Environmental impact of huts: finally a scientific study!
Environmental impact of huts: finally a scientific study!
By Sam Demas, 2020
Finally! A scientific study comparing the environmental impact of huts with that of overnight stays in campsites and lodges. This is an early peek at the results of what seems to be the first-ever recreational ecology study of huts. The data will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, but the authors kindly gave me permission to announce the general thrust of his findings in advance. Thank you Dr. Marion and Johanna Arredondo!
Until now there has been no definitive research either proving or disproving the common wisdom: that huts concentrate use, thereby reducing the impact of backcountry travelers on the places they visit. When I have advocated for such research in wide-ranging discussions with hut folks, many shrugged, suggesting there was no need to study the obvious. But Jeff Marion of Virginia Tech and US Geological Survey immediately agreed that its worth studying.
I’m delighted to report that Dr. Jeffrey Marion, a leading recreation ecologist an author of Leave No Trace in the Outdoors, is the first scientist in the U.S. (and perhaps in the world) to conduct research on the environmental impact of huts. His 2019–2020 investigation confirms that well-designed, properly sited huts are highly effective environmental stewardship tools when compared with several forms of camping and lodging options.
Dr. Marion and doctoral student Johanna Arredondo found Mount Assiniboine Provincial Park and Banff National Park in Canada to be ideal sites for their study. Assiniboine is a roadless backcountry park offering rustic one-room huts, a lodge with associated cabins, and campsites. Banff National Park is a neighboring park with traditional back-packing campsites and a new type of campsite featuring constructed, well-defined tent pads. Accurate usage data is available for both parks and each form of overnight accommodation, allowing Dr. Marion’s team to analyze environmental impacts on a per capita basis over time.
Dr. Marion summarized the results for us in personal correspondence: To gauge adverse visitor impact, the researchers evaluated the total area of vegetation and soils trampled by visitors at each overnight site, measuring indicators such as area of intensive trampling, vegetation loss, and exposed soil. With the huts, Dr. Marion and his team found “exceptionally little trampling-related impact beyond their ‘design foot-print’ which was reasonable and small.” As he explained, “We saw exceptionally few informal ‘visitor-created’ trails or trampled spots—most visitors were using the formal trails provided.” By contrast, both the traditional and constructed tent-pad campsites showed greater signs of human impact, larger affected areas, and more vegetation loss and exposed soil. A much larger area was affected around the lodge complex, including its cabins, than around the huts. The data demonstrates that huts are remarkably effective in minimizing the extent of visitor impacts (the design footprint and additional visitor use impact).
Table 1: Sites studied
| Site Name | Site Type | Capacity | Park |
|---|---|---|---|
| Howard Douglas Lake Campground | Campsites w/tent pads | 5 sites | Banff NP |
| Og Lake Campground | Campsites w/tent pads | 10 sites | Mt. Assiniboine PP |
| Magog Lake Campground | Campsites w/tent pads | 40 sites | Mt. Assiniboine PP |
| Assiniboine Lodge | Lodge/Cabins | 7 cabins | Mt. Assiniboine PP |
| Naiset Huts | Huts | 5 cabins | Mt. Assiniboine PP |
| Marvel Lake Campground | Traditional campsites | 9 sites | Banff NP |
| McBride’s Campground | Traditional campsites | 10 sites | Banff NP |
Table 2 (below): Summary of areal extent of visitor impact (total area of vegetation and soils trampled); note final column shows square foot of trampled area per person
Totals for all overnight site types
| Location | N | Visitors (#) | Sum (ft2) | ft2 per site | ft2 per person |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| McBride Camp | 10 | 776 | 5,242 | 524 | 6.76 |
| Marvel Lake | 9 | 1,447 | 5,557 | 617 | 3.84 |
| Totals (traditional) | 19 | 2,223 | 10,799 | 568 | 4.86 |
| Howard Douglas Lake | 9 | 681 | 3,664 | 407 | 5.38 |
| Og Lake | 10 | 1,068 | 5,532 | 553 | 5.18 |
| Magog Lake | 40 | 4,271 | 21,029 | 526 | 4.92 |
| Totals (with tentpads) | 59 | 6,020 | 30,225 | 512 | 5.02 |
| Lodge | 16 | 3,968 | 24,953 | 1,560 | 6.292 |
| Naiset Huts | 5 | 3,986 | 3,374 | 675 | 0.85 |
Dr. Marion attributes the findings to “the spatial concentration and containment of visitor activity to the huts, decks, dining facility, and formal trails provided by the hut facilities.” In evaluating the study findings, he went on to proclaim, “As a recreation ecologist I have essentially no comments or suggestions for further improvement of their hut operations (this is exceedingly rare!).”
The final published report will contain more detailed discussion of the findings. I’ll write a notice on this website when the full study with methodology and data is published in a scientific journal. Meanwhile, we now have confirmation of the common wisdom that huts do indeed do what they are designed for: reducing human impacts of spending nights in the backcountry!