ALWRI Social Scientists Conduct Workshop Based on Recreation Management Guidebook

5/22/26 

ALWRI social scientists Chris Armatas and Jaclyn Fox Rushing, along with colleagues from the Forest Service Washington Office, and from the University of Montana, recently held a workshop on the Cleveland National Forest based on their co-produced, planning and management guidebook, Allocating Recreation with Fairness at the Forefront. The research-based guidebook, released last year, is supported by a systematic review of the recreation management literature and qualitative interview data from recreation managers across the U.S.. The recently held workshop was attended by Forest Service staff from the Washington Office, Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, and Washington. Up Next: The project team is now putting the finishing touches on a companion workbook, which will aid participants of the course as they learn more about this critical topic. The research team is also working to identify potential sites for future research and workshops.

More about the guidebook: Recreation managers across the U.S. from both federal, state, and local agencies are often faced with the complex task of distributing recreational opportunities in areas where use is limited for one reason or another. Whether these opportunities are for limited campsites, backcountry hiking, multi-night river floats, or vehicle entry to an area with limited parking, managers must determine how to fairly and equitably distribute, or allocate, these opportunities among the public. Calls for an allocation framework were first voiced as use limits began to be implemented at an increasing rate in the 1970s (Behan, 1976), and continued in the 1990s, with Shelby (1991) stating, “The single greatest improvement in use allocation policy would be introduction of a rational planning or decision-making framework. The crucial step is to formulate the public policy goals and objectives a use-allocation system should accomplish and then use them as criteria for judging the effectiveness of different alternatives. Such an approach is no more than good professional practice”.