UKC

OPINION: Sustainability in the Outdoors Depends on Fair Shares

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Sustainability montage, 2 kbIn a new series of environmental opinion pieces Tomas Frydrych takes on some big questions, starting with the vexed issue of sustainability

Read more
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Interesting piece. I see that it takes a very anthropocentric definition of sustainability. Does the earth care if crampons scratch the rock? Does birds care if we have a small fire? Do bees care if we dump in the woods? 

Are the ecological and social problems faced by the human race not bigger than a widened path?  

 

 

 

 

1
 treesrockice 28 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I began reading this and was rather shocked but what I perceived as massive holes lacking information. While writing the below however it occurred to me that I have worked in the environmental/conservation sector and studied environmental principles for almost a decade making me most likely not the typical or target audience. For this reason, I would like to apologies about the below twice, once as it is probably overly critical and for the second time because I decided to post it anyway at the risk of causing offence, but I do feel what I have written begins to fill some of the ‘holes’ I perceived:

Within the environmental sector and further afield the definition of sustainability is typically taken from the Brundtland reports definition of sustainable development see here: http://www.iisd.org/topic/sustainable-development.  This can be summarised as a sustainable activity being one which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

There seems to be a large disparity here in the difference between environmental impact and sustainable activity, renewable energy has a considerable impact but is sustainable, HEP is a good example of this. Walkers etc. impact can be sustainable providing the environment is given sufficient time to recover or as mentioned frequency is altered.

 

The differences between considering one’s impact and ensuring one behaves sustainably I feel is not addressed here, the difference is important. Humans are a component of the environment it is acceptable to cause some impact, but we must not push past environmental change thresholds if we want our existence (or activities) to be sustainable (regardless of what the Trump administration believes!).

 

The preservation of grouse moors is a perpetuation of a more unnatural environment than some forms of forestry halting the ecological process of ‘succesion’. While planting Pacific North American conifer species plantations are also an artificial environment if managed properly it can be more sustainable and provide more ecosystem services, especial with the Forestry Commissions shift towards continuous cover forestry management.

 

Leave No Trace focuses on environmental impact not sustainability, nor am I aware of it claiming too. However, a merger of Leave No Trace with wider sustainable activity/lifestyle consideration would be a progressive and good framework.

I recommend the author reads up on the “tragedy of the commons” and the economics concepts of ‘goods’: Excludable / Non-excludable and Rivalrous / Non-rivalrous. Also the control of externalities and cheaters/abusers of open access public goods (sustaibale fiushing being the classic example).

 

Regarding the “Our impact on the surrounding environment is a function of four factors” this is similar to a small component of a lifecycle assessment which are often conducted to gain a full perspective of an activity’s/company’s/product production’s impact by environmental managers. I do however accept that the four factors are an acceptable subset to consider.

 

I like the considerations and reflections explain/made about the listed activities, but more comprehensive information on the listed activities could be reference e.g. Forestry commission ‘stick and flick’ (https://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-6mhjxj), Snow White facility (https://www.cairngormmountain.org/conservation/), and I am also surprised to see no mention of the ‘Mend our mountains’ campaign.

I expect you are preaching to the converted here and you risk ‘re-inventing the wheel’, there is a lot of information already available that can be expanded on and referenced for those with further interest.

 

 

 

I do look forward to the ‘Beyond Leave No Trace’ article.

 

Thank you.

 gaz.marshall 28 Feb 2018
In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

Since it's about human impacts in the outdoors isn't it only ever going to take an anthropocentric definition?

And I'm sure some birds would care if the small fire became a big fire that burned their habitat!

I think it's a very welcome piece and look forward to the rest of the series. It's rare that you see people questioning the legitimacy of some outdoor activities despite the fact that they're clearly causing negative impacts.  

In my work I'm increasingly coming against this. There tends to be a general willingness to try to mitigate for harmful impacts but never to actually stop the activity that's causing the harm.

 

 summo 28 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

In the big scheme of things chalk, footpath erosion, crampon scratches,jobbies are irrelevant. Fires also provided they don't start a bigger one. Unless you completely destroy a location where a rare plant exists in isolation natural environments recover quickly. The re-growth in areas that were out of bounds due to foot and mouth showed this. 

What does the most damage is us travelling miles to the outdoors, on roads built big enough to cope, to stay in buildings constructed purely to house us there. This has a lasting impact. 

Go to the start or finish areas of a big running event in the hills two years later and the field or run in areas that were quagmires will be normal again. It's the use of natural resources that aren't replaced and pollution that is the problem.

And that I guess makes most of us hypocrites. 

 DavidEvans 28 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Nice, well-considered piece. I have been thinking quite a bit about this. Essentially, if we all do something, then it becomes unsustainable, whatever that activity is. So I guess there is a conflict between the ever-widening participation in our chosen sports/past-times and sustainability. There are obviously some advantages to greater participation (e.g. more people get to enjoy the benefits of the activity; more cameraderie; more revenue for outdoor kit manufacturers equals better, cheaper kit; more revenue from tourism can support communities). But these advantages seem to come at a cost, which is the impact on the 'environment' or locality (i.e. footpath erosion; worn, polished climbs; conflict with landowners; litter; effects on wildlife and plantlife; loss of identity of communities in the move towards tourism-centric models of income). These detrimental effects are perhaps particularly noticeable in the UK where, compared to the US, we are much more densely populated and have relatively small areas of national park/wilderness per head. So my question is, when is there 'enough' partcipation in a given sport (e.g. climbing, walking, 'wild-camping'). Do we really need more books on wild XXXX [insert sport]? Do we really need UNESCO status for a Lake District that is already bursting at the seams with visitors? Do we really need more 'athletes', ambassadors, events? A case in point would be a recent piece I saw on on 'wild camping' in the national news. Really? Surely if everyone chooses to do that, then it quickly becomes something other than wild camping? We do live in a world with finite resources and the outdoors/wilderness is one of these. For me personally, I enjoy the 'wild' or 'explorative' aspects of the places I visit. There is a part of me that wants to share these experiences with the wider world (and sometimes I do). But I also recognise that if I do this, this might be to the detriment of the place in question. I also recognise that I was very lucky to have had the opportunities that I have had. And I probably got into those sports because of books, magazines, programmes by the BMC and local groups designed to widen participation! However, increasingly, I wonder if mass advertising is now having an overall negative effect and taking its toll on the places that I love. And by this I mean more advertising by outdoor manufacturers/tourism boards, etc, as well as small scale advertising by many indivduals (e.g. social media, events, books/articles/media). I'm obviously guilty of many of these things too and I'm well aware that I'm posting this on a forum! But my question is this: is ever-widening partcipation in outdoor activities in the UK sustainable and if not, what is the solution?

Post edited at 11:07
 treesrockice 28 Feb 2018
In reply to summo:

> In the big scheme of things chalk, footpath erosion, crampon scratches,jobbies are irrelevant. Fires also provided they don't start a bigger one. Unless you completely destroy a location where a rare plant exists in isolation natural environments recover quickly. The re-growth in areas that were out of bounds due to foot and mouth showed this. 

> What does the most damage is us travelling miles to the outdoors, on roads built big enough to cope, to stay in buildings constructed purely to house us there. This has a lasting impact. 

> Go to the start or finish areas of a big running event in the hills two years later and the field or run in areas that were quagmires will be normal again. It's the use of natural resources that aren't replaced and pollution that is the problem.

> And that I guess makes most of us hypocrites. 


Chalk changes rock surface pH and potentially soil pH; footpath erosion alters soil physical, chemical and biological properties; many winter climbing venues (e.g. Cwn Idwal) have banned areas due to winter climbing impact on rare species; jobbies do cause eutrophication.
Re-growth is dependant on individual species, species composition is very unlikely to be the same post impact.
No foot and mouth causing area to be out of bounds largely allowed ecosystems to return to successional processes not exactly "recover".

Traveling miles on roads and building houses causes a different kind of lasting impact.

Normal again perhaps but not the same. Natural resource use and pollution along with impact are a problem.

Yes we are all hypocrites but consideration of behaviour and alterations too it are still important.
 

 summo 28 Feb 2018
In reply to treesrockice:

> Chalk changes rock surface pH and potentially soil pH; footpath erosion alters soil physical, chemical and biological properties; many winter climbing venues (e.g. Cwn Idwal) have banned areas due to winter climbing impact on rare species; jobbies do cause eutrophication.

As a percentage what proportion of total soil in the UK is impacted chalk changing soil PH?

Of all the slopes steeper than 50 degrees in uk what percent of area are winter climbs?

How does footpath erosion compare to the total volume of silt that washes down say the river Severn annually?

> Re-growth is dependant on individual species, species composition is very unlikely to be the same post impact.

In a big scheme of species living in a very big universe, on planet that will be destroyed for certain in the future, any importance we place on certain things is purely our own choice? It is meaningless in the big scheme of things.

> Traveling miles on roads and building houses causes a different kind of lasting impact.

Yeah, use of resources and pollution impacts every part of the planet, not just that bit of rock you climb up. 

> Yes we are all hypocrites but consideration of behaviour and alterations too it are still important.

I agree and I think we should lessen the impact. BUT we are just trying to make ourselves feel better by doing a few minor improvements and ignoring the massive problems our activities cause elsewhere. Oh aren't I so thoughtful not using chalk or protecting the ground with a pad, having driven 200miles there on my own in a car doing less than 30mpg.( yes I know Octavias are more economical than that). 

2
 treesrockice 28 Feb 2018
In reply to DavidEvans:

A simple and obviously answer to you question:
No ever increasing numbers can't be sustainable, no environment has that kind of resistance and resilience. A solution, number (population) control... good luck to any one instigating that one...

 summo 28 Feb 2018
In reply to treesrockice:

> No ever increasing numbers can't be sustainable, no environment has that kind of resistance and resilience. A solution, number (population) control... good luck to any one instigating that one...

Easy. You close places to none local vehicle traffic. Llanberis pass, langdale, borrowdale etc.. As a visitor you either walk, cycle or pay to go on electric bus. You can also just blanket ban some crags and also wild camping in some valleys. You can charge more for parking and build better green toilets where folk go etc.. 

It's all fixable but it will cost users in time, energy and money. 

kenny alexander 05 Mar 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

while I agree with nearly all that you have wrote ,I do feel that by focusing on other outdoor enthusiasts footprints ! we lose track of the real issues of bad land management from stags sheep and cows the damage these farmed animals do is far worse than what us walkers climbers mountain bikers do ,   

kenny alexander 05 Mar 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

while I agree with nearly all that you have wrote ,I do feel that by focusing on other outdoor enthusiasts footprints ! we lose track of the real issues of bad land management from stags sheep and cows the damage these farmed animals do is far worse than what us walkers climbers mountain bikers do ,   

 LeeWood 05 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

> What does the most damage is us travelling miles to the outdoors, on roads built big enough to cope, to stay in buildings constructed purely to house us there. This has a lasting impact. 

or even flying to some far off land :o 


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...