to identify and monitor the acceptable extent of damage or
change caused by visitors (Weaver & Lawton, 2017).
The field of recreation ecology has been developed to address ecological changes
associated with visitation in protected areas and the influential aspects behind them
(Leung et al., 2018; Monz et al., 2010a, 2010b). Numerous conceptual frameworks
for managing and monitoring recreation impacts have evolved and been consolidated,
including recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) (Clark & Stankey, 1978), limits of
acceptable change (LAC) (Stankey et al., 1985), visitor activity management process
(VAMP) (Graham et al., 1988), visitor impact management (VIM) (Kuss et al., 1990),
visitor experience and resource protection (VERP) (Manning et al., 1995), and protected
areas visitor impact management (PAVIM) (Farrell & Marion, 2002). These frameworks
aim to inform decision-makers about the acceptable limits of environmental changes
caused by recreational activities and to identify necessary management actions to avoid
further undesirable changes (Cole & McCooL, 1997; Stankey et al., 1985).
However, Weaver and Lawton (2017) propose a different approach that prioritizes the
visitor experience and level of motivation and mobilization. In this approach, visitation
is promoted as an opportunity and it is based on visitor’s mass participation in activities
that contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the protected areas. According to
the authors, this "new visitation paradigm" complements the aforementioned approach.
Finding a middle path and balance between the two agendas, in the sense of devel-
oping and stimulating visitation models that effectively deliver broad benefits, while
maintaining environmental impact management and monitoring systems, remains an
aspirational challenge. Several obstacles hinder this agenda, including reduced budgets
and dependence on tourism revenues for the management and monitoring of impacts,
difficulties in effectively delivering promising visitation benefits, such as mobilization
and public support, social equity and justice for local communities, and conservation of
biodiversity and its associated cultural values.
At the same time, the environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been widely dis-
seminated worldwide both theoretically and methodologically (Bond et al., 2020; Mor-
gan, 2012; Sánchez, 2006). EIA is both a tool and a process that provides decision-
makers with vital information about proposed interventions and development actions,
aiming to achieve satisfactory levels of environmental protection and social well-being
(IAIA, 1999). Globally, this tool is primarily employed at the project level (Wood,
2003), with a particular focus on medium to large-scale development proposals, such as
infrastructure projects and industrial facilities, among others, though it is not limited to
such interventions (Abaza et al., 2004).
The level, goal, focus, and scale of the proposed action determine the extent to which
the EIA needs to be adapted (Partidário, 2000). In the case of protected areas, the EIA
typically takes a broader perspective, encompassing the potential positive and negative
impacts of planned interventions on the natural, cultural, social, and economic compo-
nents of these areas (Buckley, 2008; Spenceley et al., 2015).
Likewise, a fundamental component of environmental impact assessment practice
is the follow-up phase. It seeks to identify the outcomes arising from proposed devel-
opments, surpassing the mere collection of relevant environmental data. Follow-up
involves the comprehensive evaluation of monitoring data in light of performance stand-
ards, objectives, predictions or expectations. It also entails appropriate public engage-
ment, communication and good governance (Glasson et al., 2005; Morrison-Saunders
et al., 2021). Therefore, by scrutinizing the scope and the results achieved through the

13
 G. F. Pegler et al.

application of EIA in managing protected areas in different contexts, we seek to identify

its advantages for supporting public use management.
There is a wealth of literature on the impacts of tourist and recreational activities on
protected areas, particularly from the perspective of recreation ecology (Leung & Marion,
2000a, 2000b; Liddle, 1997; Marion et al., 2016; Monz et al., 2010a, 2013). Furthermore,
there is significant research on the impact of large-scale tourism developments both in and
around these areas (Alberts et al., 2021; Malepe et al., 2022; Pope et al., 2019; Sandham
et al., 2020; Wylie et al., 2018). However, few studies have explored the impacts of tour-
ist and recreational activities on protected areas through the lens of environmental impact
assessment.
Given that EIA is a process that seeks to inform decision-making and result in appro-
priate levels of environmental protection, potentially integrating touristic/recreational
activities to conservation goals of protected areas, this paper aims to identify and criti-
cally discuss how environmental impact assessment is contributing to improving decision-
making and management of public use in protected areas, with a focus on methodological
approaches, the extent of its application and reported outcomes.

2 Methodology

2.1 Systematic literature review

The data collection process utilized a systematic literature review (SLR), which enabled
the collection of information from reliable sources, as well as for the synthesis and analysis
of evidence, and the dissemination of the obtained results (Cook et al., 2013; Woodcock
et al., 2014). Additionally, using the SLR approach minimizes any analysis bias, while pro-
moting transparency and repeatability in the process (Cook et al., 2013).
To ensure rigorous methodology, we adhered to the recommendations outlined in two
guidelines published by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE): "Guidelines
and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management" (version 5.0, 2018)
and "Guidelines for Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Manage-
ment" (version 4.2, 2013).
Figure 1 illustrates the steps of the systematic literature review, including the number of
articles captured at each stage.
The initial stage of the SLR involved defining a guiding question to establish the sys-
tematic review’s scope, the search terms used for literature search, and the criteria for
selecting relevant studies, as recommended by CEE (2018). To accomplish the objective of
this study, we formulated the following guiding question: "What impact assessment prac-
tices aid managers in their decision-making regarding public use in protected areas?".
In Table 1, the study identified search terms based on the elements of the guiding ques-
tion. The search was conducted on two major scientific platforms for environmental and
engineering sciences: SciVerse Scopus and Clarivate Analytics Web of Science (WoS).
The search included documents indexed in the platforms from all years until March 2020.
This deadline was established due to the start date of the systematic literature review.
Following the search, we screened the articles using two types of filters. In Filter I, we
assessed the studies based on their title, abstract, and keywords, selecting those with the
potential to meet the eligibility criteria outlined in Table 2. The use of well-established
eligibility criteria ensures the transparency and objectivity of article selection (CEE, 2018).

13
Exploring the application of environmental impact assessment…

Fig. 1  Flowchart illustrating the

steps of the systematic literature
review

Table 1  Terms used in the

search for relevant works in the “Public use”
scientific platforms Scopus and “Impact assessment” OR
Web of Science. Source: Prepared “Tourism”
by the authors
OR AND OR AND “Pro-
tected
area*”
“Recreation”
“Impact monitoring” OR
“Visitor”

The asterisk (*) at the end of the word allows the system to find deri-
vations of the word

Table 2  Eligibility criteria for articles in the systematic literature review

Aspect Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria

Language Texts in English Texts in other languages

Accessibility Full text accessed Full text unavailable
Document type Journal articles Book chapters, conference articles
Field of knowledge Environmental and social sciences Others
Object of study Original works that assess the impact of Reviews; Articles that do not assess the
tourism/recreation on biophysical aspects impact of tourism/recreation on bio-
of the environment physical aspects of the environment
Field of study Works totally or partially carried out in Works carried out outside protected areas
protected areas
Implications Works that present the implications of Works that fail to present the implica-
the proposed/adopted method for the tions of the proposed/adopted method
management of public use for the management of public use

13
 G. F. Pegler et al.

Filter II involved reading the selected studies in their entirety and assessing their eligi-
bility criteria in the objectives, materials and methods, results, discussion, and/or conclu-
sion sections of the articles.
CEE (2013, 2018) recommends that coding and data extraction take place after searches
and work selection. Therefore, we developed a "Table of References" that included ele-
ments to identify the results presented in the relevant articles for this research, such as (1)
author(s), journal, and year of publication; (2) location of the research; (3) objective(s); (4)
impacted environment and potentially impacting activities; (5) types of data collected; (6)
general methods used for data collection and analysis; and (7) the study’s implications for
the management of protected areas.

2.2 Analysis of the results

According to CEE (2018), systematic reviews require research synthesis, which can be nar-
rative, quantitative, and/or qualitative. We decided to conduct a narrative synthesis to pro-
vide an overview of the evidence and discuss the implications of the results obtained in the
SLR (CEE, 2018). To perform the narrative synthesis, we followed the recommendations
outlined in the "Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews"
(Popay et al., 2006).

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Research on the impacts of public use in protected areas—spatial and temporal

scope and research domains

After applying the search terms, a total of 499 works were identified from both SciVerse
Scopus (280) and Clarivate Analytics Web of Science (219), excluding replicates. Follow-
ing the application of Filters I and II, 52 works were selected for inclusion in the systematic
review.
Figure 2 illustrates the number of published articles on the topic per year, starting from
1997. The trend of publications on this topic has been increasing over time. However, it
is worth noting that this trend may not necessarily indicate an increase in interest since
there is also an overall increasing number of publications in various fields (Scimago Jour-
nal Rank, 2020).
Figure 3 illustrates the geographic distribution of the selected publications, indicating
the countries where the studies were carried out. It is crucial to clarify that this analysis
refers to the research locations rather than the institutional affiliations of the authors. The
study areas encompassed a total of 23 countries, with the majority of the publications orig-
inating from the United States (16 publications), followed by Australia (6 publications),
and China (5 publications). Notably, some studies conducted research across multiple
countries.
Nine protected areas were the subject of more than one article, especially Acadia
National Park in the United States (4 publications) and Kosciuszko National Park in
Australia (3 publications). Aconcagua Provincial Park in Argentina, Torres del Paine
National Park in Chile, Yosemite National Park, Isle Royale National Park, and Great
Smoky Mountains National Park in the United States, Pallas-Yllästunturi National Park
in Finland, and Jiuzhaigou Nature Reserve in China were the subject of two studies

13
Exploring the application of environmental impact assessment…

Fig. 2  Total number of articles selected in SLR that address the topics of impact assessment in protected
areas, published per year, until March 2020

Fig. 3  Map of the geographical distribution of the studies selected in the systematic literature review (with
the numbers of publications by country)

each. It is worth highlighting that despite two of these areas being situated in Latin
America, this region represented only 19% of the articles analyzed.
The distribution pattern of studies examined in this research aligns with findings
identified by Pickering et al. (2018) in their systematic quantitative review of 758 oral
abstracts from the first seven conferences on Monitoring and Management of Visitors
in Recreation and Protected Areas. According to the authors, there are clear geographic
biases in the scientific papers distribution, with the United States and some European
countries being overrepresented. They emphasized the need to address such biases by
providing funding for research in areas that are underrepresented and supporting pub-
lications and conference presentations outside the United States and wealthy parts of

13
 G. F. Pegler et al.

Europe. Moreover, they underscored the importance of acknowledging the limitations

and potential biases of the scientific literature in this field.
The 52 articles retrieved from the SciVerse Scopus and Clarivate Analytics Web of Sci-
ence platforms are published in 32 different journals. Table 3 displays the number of arti-
cles published in each journal and their respective research domains according to the Web
of Science platform.
The diversity of journals publishing on the subject has been noted by other authors
(Buckley, 2011; Gladstone et al., 2013). Our eligibility criteria allowed for a broad range
of studies from various fields of knowledge. This approach holds significance as reviews
focused solely on a single subject may underestimate the breadth of research on this topic
(Gladstone et al., 2013). However, it is possible that many related studies are published in
the gray literature and do not meet our eligibility criteria.

3.2 Consideration of impacted environment and potentially impacting activities

The papers selected during the SLR aim to assess and monitor visitation impacts in pro-
tected areas, aligning with the paradigm identified by Weaver and Lawton (2017) that
emphasizes the assessment and monitoring of negative impacts of visitation. These studies
focus on key areas such as recreation infrastructure (e.g., trails, camping areas), ecological
resources (e.g., water, soil, vegetation, wildlife), and visitor use and behavior (e.g., type
and distribution of use, evidence of inappropriate behavior) (Leung et al., 2018).
This outcome draws attention to the need of promoting different approaches of envi-
ronmental impact assessment in protected areas. Rather than solely concentrating on the
adverse impacts of human activities, EIA should also contribute to fulfilling the anticipated
positive impacts of tourism, playing a pivotal role in fostering new visitation patterns and
public engagement. This shift can significantly contribute to the achievement of conserva-
tion objectives of the protected areas.
Several studies in the field of recreation ecology have been devoted to examining the
impacts of trekking and camping in areas of concentrated use, whether they are official
trails, designated camps, or those created by visitors themselves (Leung & Marion, 2000a;
Monz et al., 2010a, 2010b). Such areas tend to experience more severe impacts on flora,
fauna and water resources (Olive & Marion, 2009), which can also negatively affect the
safety and overall experience of visitors (Tomczyk et al., 2013; (Ancin-Murguzur et al.,
2020). Many of these studies focus on analyzing changes in established trails and recrea-
tion sites and examining the interconnections between use, environmental factors, and
management practices (Leung & Marion, 2000a).
Approximately 40% of the articles reviewed focus on examining the impacts of visita-
tion on recreation infrastructure. These studies employ diverse methods to analyze the con-
dition of infrastructure, including trail width and depth, erosion, soil exposure and wetness,
vegetation loss, and litter distribution (as shown in Table 4). Such findings reinforce the
existing literature on the subject.
In this article, we focused on studies that assessed the impacts of recreational activities
and infrastructure on the physical and biological components of protected areas in general,
not only on the state of visitation infrastructure and visitor experience. These studies are
more akin to environmental impact assessment (EIA) and are the main focus of our subse-
quent discussions. They make up roughly three-fifths of the articles chosen in the system-
atic review, as demonstrated in Table 5.

13
 Table 3  Research domains of articles selected in the systematic literature review
Journals No. of papers Research domain (WoS)*

Environmental Management 10 Environmental Sciences and Ecology

Journal of Environmental Management 9 Environmental sciences and ecology
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 3 Environmental Sciences and Ecology
Ecological Applications 2 Environmental Sciences and Ecology
Environmental Conservation 2 Biodiversity and Conservation/Environmental Sciences and Ecology
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2 Science and Technology (other topics) / Social Sciences (other topics)
Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 1 Environmental Sciences and Ecology
Australian Journal of Botany 1 Plant Sciences
Biodiversity and Conservation 1 Biodiversity and Conservation/Environmental Sciences and Ecology
Biological Conservation 1 Biodiversity and Conservation/Environmental Sciences and Ecology
Ecological Indicators 1 Biodiversity and Conservation/Environmental Sciences and Ecology
Ecological Management & Restoration 1 Environmental Sciences and Ecology
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1 Environmental Sciences and Ecology
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1 Environmental Sciences and Ecology
Exploring the application of environmental impact assessment…

Geographical Review 1 Geography

Hystrix-Italian Journal of Mammalogy 1 Zoology
Journal of Nature Conservation 1 Biodiversity Conservation/Environmental Sciences and Ecology
Journal of Applied Ecology 1 Biodiversity Conservation/Environmental Sciences and Ecology
Journal of Forestry Research 1 Forestry
Journal of Maps 1 Geography/Physical Geography
Journal of Mountain Science 1 Environmental Sciences and Ecology
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism-Research Planning and 1 Social Sciences (other topics)
Management
Landscape and Urban Planning 1 Environmental Sciences and Ecology/Geography/Physical Geogra-
phy/Public Administration/Urban Studies
Leisure/Loisir 1 -

13
 Table 3  (continued)
Journals No. of papers Research domain (WoS)*

13
Marine and Freshwater Research 1 Fishery/Marine and Freshwater Biology, and Oceanography
Mountain Research and Development 1 -
Ocean and Coastal Management 1 Oceanography/Water Resource
Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation 1 Environmental Sciences and Ecology/Remote sensing
Solid Earth 1 Geochemistry and Geophysics
Tourism Management Perspectives 1 Social Sciences (other topics)/Business and Economics
*
The fields of knowledge are part of five main categories: Arts and Humanities; Social Sciences; Science and Technology: Life sciences and biomedicine; Science and Tech-
nology: Physical Science; and Science and Technology: Technology
G. F. Pegler et al.
Exploring the application of environmental impact assessment…

Table 4  List of articles that assess the impacts of tourism/recreational activities on trails, camps, and rec-
reation sites
Articles that assess the impacts of tourism/recreational activities on trails, camps, and recreation sites
Author(s) % Of the articles analyzed

Ancin-Murguzur et al., (2020), Cole et al. (2008), Farrell and Marion (2001a, 38%
2001b), Farrell and Marion (2001a), George (2003), Hrnčiarová et al. (2018),
Kuba et al. (2018), Leung et al. (2011), Leung and Marion (1999), Li et al.
(2005), Marion and Farrell (2002), Monz and Twardock (2010), Obua (1997),
Olive and Marion (2009), Reid and Marion (2005), Svajda et al. (2016),
Tomczyk and Ewertowski (2016), Torn et al. (2009), Walden-Schreiner and
Leung (2013) and Wimpey and Marion (2010)

Table 5  List of articles that assess the impacts of tourism/recreational activities and infrastructure on the
components of the environment
Articles that assess the impacts of tourism/recreational activities and infrastructure on the components of
the environment
Author(s) % Of the articles analyzed

Albuquerque et al. (2014), Ballantyne et al. (2014), Barros and Pickering 62%
(2017), Barros et al. (2015), Belotti et al. (2018), Bie and Vesk (2014),
Browning et al. (2013), Cakir et al. (2016), Canteiro et al. (2018), Castley
et al. (2009), Claudet et al. (2010), Cole and Monz (2003), Coma et al.
(2004), Cunha (2010), Geneletti and Dawa (2009), Gutzwiller et al. (2017),
Hayes et al. (2017), Herrmann et al. (2010), Huhta and Sulkava (2014),,
Kerbiriou et al. (2009), Kim and Daigle (2012), Lloret et al. (2008), Monz
et al., (2010a, 2010b), Niu and Cheng (2019), Pickering and Barros (2015),
Pickering et al. (2011), Pouwels et al. (2017), Rouphael and Inglis (2002),
Rouphael et al. (2011), Tessler and Clark (2016), Wang et al. (2018) and
Zhang et al. (2012)

The studies assessed various recreational activities’ impacts on physical and biological
components of protected areas, with trekking (11 articles), camping (4 articles), and snor-
keling (4 articles) being the most studied activities. In four articles, the focus was on the
impacts of tourism/recreational infrastructure on soil, water resources, vegetation, and/or
wildlife. However, seven studies failed to specify the potentially impacting activities. The
impacts of visitation on wildlife were assessed in most studies, with visitor density being a
significant consideration (Cunha, 2010; Herrmann et al., 2010; Kerbiriou et al., 2009; Pou-
wels et al., 2017) (see Table 6).

3.3 Impacts of public use on physical and biological aspects—contributions

from the environmental impact assessment

Out of the relevant papers, only two (Canteiro et al. (2018); Geneletti and Dawa (2009)
included methodologies for assessing the impacts of tourism and recreation that were dis-
cussed within the context of EIA principles.
Canteiro et al. (2018) proposed a tool called tourism impact assessment (TIA)
that adapted the Leopold matrix (Leopold et al., 1971) to evaluate the environmental
impacts of tourist activities in protected areas based on expert knowledge. The authors

13
 G. F. Pegler et al.

Table 6  Number of articles that assess the impacts of tourism/recreational activities and infrastructure on
each environment component
Activities assessed Number of Environment component
articles
Soil Water Vegetation Wildlife
resources

Trekking 11 4 3 9 5
Camping 4 1 2 4 2
Cycling 1 – – – 1
Climbing 1 – – 1 –
Cross-country skiing 1 – – – 1
Non-motorized water sports 1 1 1 1 1
Diving 2 – – – 2
Scuba diving 1 – – – 1
Snorkeling 4 – 1 1 3
Mountain bike 3 2 1 3 1
Swimming 2 – 1 1 1
Wildlife observation 1 1 1 1 1
Paragliding 1 1 1 1 1
Horseback riding 3 1 1 2 2
Boat ride 2 – 2 1 1
4 × 4 ride 1 1 1 1 1
Recreational fishing 2 – 2 1 1
Picnic 1 – – 1 –
Rallying 1 1 1 1 1
Abseiling 1 1 1 1 1
Sun and beach tourism 2 1 2 2 1
Tourism/recreational infrastructures 4 1 2 2 2
Unspecified 7 1 1 2 6
Others* 6 1 1 3 5
Total** 16 25 39 41

*Includes listening to loud music; feeding wildlife; use of pack animals; berry and mushroom picking;
unstructured play for children
**The total does not indicate the number of articles, as some studies evaluated more than one recreational
activity on more than one component of the physical and biological environment

highlighted some advantages of TIA over other methods commonly used, such as car-
rying capacity and limits of acceptable change (LAC). Specifically, they emphasized
TIA’s flexibility, as it can be applied by a variety of stakeholders including community
members, government agencies, companies, and non-governmental organizations; its
retrospective applicability to assess impacts that have already occurred; and its prioriti-
zation of environmental conditions over visitor experiences. In contrast to LAC, which
considers the perceptions and preferences of visitors in setting standards for acceptable
change, TIA relies on ecological and social thresholds to define the limits of acceptable
impacts.
The steps of the TIA are:

13
Exploring the application of environmental impact assessment…

1. Identification of pressures (touristic activities);

2. Selection of ecological components, segregated into two abiotic (soil and water) and
two biotic (biodiversity and plant coverage) components;
3. Identification and description of impacts (building the Leopold matrix of pressures
versus components);
4. Establishment of criteria to evaluate the magnitude of the impacts.

The application of the tourism impact assessment (TIA) method can add significant
contributions to decision-making regarding public use in protected areas by improving
tourism planning and management, and allowing for regional and local scale applica-
tion. At a local scale, it can help assess the magnitude of impacts in specific areas where
tourist activities occur and support the zoning of public use to plan future activities that
have the potential to cause environmental impacts (Canteiro et al., 2018).
Geneletti and Dawa’s (2009) primary aim was to investigate the patterns of environ-
mental degradation caused by trekking, and their proposed method was structured into
three typical stages of EIA: scoping, baseline study, and impact modeling.
The authors identified environmental components that may potentially be affected,
also known as "receptors," by breaking down the environment into physical components
such as soil and water, as well as biological components like wildlife and vegetation.
They then identified sources of disturbance or "stressors" associated with the activity
under analysis, including actual trail use, waste dumping, camping, pack animal graz-
ing, and off-road driving.
After spatially combining the intensity of the stressor, Geneletti and Dawa (2009)
generated maps of impact (e.g., a trail map in which each trail receives a certain number
of visitors) with the vulnerability and the value of the receptor (e.g., a map representing
soil vulnerability to erosion and a soil fertility map, respectively). By synthesizing these
maps, the authors produced a comprehensive view of the impacts of each activity on
the environment, including the overall impact on each environmental component (soil,
water, wildlife, and vegetation), and a combination of all impact maps.
The method proposed by Geneletti and Dawa (2009) made several contributions to
the field. By identifying and spatially combining the intensity of different stressors asso-
ciated with trekking, and mapping them against the vulnerability and value of environ-
mental receptors, they were able to generate detailed maps of impacts at different scales.
These maps not only provided an overview of critical areas, by highlighting locations
where sensitive and valuable environmental resources overlap with trekking activities,
but also suggested potential mitigation measures. For example, by identifying less sensi-
tive or lower-visitation areas, it may be possible to redirect trekker inflow toward these
areas, or distribute it more evenly across different trails.
While the literature predominantly emphasizes the prior, prospective, anticipatory, and
preventive nature of the EIA, there is a second approach that focuses on assessing envi-
ronmental damage and impacts resulting from past actions or events (Sánchez, 2008). The
advantage of the former approach is that it allows for the prediction of the future state of
the environment with or without the proposed action, and for the recommendation of effec-
tive means to mitigate unintended impacts, increase benefits associated with the action, and
search for and compare alternatives to the project (Sánchez & Mitchell, 2017), enabling
proponents to design less environmentally aggressive proposals (Sánchez, 1993, 2008).
In addition to the study of Canteiro et al. (2018), the preventive perspective has
been investigated by Barros et al. (2015) and Castley et al. (2009). Barros et al. (2015)

13
 G. F. Pegler et al.

propose a desktop landscape-based analysis approach consisting of six steps to deter-

mine, a priori, the likely ecological impacts of visitation. Castley et al. (2009) introduce
a framework that integrates visitor impact monitoring and assessment within adaptive
management cycles of protected areas, prioritizing natural assets used by visitors or
those that are likely to be affected at various stages.
While some studies have developed predictive models to assess wildlife response to
visitor impacts (Gutzwiller et al., 2017; Kerbiriou et al., 2009; Pouwels et al., 2017) or
measured the effects of an action or activity before and after its implementation using
the BACI method (before-after-control-impact design) (Claudet et al., 2010; Coma
et al., 2004; Rouphael & Inglis, 2002), they do not primarily focus on projecting the
future scenario with and without the action or activity.
Studies that aim to assess visitor impacts on vegetation generally focus on comparing
the volume and vegetation cover in an area before and after visitation periods, or com-
paring current use areas with control areas that have not been disturbed, or comparing
different treatments in terms of intensity of use (Bie & Vesk, 2014; Cole & Monz, 2003;
Kim & Daigle, 2012; Niu & Cheng, 2019; Pickering & Barros, 2015; Pickering et al.,
2011; Tessler & Clark, 2016). However, projecting future scenarios with and without
visitor activities is not usually a primary focus of these studies.
Therefore, it is crucial to emphasize the significance of predicting the potential
impacts of tourist and recreational activities prior to their implementation, particularly
from a public use planning perspective. This represents the first contribution given by
environmental impact assessment (EIA) in the management of public use within pro-
tected areas.
The systematic review was significantly valuable in identifying the variety of methods
commonly used for recognition and prediction of environmental impacts within the EIA
process. These methods encompass checklists, matrices, scorecards, flowcharts, networks,
mathematical and statistical models, geographic information system (GIS), and quantita-
tive methods (Glasson et al., 2005; Morris & Therivel, 2009). Their effectiveness was evi-
denced by the selected papers and therefore useful for assessing the impacts of tourist and
recreational activities in protected areas.
Similar to Geneletti and Dawa’s (2009) study, several papers from our systematic review
utilize GIS tools to integrate visitor data (such as spatial patterns of use), recreational activ-
ities, and/or visitation infrastructures with biophysical data from the study areas (Barros &
Pickering, 2017; Barros et al., 2015; Belotti et al., 2018; Çakir et al., 2016; Claudet et al.,
2010; Gutzwiller et al., 2017; Hayes et al., 2017; Kerbiriou et al., 2009; Kim & Daigle,
2012; Monz et al., 2010a, 2010b; Pouwels et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2018). The increasing
use of GIS in recreation ecology studies suggests that it has the potential to address some
of the research gaps highlighted by Monz et al. (2010a), such as the need to investigate
impacts on larger spatial and temporal scales and to enhance predictive analysis.
The contribution of GIS is evident in answering central questions in the EIA process.
GIS allows mapping of projects and identification of environmentally sensitive areas,
potential conflicts, and impacts. It also enables visualization of trends and patterns in envi-
ronmental datasets, among other contributions in the phases of impact prediction, mitiga-
tion, and monitoring (Morris & Therivel, 2009).
Numerous tools and methods, such as GIS, are currently being adopted in studies
focused on the impacts of recreation; all of these are already extensively incorporated
within the framework of environmental impact assessment. In this regard, we emphasize
the promising potential for applying these well-established EIA methods to forecast and
assess recreational impacts in protected areas.

13
Exploring the application of environmental impact assessment…

The monitoring of environmental impacts creates significant opportunities for assess-

ing the accuracy of impact predictions, enforcing regulations, and implementing corrective
actions in cases where the environmental effects exceed acceptable levels. However, for
monitoring to be truly meaningful, it must be connected to adaptive management designs
and processes (Hunsberger et al., 2005).
Several of the reviewed articles anticipate or advocate for the long-term sustainability of
their research endeavors through ongoing data collection, particularly focusing on monitor-
ing the impacts of visitor activities (Ballantyne et al., 2014; Bie & Vesk, 2014; Gutzwiller
et al., 2017; Hayes et al., 2017; Kim & Daigle, 2012; Monz et al., 2010a, 2010b; Pouwels
et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2018). This approach has important implications for the man-
agement of public use, as it allows for the analysis of trends in the condition of biophysi-
cal components over time and the evaluation of the effectiveness of impact management
actions. However, a majority of these studies (62%) adopt an ad hoc approach and lack
integration into a structured or continuous decision-making framework for managing pro-
tected areas, thereby limiting the effectiveness of the follow-up approach.
We should highlight a relevant aspect indicated by Hadwen et al. (2008) on the differ-
ences, in terms of scope and objectives, between research on the visit impact in protected
areas, belonging to the field of recreation ecology, and monitoring visit impact as a routine
activity within the management of these areas. The first seeks to establish causal relation-
ships between stress (pressure) and environmental indicators, while the second aims to
detect changes in the interest indicator. Hadwen et al. (2008) also highlight that monitoring
needs to be integrated into management plans in protected areas.
Like other established management and monitoring frameworks for recreational use,
including LAC, VERP, and VIM, some articles have described frameworks that define
clear steps for assessing and monitoring the impacts of tourist and recreational activities
(Barros et al., 2015; Castley et al., 2009; Rouphael et al., 2011). These frameworks can
facilitate integration with existing management processes and enable feedback cycles,
thereby promoting adaptive management of recreational activities.
The environmental impact assessment (EIA) process is designed to analyze the envi-
ronmental feasibility of projects, plans, and programs, and provide support for decision-
making in this regard (Sànchez, 2008). It involves a series of sequential activities that are
logically linked and presented as a purposeful and adaptive process that can be adjusted to
the realities, issues, and circumstances of the proposals. This process is also interactive and
capable of incorporating lessons learned throughout the life cycle of the project, as well as
being able to respond to changing circumstances (IAIA, 1999).
Therefore, we highlight the potential of the environmental impact assessment (EIA)
to play an important role in facilitating the systematic monitoring of recreational activity
impacts. Through the inclusion of monitoring as part of a well-defined process that pro-
vides tiered steps, the risk of overlooking critical activities is minimized. This approach
leads to more informed, decisive, and integrated decision-making processes.
The EIA approach is widely adopted and it provides basic and operational principles for
stakeholder participation that can be incorporated into the management of the impacts of
recreational activities in protected areas, helping to ensure effective and sustainable man-
agement practices.
It also offers a logical framework for making environmentally sound decisions, includ-
ing steps for identifying and predicting environmental impacts. This prior nature of the
instrument and its relevance to the context of recreational activities can offer benefits for
the assessment and monitoring of tourism and recreation impacts in protected areas, poten-
tially providing an alternative to existing management structures.

13
 G. F. Pegler et al.

Although the EIA literature has not extensively explored the effects of tourism and rec-
reation in protected areas, the systematic review reveals that several areas of knowledge
contribute to discussions on this topic. Notably, some aspects of the EIA process are also
incorporated into the studies assessed. By deliberately contemplating the EIA stages, man-
agers can make informed decisions regarding the public use of protected areas, helping to
ensure that these areas are sustainably managed.

3.4 Final considerations

Tourism in protected areas is increasingly popular and viewed as an opportunity to gain

public support for biodiversity conservation. However, it is crucial to implement impact
assessment and monitoring approaches to identify the nature and intensity of impacts, as
well as to establish potential cause-and-effect relationships between negative impacts and
visitation. It is also important to understand whether visitation reinforces unsustainable
tourism models that prioritize growth measures, and to what extent tourism actually con-
tributes to the protection objectives for which protected areas are established.
The findings of this study underscore the importance of applying environmental impact
assessment procedures and principles to promote more informed decision-making and
greater sensitivity in managing visitation impacts. By doing so, it is possible to identify
potential impacts and take steps to mitigate them, while also ensuring that tourism is sus-
tainable and contributes to the long-term objectives of protected areas.
Although consolidated tools and monitoring procedures for recreational management
are already established, the environmental impact assessment (EIA) can be viewed as a
complementary approach. This review clearly shows that there are few studies that have
analyzed the impacts of public use in protected areas within the context of EIA principles.
To understand how EIA can contribute to this field, we established a preliminary connec-
tion between the methodologies proposed in the reviewed articles and the EIA. We con-
clude that EIA can enhance existing methodologies based on four main aspects:

• The prior application nature of the instrument;

• The methods used to identify and predict impacts;
• The application of monitoring steps and follow-up principles;
• The provision of tiered steps to facilitate better and integrated decision-making.

Although this article does not focus on it, there is a substantial body of EIA literature
that examines the engagement of individuals and groups who are either positively or nega-
tively impacted by projects, programs, plans, or policies. This literature can provide valu-
able insights into how public engagement can be effectively incorporated into the assess-
ment and monitoring of tourism and recreation impacts on protected areas.
An alternative approach that has the potential to engage the public in assessing and
monitoring tourism/recreation impacts on protected areas is citizen science, but it is cur-
rently underused and underrepresented in the scientific literature (Cheung et al., 2022).
This method not only supports impact management but also promotes place attachment
and visitor engagement with protected areas, shifting the visitor from a potential threat to
an opportunity for protection and conservation.
Furthermore, methodological limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First,
a standardized tool for assessing the quality of the studies included in the review was not

13
Exploring the application of environmental impact assessment…

utilized. Second, gray literature was excluded. Third, the search terms and specific eligibil-
ity criteria may have excluded many relevant studies from the systematic literature review.
It is important to acknowledge that the SLR approach utilized in this study may yield
different outcomes compared to research that uses alternative methodological approaches
such as artificial intelligence and text mining. Nonetheless, complementing and expanding
this study’s approach with big data analytics can be a valuable avenue for future research,
as demonstrated in recent studies (Shokouhyar et al., 2020; Shokouhyar & Seddigh, 2020;
Seddigh et al., 2022a, 2022b; Seddigh et al., 2022a).
To further advance the field, future studies could investigate the practical implementa-
tion of EIA contributions into the management of protected areas from a precautionary
and proactive perspective, employing comprehensive participatory methods recommended
in EIA best practices. Such research could provide detailed recommendations on how the
EIA can be utilized to promote sustainable practices in these areas. Overall, our findings
suggest that the EIA has substantial potential to facilitate decision-making related to public
use of protected areas with greater sensitivity toward environmental impacts.

Author contributions All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data
collection and analysis were performed by GFP, VELR and CCdL. The first draft of the manuscript was
written by GFP, and all authors commented on previus versions of the manuscript. All authors read and
approved the final manuscript.

Funding This work was supported by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
(CAPES—Brazil). The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available on
request from the corresponding authors.

Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

References
Abaza, H., Bisset, R., & Sadler, B. (2004). Environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental
assessment: towards an integrated approach. PNUMA/Earthprint.
Alberts, R. C., Retief, F. P., Cilliers, D. P., Roos, C., & Hauptfleisch, M. (2021). Environmental impact
assessment (EIA) effectiveness in protected areas. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 39(4),
290–303. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​14615​517.​2021.​19043​77
Albuquerque, T., Loiola, M., Nunes, J. A. C. C., Reis-Filho, J. A., Sampaio, C. L. S., & Leduc, A. O. H. C.
(2014). In situ effects of human disturbances on coral reef-fish assemblage structure: Temporary and
persisting changes are reflected as a result of intensive tourism. Marine and Freshwater Research,
66(1), 23–32. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1071/​MF131​85
Ancin‐Murguzur, F. J., Munoz, L., Monz, C., & Hausner, V. H. (2020). Drones as a tool to monitor human
impacts and vegetation changes in parks and protected areas. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conser-
vation, 6(1), 105–113. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​rse2.​127
Ballantyne, M., Pickering, C. M., McDougall, K. L., & Wright, G. T. (2014). Sustained impacts of a hik-
ing trail on changing Windswept Feldmark vegetation in the Australian Alps. Australian Journal of
Botany, 62(4), 263–275. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1071/​BT141​14
Balmford, A., Green, J. M. H., Anderson, M., Beresford, J., Huang, C., Naidoo, R., Walpole, M., & Manica,
A. (2015). Walk on the wild side: Estimating the global magnitude of visits to protected areas. PLoS
Biology, 13(2), e1002074. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journ​al.​pbio.​10020​74
Barros, A., & Pickering, C. M. (2017). How networks of informal trails cause landscape level damage to
vegetation. Environmental Management, 60(1), 57–68. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00267-​017-​0865-9

13
 G. F. Pegler et al.

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. Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment, 150, 179–195. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2014.​11.​004
Belotti, E., Mayer, K., Kreisinger, J., Heurich, M., & Bufka, L. (2018). Recreational activities affect rest-
ing site selection and foraging time of Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx). Hystrix, the Italian Journal of
Mammalogy, 29(2), 181–189. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4404/​hystr​ix-​00053-​2018
de Bie, K., & Vesk, P. A. (2014). Ecological indicators for assessing management effectiveness: A case
study of horse riding in an Alpine National Park. Ecological Management & Restoration, 15(3),
215–221.https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​emr.​12127
Bond, A., Pope, J., Fundingsland, M., Morrison-Saunders, A., Retief, F., & Hauptfleisch, M. (2020).
Explaining the political nature of environmental impact assessment (EIA): A neo-Gramscian per-
spective. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2019.​118694
Browning, M. H., Marion, J. L., & Gregoire, T. G. (2013). Sustainably connecting children with
nature—An exploratory study of nature play area visitor impacts and their management. Land-
scape and Urban Planning, 119, 104–112. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​landu​rbplan.​2013.​07.​004
Buckley, R. (2008). Thresholds and standards for tourism environmental impact assessment. In Stand-
ards and thresholds for impact assessment (pp. 205–215). Springer. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-
3-​540-​31141-6_​16
Buckley, R. (2011). Tourism and environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36, 397–
416. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1146/​annur​ev-​envir​on-​041210-​132637
Çakir, G., Müderrisoğlu, H., & Kaya, L. G. (2016). Assessing the effects of long-term recreational activ-
ities on landscape changes in Abant Natural Park, Turkey. Journal of Forestry Research, 27(2),
453–461. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11676-​015-​0141-x
Canteiro, M., Córdova-Tapia, F., & Brazeiro, A. (2018). Tourism impact assessment: A tool to evaluate
the environmental impacts of touristic activities in Natural Protected Areas. Tourism Management
Perspectives, 28, 220–227. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​tmp.​2018.​09.​007
Castley, J. G., Hill, W., & Pickering, C. M. (2009). Developing ecological indicators of visitor use of
protected areas: A new integrated framework from Australia. Australasian Journal of Environmen-
tal Management, 16(4), 196–207. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​14486​563.​2009.​97252​35
CBD (2020). Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. CBD, Montreal.
CEE. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (2013). Guidelines for systematic review and evidence
syntheses in environmental management. Version 4.2. Environmental Evidence. http://​www.​envir​
onmen​talev​idence.​org/
CEE. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. (2018). Guidelines and standards for evidence syn-
thesis in environmental management. Version 5.0 (AS Pullin, GK Frampton, B Livoreil & G
Petrokofsky, Eds). http://​www.​nviro​nment​alevi​dence.​org/​infor​mation-​for-​autho​rs
Chakraborty, A. (2021). Can tourism contribute to environmentally sustainable development? Argu-
ments from an ecological limits perspective. Environment Development and Sustainnability, 23,
8130–8146. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10668-​020-​00987-5
Cheung, S. Y., Leung, Y. F., & Larson, L. R. (2022). Citizen science as a tool for enhancing recreation
research in protected areas: Applications and opportunities. Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment, 305, 114353. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2021.​114353
Claudet, J., Lenfant, P., & Schrimm, M. (2010). Snorkelers impact on fish communities and algae in a
temperate marine protected area. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(6), 1649–1658. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s10531-​010-​9794-0
Clark, R., Stankey, G. (1978). The recreation opportunity spectrum: A framework for planning, manag-
ing and research. General Technical Report.
Cole, D. N., Foti, P., & Brown, M. (2008). Twenty years of change on campsites in the backcountry
of Grand Canyon National Park. Environmental Management, 41(6), 959–970. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s00267-​008-​9087-5
Cole, D. N., & McCool, S. F. (1997). The limits of acceptable change process: modifications and clarifi-
cations. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report Int (pp.
61–68).
Cole, D. N., & Monz, C. A. (2003). Impacts of camping on vegetation: Response and recovery follow-
ing acute and chronic disturbance. Environmental Management, 32(6), 693–705. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​s00267-​003-​0046-x
Coma, R., Pola, E., Ribes, M., & Zabala, M. (2004). Long-term assessment of temperate octocoral mor-
tality patterns, protected vs unprotected areas. Ecological Applications, 14(5), 1466–1478. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1890/​03-​5176

13
Exploring the application of environmental impact assessment…

Cook, C. N., Possingham, H. P., & Fuller, R. A. (2013). Contribution of systematic reviews to management
decisions: Systematic reviews. Conservation Biology, 27(5), 902–915. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​cobi.​
12114
Cunha, A. A. (2010). Negative effects of tourism in a Brazilian Atlantic forest National Park. Journal for
Nature Conservation, 18(4), 291–295. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jnc.​2010.​01.​001
Eagles, P. F. J., McCool, S. F., & Haynes, C. D. A. (2002). Sustainable tourism in protected areas: Guide-
lines for planning and management. IUCN Gland.
Farrell, T. A., & Marion, J. L. (2001a). Identifying and assessing ecotourism visitor impacts at eight pro-
tected areas in Costa Rica and Belize. Environmental Conservation, 28(3), 215–225. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1017/​S0376​89290​10002​24
Farrell, T. A., & Marion, J. L. (2001b). Trail impacts and trail impact management related to visitation at
Torres del Paine National Park, Chile. Leisure/loisir, 26(1–2), 31–59. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​14927​
713.​2001.​96499​28
Farrell, T. A., & Marion, J. L. (2002). The protected area visitor impact management (PAVIM) framework:
A simplified process for making management decisions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(1),
31–51. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09669​58020​86671​51
Geneletti, D., & Dawa, D. (2009). Environmental impact assessment of mountain tourism in developing
regions: A study in Ladakh, Indian, Himalaya. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(4), 229–
242. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​eiar.​2009.​01.​003
George, P. (2003). Trail LMPACTS in Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park, Nepal: A logistic regression
analysis. Environmental Management, 32(3), 312–321. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00267-​003-​0049-7
Gladstone, W., Curley, B., & Shokri, M. R. (2013). Environmental impacts of tourism in the Gulf and the
Red Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 72(2), 375–388. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​marpo​lbul.​2012.​09.​017
Glasson, J., Therivel, R., & Chadwick, A. (2005). Introduction to environmental assessment (3rd ed.).
Routledge.
Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, M. (2020). Pandemics, tourism and global change: A rapid assessment of
COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09669​582.​2020.​17587​08
Graham, R., Nilsen, P., & Payne, R. J. (1988). Visitor management in Canadian national parks. Tourism
Management, 9(1), 44–61. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0261-​5177(88)​90057-X
Gutzwiller, K. J., D’Antonio, A. L., & Monz, C. A. (2017). Wildland recreation disturbance: Broad-scale
spatial analysis and management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15(9), 517–524. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1002/​fee.​1631
Hadwen, W. L., Hill, W., & Pickering, C. M. (2008). Linking visitor impact research to visitor impact moni-
toring in protected areas. JournaL of ecoTourism, 7(1), 87–93. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2167/​joe193.0
Hall, C. M. (2019). Constructing sustainable tourism development: The 2030 agenda and the managerial
ecology of sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(7), 1044–1060. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​09669​582.​2018.​15604​56
Hall, C. M., & Page, S. (2006). The geography of tourism and recreation: Place, space and environment, 3.
Routledge.
Hammitt, W. E., Cole, D. N., & Monz, C. A. (2015). Wildland recreation: Ecology and management. New
York: Wiley.
Hayes, C. T., Baumbach, D. S., Juma, D., & Dunbar, S. G. (2017). Impacts of recreational diving on hawks-
bill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) behaviour in a marine protected area. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 25(1), 79–95. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09669​582.​2016.​11742​46
Herrmann, T. M., Costina, M. I., & Costina, A. M. A. (2010). Roost sites and communal behavior of Andean
Condors in Chile. Geographical Review, 100(2), 246–262. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1931-​0846.​2010.​
00025.x
Hockings, M., Dudley, N., Ellio, W., & Ferreira, M. N. (2020). COVID-19 and protected and conserved
areas. Parks, 26(1), 7–24. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2305/​IUCN.​CH.​2020.​PARKS-​26-​1MH.​en
Hrnčiarová, T., Spulerova, J., Piscova, V., & Dobrovodská, M. (2018). Status and outlook of hiking trails in
the central part of the Low Tatra Mountains in Slovakia between 1980–1981 and 2013–2014. Journal
of Mountain Science, 15(8), 1615–1632. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11629-​017-​4690-3
Huhta, E., & Sulkava, P. (2014). The impact of nature-based tourism on bird communities: A case study in
Pallas-Yllästunturi National Park. Environmental Management, 53(5), 1005–1014. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s00267-​014-​0253-7
Hunsberger, C. A., Gibson, R. B., & Wismer, S. K. (2005). Citizen involvement in sustainability-centred
environmental assessment follow-up. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(6), 609–627.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​eiar.​2004.​12.​003
International Association For Impact Assessment. (1999). Principles of environmental impact assessment
best practice. Disponível em: https://​www.​iaia.​org/​uploa​ds/​pdf/​Princ​iples%​20of%​20IA%​2019.​pdf

13
 G. F. Pegler et al.

Kerbiriou, C., Le Viol, I., Robert, A., Porcher, E., Goourmelon, F., & Julliard, R. (2009). Tourism in
protected areas can threaten wild populations: From individual response to population viability of
the chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46(3), 657–665. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1111/j.​1365-​2664.​2009.​01646.x
Kim, M.-K., & Daigle, J. J. (2012). Monitoring of vegetation impact due to trampling on Cadillac Moun-
tain summit using high spatial resolution remote sensing data sets. Environmental Management,
50(5), 956–968. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00267-​012-​9905-7
Kuba, K., Monz, C., Bardsen, B. J., & Hausner, V. H. (2018). Role of site management in influencing
visitor use along trails in multiple alpine protected areas in Norway. Journal of Outdoor Recrea-
tion and Tourism, 22, 1–8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jort.​2018.​02.​002
Kuss, F. R., Graefe, A. R., & Vaske, J. J. (1990). Visitor impact management: A review of research (Vol.
1). National Parks and Conservation Association.
Leopold, L. B., Clarke, F. E., Hanshaw, B. B., & Balsley, J. R. (1971). A procedure for evaluating envi-
ronmental impact. US Geological Survey. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3133/​cir645
Leung, Y. F., Newburger, T., Jones, M., Kuhn, B., & Woiderski, B. (2011). Developing a monitoring
protocol for visitor-created informal trails in Yosemite National Park, USA. Environmental Man-
agement, 47(1), 93–106. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00267-​010-​9581-4
Leung, Y. F., & Marion, J. L. (1999). Assessing trail conditions in protected areas: Application of a
problem-assessment method in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA. Environmental Con-
servation, 26(4), 270–279. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​S0376​89299​90003​99
Leung, Y. F., Marion, J. L. (2000). Recreation impacts and management in wilderness: A state-of-knowl-
edge review. In Wilderness science in a time of change conference (Vol. 5, pp. 23–48). USDA
Forest Service Ogden, UT.
Leung, Y. F., & Marion, J. L. (2000b). Wilderness: A State-of-Knowledge Review. USDA Forest Service
Proceedings RMRS, 5(15), 23.
Leung, Y. F., Spenceley, A., Hvenegaard, G., & Buckley, R. (2018). Tourism and visitor management in
protected areas: Guidelines for sustainability, [s.l.]: IUCN Gland. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2305/​IUCN.​
CH.​2018.​PAG.​27.​en
Li, W., Ge, X., & Liu, C. (2005). Hiking trails and tourism impact assessment in protected area: Jiu-
zhaigou Biosphere Reserve, China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 108(1), 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 & Hall Ltd.
Lloret, J., Zaragoza, N., & Caballero, D. (2008). Impacts of recreational boating on the marine environ-
ment of Cap de Creus (Mediterranean Sea). Ocean and Coastal Management, 51(11), 749–754.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​oceco​aman.​2008.​07.​001
Manning, R. E., Lime, D. W., Hof, M., & Freimund, W. A. (1995). The visitor experience and resource
protection (VERP) process: The application of carrying capacity to Arches National Park. In: The
George Wright Forum (pp. 41–55). George Wright Society.
Marion, J. L., & Farrell, T. A. (2002). Management practices that concentrate visitor activities: Camping
impact management at Isle Royale National Park, USA. Journal of Environmental Management,
66(2), 201–212. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1006/​jema.​2002.​0584
Marion, J. L., Leung, Y. F., Eagleston, H., & Burroughs, K. (2016). A review and synthesis of recreation
ecology research findings on visitor impacts to wilderness and protected natural areas. Journal of
Forestry, 114(3), 352–362. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5849/​jof.​15-​498
Milano, C., Novelli, M., & Cheer, J. M. (2019). Overtourism and degrowth: A social movements per-
spective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(12), 1857–1875. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09669​582.​
2019.​16500​54
Malepe, K. V., González, A., & Retief, F. P. (2022). Evaluating the quality of environmental impact
assessment reports (EIARs) for tourism developments in protected areas: The Kruger to Canyons
Biosphere case study. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 40(5), 384–398. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1080/​14615​517.​2022.​20910​55
Monz, C. A., & Twardock, P. (2010). A classification of backcountry campsites in Prince William
Sound, Alaska, USA. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(7), 1566–1572. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2010.​02.​030
Monz, C. A., Marion, J. L., Goonan, K. A., Manning, R. E., Wimpey, J., & Carr, C. (2010a). Assessment
and monitoring of recreation impacts and resource conditions on mountain summits: Examples
from the Northern Forest, USA. Mountain Research and Development, 30(4), 332–343. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1659/​MRD-​JOURN​AL-D-​09-​00078.1

13
Exploring the application of environmental impact assessment…

Monz, C. A., Cole, D. N., Leung, Y. F., & Marion, J. L. (2010b). Sustaining visitor use in protected areas:
Future opportunities in recreation ecology research based on the USA experience. Environmental
Management, 45(3), 551–562. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00267-​009-​9406-5
Monz, C. A., Pickering, C. M., & Hadwen, W. L. (2013). Recent advances in recreation ecology and the
implications of different relationships between recreation use and ecological impacts. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment, 11(8), 441–446. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1890/​120358
Morgan, R. K. (2012). Environmental impact assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Pro-
ject Appraisal, 30(1), 5–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​14615​517.​2012.​661557
Morris, P., & Therrivel, R. (2009). Methods of environmental impact assessment (3rd ed.). Taylor & Francis.
Morrison-Saunders, A., Arts, J., Bond, A., Pope, J., & Retief, F. (2021). Reflecting on, and revising, interna-
tional best practice principles for EIA follow-up. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 89, 1–10.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​eiar.​2021.​106596
Niu, L., & Cheng, Z. (2019). Impact of tourism disturbance on forest vegetation in Wutai Mountain, China.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 191(2), 1–11. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10661-​019-​7218-5
Obua, J. (1997). Environmental impact of ecotourism in Kibale national park, Uganda. Journal of Sustain-
able Tourism, 5(3), 213–223. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09669​58970​86672​86
Olive, N. D., & Marion, J. L. (2009). The influence of use-related, environmental, and managerial factors on
soil loss from recreational trails. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(3), 1483–1493. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2008.​10.​004
Partidário, M. R. (2000). Elements of an SEA framework—improving the added-value of SEA. Environ-
mental Impact Assessment Review, 20(6), 647–663. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0195-​9255(00)​00069-X
Pickering, C. M., & Barros, A. (2015). Using functional traits to assess the resistance of subalpine grassland
to trampling by mountain biking and hiking. Journal of Environmental Management, 164, 129–136.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2015.​07.​003
Pickering, C. M., Rossi, S., & Barros, A. (2011). Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on
subalpine grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol. Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment, 92(12), 3049–3057. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2011.​07.​016
Pickering, C., Rossi, S. D., Hernando, A., & Barros, A. (2018). Current knowledge and future research
directions for the monitoring and management of visitors in recreational and protected areas. Journal
of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 21, 10–18. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jort.​2017.​11.​002
Popay, J., et al. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A Product
from the ESRC Methods Programme Version, 1(1), b92.
Pope, J., Wessels, J. A., Douglas, A., Hughes, M., & Saunders, A. M. (2019). The potential contribution
of environmental impact assessment (EIA) to responsible tourism: The case of the Kruger National
Park. Tourism Management Perspectives, 32, 100557. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​tmp.​2019.​100557
Pouwels, R., Sierdsema, H., Foppen, R. P. B., Henkes, R. J. H. G., Opdam, P. F. M., & Eupen, M. (2017).
Harmonizing outdoor recreation and bird conservation targets in protected areas: Applying available
monitoring data to facilitate collaborative management at the regional scale. Journal of Environmen-
tal Management, 198, 248–255. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2017.​04.​069
Reid, S. E., & Marion, J. L. (2005). A comparison of campfire impacts and policies in seven protected areas.
Environmental Management, 36(1), 48–58. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00267-​003-​0215-y
Robina-Ramírez, R., Sánchez, M. S. O., Jiménez-Naranjo, H. V., et al. (2022). Tourism governance dur-
ing the COVID-19 pandemic crisis: A proposal for a sustainable model to restore the tourism
industry. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24, 6391–6412. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10668-​021-​01707-3
Rouphael, A. B., & Inglis, G. J. (2002). Increased spatial and temporal variability in coral damage caused by
recreational scuba diving. Ecological Applications, 12(2), 427–440. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​30609​53
Rouphael, A. B., Abdulla, A., & Said, Y. (2011). A framework for practical and rigorous impact monitor-
ing by field managers of marine protected areas. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 180(1),
557–572. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10661-​010-​1805-9
Sánchez, L. E. (1993). Os papéis da avaliação de impacto ambiental. Avaliação de impacto ambiental: situ-
ação atual e perspectivas. São Paulo: Edusp, 15–33.
Sánchez, L. E. (2006). Avaliação de impacto ambiental e seu papel na gestão de empreendimentos. Modelos
e ferramentas de gestão ambiental, 85–114.
Sánchez, L. E. (2008). Avaliação de Impacto Ambiental: conceitos e métodos. São Paulo: Oficina de Textos.
Sánchez, L. E., & Mitchell, R. (2017). Conceptualizing impact assessment as a learning process. Environ-
mental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 195–204. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​eiar.​2016.​06.​001
Sandham, L. A., Huysamen, C., Retief, F. P., Saunders, A. M., Bond, A. J., Pope, J., & Alberts, R. C. (2020).
Evaluating environmental impact assessment report quality in South African national parks. Koedoe:
African Protected Area Conservation and Science, 62(1), 1–9.

13
 G. F. Pegler et al.

Scimago Journal Ranking. World Report. Disponível em: https://​www.​scima​gojr.​com/​world​report.​php.

Acesso em 24 de fev. De 2022
Seddigh, M. R., Shokouhyar, S., & Loghmani, F. (2022a). Approaching towards sustainable supply chain
under the spotlight of business intelligence. Annals of Operations Research. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10479-​021-​04509-y
Seddigh, M. R., Shokoohyar, S., Ghanadpour, S., & Moradi, H. (2022b). pharmaceutical supply chain sus-
tainability under the torchlight of social media. Operations and Supply Chain Management: An Inter-
national Journal, 15(4), 486–504.
Shokouhyar, S., Seddigh, M. R., & Panahifar, F. (2020). Impact of big data analytics capabilities on sup-
ply chain sustainability: A case study of Iran. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable
Development, 17(1), 33–57. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​WJSTSD-​06-​2019-​0031
Smith, M. K. S., Smit, I. P., Swemmer, L. K., Mokhatla, M. M., Freitag, S., Roux, D. J., & Dziba, L. (2021).
Sustainability of protected areas: Vulnerabilities and opportunities as revealed by COVID-19 in a
national park management agency. Biological Conservation, 255, 108985. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
biocon.​2021.​108985
Svajda, J., Korony, S., Brighton, I., & Esser, S. M. (2016). Trail impact monitoring in Rocky Mountain
National Park, USA. Solid Earth, 7(1), 115–128. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5194/​se-7-​115-​2016
Spenceley, A., et al. (2015). Visitor management. In: Protected area governance and management, [s.l.].
ANU Press.
Spenceley, A., McCool, S., Newsome, D., Báez, A., Barborak, J. R., Blye, C. J., Bricker, K., Cahyadi, H.
S., Corrigan, K., Halpenny, E., Hvenegaard, G., King, D. M., Leung, Y. F., Mandic, A., Naidoo, R.,
Ruede, D., Sano, J., Sarhan, M., Santamaria, V., … Zschiegner, A. K. (2021). Tourism in protected
and conserved areas amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Parks, 27, 103–118. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2305/​
IUCN.​CH.​2021P​ARKS-​27SI.​en
Stankey, G. H., Cole, D. N., Lucas, R. C., Petersen, M. E., Frissell, S. S. (1985). The limits of acceptable
change (LAC) system for wilderness planning. In The limits of acceptable change (LAC) system for
wilderness planning, n. INT-176.
Tessler, M., & Clark, T. A. (2016). The impact of bouldering on rock-associated vegetation. Biological Con-
servation, 204, 426–433. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biocon.​2016.​10.​004
Tomczyk, A. M., & Ewertowski, M. W. (2016). Recreational trails in the Poprad Landscape Park, Poland:
The spatial pattern of trail impacts and use-related, environmental, and managerial factors. Journal of
Maps, 12(5), 1227–1235. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​17445​647.​2015.​10887​51
Törn, A., Tolvanen, A., Norokorpi, Y., Tervo, R., & Siikamaki, P. (2009). Comparing the impacts of hiking,
skiing and horse riding on trail and vegetation in different types of forest. Journal of Environmental
Management, 90(3), 1427–1434. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2008.​08.​014
UNEP-WCMC; IUCN; NGS. (2018). Protected Planet Report 2018. UNEP-WCMC, IUCN and NGS: Cam-
bridge UK; Gland, Switzerland; and Washington, D.C.
UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization) (2013). UNWTO Tourism Highlights, 2013
Edition.
Verschuuren, B., Mallarach, J. M., Bernbaum, E., Spoon, J., Brown., S., Borde, R., Brown, J., Calamia, M.,
Mitchell, N., Infield, M., & Lee, E. (2021). Cultural and spiritual significance of nature: guidance for
protected and conserved area governance and management. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines
Series No. 32, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. XVI + 88pp. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2305/​IUCN.​CH.​2021.​PAG.​
32.e
Walden-Schreiner, C., & Leung, Y. F. (2013). Spatially characterizing visitor use and its association with
informal trails in Yosemite Valley meadows. Environmental Management, 52, 163–178. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s00267-​013-​0066-0
Wang, L., Pan, Y., Cao, Y., Li, B., Wang, Q., Wang, B., Pang, W., Zhang, J., Zhu, Z., & Deng, G. (2018).
Detecting early signs of environmental degradation in protected areas: An example of Jiuzhaigou
Nature Reserve, China. Ecological Indicators, 91, 287–298. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ecoli​nd.​2018.​
03.​080
Weaver, D. (2006). Sustainable tourism: Theory and practice (1st ed.). Routledge.
Weaver, D. B., & Lawton, L. J. (2017). A new visitation paradigm for protected areas. Tourism Manage-
ment, 60, 140–146. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​tourm​an.​2016.​11.​018
Woodcock, P., Pullin, A. S., & Kaiser, M. J. (2014). Evaluating and improving the reliability of evidence
syntheses in conservation and environmental science: A methodology. Biological Conservation, 176,
54–62. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biocon.​2014.​04.​020
Wylie, D. K., Bhattacharjee, S., & Rampedi, I. T. (2018). Evaluating the quality of environmental impact
reporting for proposed tourism-related infrastructure in the protected areas of South Africa: A case
study on selected EIA reports. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 7(3), 1–14.

13
Exploring the application of environmental impact assessment…

Wimpey, J. F., & Marion, J. L. (2010). The influence of use, environmental and managerial factors on the
width of recreational trails. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(10), 2028–2037. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2010.​05.​017
Wood, C. (2003). Environmental impact assessment in developing countries. International Development
Planning Review, 25(3), 21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3828/​idpr.​25.​35
WTTC (World Travel and Tourism Council). (2021). A net zero roadmap for travel and tourism. In Propos-
ing a new target framework for the travel and tourism sector.
Zhang, J., Xiang, C., & Li, M. (2012). Effects of tourism and topography on vegetation diversity in the sub-
alpine meadows of the Dongling Mountains of Beijing, China. Environmental Management, 49(2),
403–411. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00267-​011-​9786-1

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable
law.

Authors and Affiliations

Gabriela Francisco Pegler1 · Clara Carvalho de Lemos2 ·

Victor Eduardo Lima Ranieri1

* Gabriela Francisco Pegler

[email protected]
Clara Carvalho de Lemos
[email protected]
Victor Eduardo Lima Ranieri
[email protected]
1
São Carlos School of Engineering, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
2
Institute of Geography, State University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

13
View publication stats