Closure of Trails: A Restoration Strategy
or Lack of Management?
Teresa C. Magro
Abstract—A 22-km (13.6-mile) trail in Itatiaia National Park
(INP), Brazil, was closed for restoration in 1990 due to severe
environmental impact. Park experts considered temporary trail
closure the most suitable measure to allow recovery of the excessively damaged area. Nevertheless, during periodic visits to the
trail, it was clear that the expected recovery had not taken place. To
the contrary, problems became even more severe at the most
affected sites even after 10 years of restricted access. The problem
appears to be a lack of financial resources, the constant change in
park management, and insufficient INP staff training.
During the previous 10 years it was difficult to convince the public
that trail closure was necessary. This area attracts many visitors.
Large-scale erosion has been a serious management problem. Temporary trail closure to protect it from visitor impacts was in reality
a substitute for more labor-intensive, effective actions that would
conserve natural resources while also permitting public use.
Introduction ____________________
Among the recreation management strategies to minimize impact, access restriction has been the most popular
measure among Brazilian park administrators. Usually
these actions have been adopted as emergency measures
before the actual causes of the problem have been identified.
However, conditional closing of large park areas has often
prevented other strategies from being adopted. Alternative
actions, including those more appropriate for recovery of
wild areas, have not usually been considered. Lack of human
and financial resources has aggravated the protection of
natural areas.
The justification for area closures is more often that these
impacts are generated from public use. When an area is
opened for visitation, environmental alterations are foreseen and are inevitable. Many times the only alternative
considered has been complete closure, often including campsites. Hammitt and Cole (1998), however, specified that
permanent area closures should occur only where this drastic measure is the only option for recovery.
Before public use of natural areas became intense, trail,
campsite, or area closures within some National Parks did
Teresa C. Magro is a Professor of Wilderness Management, Department
of Forest Science, University of São Paulo, 13418-900, Piracicaba, Sao
Paulo, Brasil. Phone: (19) 3436-8650, FAX: (19) 3436-8601, E- mail: tecmagro
@esalq.usp.br
In: Watson, Alan; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2003. Science and stewardship
to protect and sustain wilderness values: Seventh World Wilderness Congress symposium; 2001 November 2–8; Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Proc.
RMRS-P-27. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003
not generate public reaction or discussion. Currently, significant increases in public use of parks and recreation areas have
generated pressure, and public access is often reestablished
quickly. Public pressure to expand access to new areas and
new activities, often from those involved in “radical” sports,
has also increased.
There was once a certain public lethargy regarding public
use of National Parks, but now the situation is far more
dynamic, with greater public participation. Public displeasure is commonly expressed when certain restrictive restoration measures are established, especially if they become
permanent. Examples of this displeasure include electronic
“chat groups” such as the São Paulo Excursion Center
(céu@yahoogroups.com) and the São Paulo State Mountaineering Federation (femesp@yahoogroups.com).
At Itatiaia National Park (INP), restriction on long-distance trail access was implemented in 1990 for some of the
more popular trails. However, those users with access permission (researchers, conservationists) noted that recovery
was extremely slow, and in some places the erosion problems
had increased. Methodologies for public use management,
such as Limits of Acceptable Change (Stankey and others
1985) or Visitor Impact Management (Graefe and others
1990), have clearly shown that the most efficient way to
solve the problem is to identify the root causes before
methods are adopted for environmental restoration.
In the case of INP, failure to understand contributors to
trail degradation on the Rebouças-Headquarter Trail resulted in the selection of a less efficient and unpopular
solution (Magro 1999). Trail closure failed to demonstrate
significant trail recovery, as this report will illustrate.
Study Area _____________________
From Initial Settlement to a National Park
The Federal Government acquired the lands of INP in 1908
for the creation of two colonial towns. These towns were composed mainly of European immigrants, most commonly from
Finland. Due to steep hillsides, these towns were not successful, and the land was returned to the Ministry of Agriculture. In 1929, a Biological Research Station was created that
was administered by the Botanical Garden of Rio de Janeiro
(IBDF 1982). In 1937, this land became the first Brazilian
National Park, Itatiaia National Park (INP). It is located in
southeast Rio de Janeiro State, directly south of Minas
Gerais (22nd 15’S and 22nd 25’S and 44th 35' W - 44th 45' W),
and the Park covers an area of 30,000 ha (116 miles).
The Rebouças-Headquarter Trail, where the study was
performed, was open for about 100 years, and initially
represented the only way to INP Administrative Headquarters (altitude about 700 m or 2,297 ft) and to the Park plateau
257
Magro
(maximum altitude of 2,787 m or 9,144 ft). This trail was
used initially by those who moved to the town of Mauá, and
was used by visitors who hiked or scaled one of the highest
peaks in Brazil, Agulhas Negras. Later, cattle that invaded
the high altitude pastures and the military that used it for
training exercises degraded this trail. Most of the time, INP
administrative maintenance practices amounted to weeding
and cleaning of trails. Improvements, such as opening and
cleaning of drainage channels, were rare events. Such activities, when they occurred, were more frequent before the
opening of BR-485, an alternative road that would eventually
become the main access to the plateau.
The specific objectives of INP, established in the 1982
management plan (IBDF 1982) were: (1) to protect fragments of the Atlantic Rainforest, (2) to provide opportunities for recreation and tourism in a natural way, (3) to protect
ecological diversity, (4) to provide opportunities for environmental education, (5) to control erosion and conserve water
and air resources, (6) to conserve natural scenic beauties,
(7) to provide opportunities for scientific research, (8) to
protect animal species in the area, and (9) to make possible
public use activities linked directly to area resources, as
compatible with other objectives mentioned above.
By 1990, the trail had suffered serious erosion problems,
with some travel being very risky. The management solution
adopted by INP administration was to close the trail to
visitor use. Garcia and Pereira’s technical report (1990) was
used as justification for this action. These specialists in soils
considered the main problem with the Rebouças-Headquarter Trail to be furrow erosion that caused severe gouging.
According to these authors, the largest erosion caused along
this trail was 7 m (23 ft) in depth and started from a point
that was not drained properly. Until 2001, the RebouçasHeadquarter Trail could be used only with special permission from INP.
Another backcountry area was temporarily closed to the
2
public in 2001 after a fire consumed about 600 ha (2.3 miles )
of natural vegetation. Again, a technical report on this fire
was used as justification for area closure. According to
Ribeiro (2001), closing the burnt area to visitation was a
crucial measure to guarantee recovery until an action plan
was developed. The report recognized that closure had
impacts on the local economy, such as with hotels and
specialized guides, and suggested that this strategy be used
only temporarily. This recent closure, as well as closure of
the Rebouças-Headquarter Trail, generated a lot of criticism
and protests from excursionists and mountaineers.
Methodology ___________________
Institutional Capacity to Administer
the Area
We considered the administrative or institutional capacities as the ability of INP to successfully solve challenges
related to the Park mission. The fundamental maintenance
objectives for Brazilian National Parks, according to the
National System of Parks and Conservation Units (MMA
2000) are: preserving natural ecosystems of great ecological relevance and scenic beauty, facilitating scientific research, developing educational activities and environmental
258
Closure of Trails: A Restoration Strategy or Lack of management?
interpretation, and increasing public contact with nature,
which includes ecotourism.
Once the INP mission was defined during park creation in
1937, management actions should respect these goals. However, considering the current situation in restricted areas,
INP administration has not been successful. We observed
that the lack of Park financial resources, constant administrative changes, and insufficient training of Park staff have
contributed to this failure. Administrative documents were
analyzed to identify Park management activities that could
have contributed to attaining their mission.
Thirty-four annual reports were consulted, which contained details of management actions executed from 1937 to
1983. In addition to these documents, three former Park
Directors were interviewed: Mr. Wanderbilt Duarte de Barros
(1940 to 1956), Mr. Pedro Eymard Camelo Melo (1991 to
1995), and Carlos Fernando Pires of Souza (April to September, 1995). Visitor registrations at the “Apple Tree Shelter”
were used to estimate trail users from 1928 to 1934, and from
1936 to 1950, and information related to the frequency and
form of use of the Rebouças- Headquarter trail was obtained.
In these books, INP service and trail maintenance activities
were also noted.
Results and Discussion __________
Park Maintenance and Administration
The first INP administrators presented annual reports to
the Forest Service. These documents contain information
that shows changes in management and the historical development of public use in this area, including current conditions. These documents establish approximate dates for
construction of existing trails, shelter construction, and area
maintenance. Using this data, we were able to correlate
some problems with the Annual Maintenance Reports
(AMRs).
Annual Maintenance Reports from 1937 to 1983 were
consulted. From 1940 to 1960 there was a certain regularity
and uniformity for the presentation of information. Unfortunately, the regular reports stopped in 1970. Documents for
1953, 1961, 1972 to 1978, and 1980 to 1982 were not present
in the official files. To obtain complementary information,
we consulted other documents, such as requested services,
employee problems, or visitor complaints, in addition to
spreadsheets with visitor numbers. Less simple than AMR
analysis, but indispensable for our conclusions, was information about institutional parameters.
In the first years of INP, emphasis was on areas near the
administrative building, such as the gardens, surrounding
reforestation and general maintenance. This was probably
due to two factors: the need for headquarter establishment
and the agricultural focus of the previous immigrant colony.
Area recovery occupied much time; besides planting arboreal species, the gardens, filled with rosebushes, had to be
maintained. Seedlings produced in the Park nursery for
restoration and horticulture, including many exotic species,
were donated to local institutions and to the Forest Service
Administration in Rio de Janeiro. These activities demanded
time and consumed many resources.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003
Magro
Military Training and Cattle
There are controversies regarding the effects of military
training on current conditions on the Rebouças-Headquarter Trail. The Agulhas Negras Military Academy has been
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003
19
19
Year
Figure 1—Total visitation in Itatiaia National Park from
1937 to 2000. Registrations corresponding 1951, 1961,
1966, 1971, 1972, and 1976 to 1985 were not found
(source: INP Administration).
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Main Entrance
97
96
19
95
19
94
19
93
19
92
19
19
19
19
91
Plateau
90
Visitors
Serrano (1993) found a series of historical documents
regarding the first Park users. Using Park registrations,
about 2,700 people entered INP from 1925 to 1947. Unfortunately, this number does not accurately represent visitations because many people did not sign the visitor books. In
addition, several documents that contained this type of
information have been lost. Within Park registrations, origin or nationality was possible to verify, and most visitors at
that time were foreigners (70 percent).
Between 1937 and 1947, INP AMRs showed an average of
30,049 visitors annually. There were only 4,523 visitors in
1946, but there was a jump of 10,000 visitors in 1947. As
observed by Wanderbilt Duarte de Barros, a former INP
administrator, soon after the Second World War visitation of
INP increased markedly.
From registrations and other documents, we estimated
visitation from the creation of INP (fig. 1). The data corresponding to 1951, 1961, 1966, 1971, 1972, and from 1976 to
1985, however, were not found in INP files. Visitation values
from 1990 to 1997 are more reliable (fig. 2) due to better
control at the main Park entrances. However, the values
reflect people that paid to enter INP and not the total
number of visitors. Those under 10 years old, adults above 70
42
19
47
19
52
19
57
19
62
19
67
19
72
19
77
19
82
19
87
19
92
19
97
20
02
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
37
Is Visitation in Itatiaia National Park Really
a Problem?
years, school excursions, researchers, and authorities are
exempt from paying the entrance fee.
People who hiked the Itatiaia plateau represented about
10 percent of total Park visitors. This is due not only to the
attractiveness (waterfalls) of the surroundings of the headquarters, but also the limited infrastructure for receiving
visitors and the difficulty of access to the plateau. Access can
be better in autumn and winter with the onset of rain.
The Itatiaia National Park is strategically located between Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, and Belo Horizonte, and
attracts a larger number of tourists than the Park can
handle. But visitation can be considered low when compared
with other Brazilian Parks, such as Iguaçu or Tijuca National Parks that receive about a million visitors annually.
However, the visitation in Itatiaia is limited to few sites, on
weekends, holidays, and school vacations. Part of the low
capacity of INP is due to the small staff and limited financial
resources.
Visitors
The need to maintain the administrative headquarters
and permanent infrastructure in good condition was also
important. The Vargas Presidency (from 1930 to 1945) used
the Park as a showplace for diplomats who visited Brazil.
When the Federal Capital was in Rio de Janeiro, INP and
Serra dos Órgãos National Park represented an excellent
view of wild Brazil. Many authorities and diplomats entered
the Park while visiting Rio de Janeiro, as verified by reports
and the visitor registration books.
Other community services were also noted, such as an
elementary school, church, electric and phone facility maintenance, internal roads, and access to the city of Itatiaia.
Horses and mules were used in Park maintenance and
surveillance, and feeding of these animals was often by
natural foraging as well as by raising corn. The garden,
whose maintenance was time and labor intensive, was
reformed in 1943, to simplify and conserve operations.
On the other hand, few maintenance activities on the
plateau were required, and those that were focused mainly
on the studied trail. When this trail was the fastest way to
the plateau, it was maintained with certain regularity.
However, when the highway was opened with access to the
Agulhas Negras, the importance of the trail decreased.
Employee records indicated that maintenance of the
Rebouças-Headquarter trail was sporadic after BR-485, the
new road to the plateau, was opened.
Severe erosion, especially the 7-m (23-ft) gully that had
motivated trail closing happened by 1979, according to an
employee annual report. Beginning in 1971, the AMRs do
not mention trail maintenance activities. Employees probably cleared vegetation, mainly in forest areas, but the
activity was not constant. Contributing to erosion were fires
that hindered vegetation recovery.
Closure of Trails: A Restoration Strategy or Lack of management?
Year
Figure 2—Visitation to Itatiaia National Park from 1990
to 1997. Total number refers to visitors who paid to
enter in the park (source: INP Administration).
259
Magro
the most frequent trail user since 1956. Park employee
depositions have indicated that many impacts were caused
by troops, numbering more than 500 men at a time, who used
the plateau for military training. A colonel interviewed for
this research argued that the training did not happen on
trails, but was dispersed and occurred mainly in the Rebouças
Shelter. However, we found old artillery pieces, such as rifle
cartridges and a cannon reducer, on the trail, indicating that
some activity happened on the trail and its environs.
Use of heavy boots, bulky equipment, and food by the
military during training has aggravated problems here.
Certainly the continuous use of the trail contributed to soil
compaction and trailbed damage in the most susceptible
passages, where it is steep with high soil clay content.
The use of the area as a natural cattle pasture and the
constant fires that happened during the drought also contributed to the damage in some less resilient sites. In
addition, frost also exists here, leaving the vegetation more
drought and fire susceptible, and less resistant to trampling
by cattle. Dusen (1955) studied the flora of Itatiaia in 1902,
and indicated that fire was used as a technique for maintaining cattle pastures. The researcher observed the effect that
fires had on vegetation, and he noted that the common frosts
usually dried and damaged local flora. Some plants occurred
in great abundance in burned areas, while in the areas
without burning, there were only two sterile species. Dusen
considered that plant development favored the burned areas
because the black soil would absorb larger amounts of heat,
in comparison with areas that were not burnt.
Successive trampling and soil compaction by cattle, along
with decreased trail maintenance, were probably responsible for soil structure destruction and increased susceptibility to erosion. Cattle tracks concentrated water toward the
main trail, reducing drainage. Another factor linked to trail
damage was mule and horse use for transport in the area.
Besides the use of horses to carry luggage, construction
materials were also transported. According to the 1949
AMR, mules made 1,460 trips to transport the construction
material required to build the Massena Shelter, located on
the INP plateau.
Political Changes and Park Administration
Finally, we considered the Park as a whole—its history,
use, management, and politics, including political administrative changes during the last decade. The Itatiaia National Park had been endowed with a representative infrastructure, employee houses, well-equipped hiking shelters,
a restaurant for the staff, laundry, museum, and a set of
roads and trails to permit multiple use. When Rio de Janeiro
was the Federal capital, more attention was given to INP,
and it was easier to obtain the necessary financial resources.
In 1964, the Federal capital was moved to Brasília, and
the importance of INP decreased markedly. Once the capital
was no longer Rio de Janeiro, the Park stopped attracting
national and international attention. Park administration
began to receive fewer resources, and had less political
weight with politicians in Brasília.
According to reports by former employees, the situation in
INP worsened during the Military Regime (1964 to 1985)
because many bureaucratic positions, such as in the Brazilian
Institute of Forest Development (IBDF, now the Brazilian
260
Closure of Trails: A Restoration Strategy or Lack of management?
Environment and Renewable Natural Resources Institute,
IBAMA), were held by generals or military officers with no
training or understanding of the environment. With no
sensitivity to conservation of natural resources and without
the necessary technical knowledge required to manage a
park, problems began to multiply. There was no fuel money
for park surveillance vehicles, no new employees were recruited after older employees retired, and there was no
money for maintenance. In addition, park vandalism increased due to lack of surveillance and the increase of
unemployment.
During this period, 12 new National Parks were created,
and it was necessary to divide the maintenance resources
between the new National Parks and 15 Parks already in
existence. Employee recruitment was centralized and only
performed in Brasília. This estrangement between Federal
bureaucrats and the INP administration (who previously
answered only to their superiors in Rio de Janeiro) prevented efficient INP management.
Federal Government bureaucratic growth during the Military Regime caused IBDF to become swollen with many
employees, complicating simple decisions. This meant that
while INP lacked active employees, many supervisors and
administrators remained in Brasília or Rio de Janeiro,
decreasing park efficiency. Money collected from entrance
and parking fees went to Brasília and was effectively lost—
few of these fees were returned to INP for improvement and
maintenance of existing infrastructure.
Budget cuts were more drastic during the New Republic,
starting in 1985. Even with the increased concern by the
Federal Government for the environment, there were large
budget cuts, with “bureaucratic downsizing,” necessitated
after the excesses of the Military Regime. Employee numbers were reduced so that today there are only 33 permanent
2
employees to take care of 30,000 ha (116 miles ), and most of
these are administrative employees. In addition, there has
been very little investment in employee training and ongoing education, which has also harmed the efficiency of area
maintenance. Happily, this situation is reversing currently.
Conclusions ____________________
There was not a substantial recovery in the RebouçasHeadquarter Trailbed following its closing in 1990, and in
some places problems were accentuated. We consider two
main reasons for lack of success: (1) no attempts were made
to increase vegetation recovery, and (2) the trail was never
really closed, remaining open for special groups and military
training. Analysis of documents and administrative reports
revealed events that allowed continuous trail use and poor
decisions made by INP administrators. Besides physical
limitations, institutional parameters are necessary for the
evaluation of public use impact in natural areas. These
factors, planning, and maintenance techniques are essential
if correct decisions and appropriate practices are to be
established.
Acknowledgments ______________
This research was funded by the Boticario Foundation for
Protection of Nature (FBPN), the MacArthur Foundation,
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003
Magro
and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) as part of the
Project “Recreational Impact of INP.” We wish to thank
several people who helped with the field work: employees of
Itatiaia National Park; members of the Agulhas Negras
Excursionist Group; Foresters Alexandre Afonso Binelli,
Cristina Suarez Copa Velasquez, Flávia Regina Mazziero,
and Silvia Yochie Kataoka; and Agronomists Alexandre
Mendes Pinho and Fábio Raimo de Oliveira.
References _____________________
Dusen, P. K. H. 1955. Contribuições para a flora do Itatiaia.
[Contributions of the flora of the Itatiaia.] Rio De Janeiro: Forest
Service. 91 p.
Garcia, J. M. P.; Pereira, L. E. C. L. 1990. Relatório de visita ao
Parque Nacional do Itatiaia—Dezembro/1990. [Visitation Reports of Itatiaia National Park—December/1990.] Rio de Janeiro:
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro [Federal University of
Rio de Janeiro].
Graefe, A. R.; Kuss, F. R.; Vaske, J. J. 1990. Visitor impact management. The planning framework. Volume 2. Washington, DC:
National Parks and Conservation Association. 105 p.
Hammitt, W. E.; Cole, D. N. 1998. Wildland recreation. Ecology and
management. 2d ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 361 p.
Brazilian Institute of Forest Development (IBDF). 1982. Plano de
Manejo do Parque Nacional do Itatiaia. M.A.-Instituto Brasileiro
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003
Closure of Trails: A Restoration Strategy or Lack of management?
de Desenvolvimento Florestal. [Management plan of Itatiaia
National Park. Brazilian M.A.- Institute of Forest Development.]
Brazilian Institute of Forest Development/Fundação Brasileira
para a Conservação da Naturesa [Brazilian Foundation for Nature Conservation]. Brasília. 207 p.
Magro, T. C. 1999. Avaliação dos impactos do uso público em uma
trilha no planalto do Parque Nacional do Itatiaia. [Evaluation of
the impacts of public use on one trail on the plateaus of Itatiaia
National Park.] São Paulo: São Carlos Engineering College, São
Paulo University. 97 p. Thesis.
Ministery of Environment (MMA). 2000. Sistema Nacional de
Unidades de Conservação da Natureza. Lei No. 9.985, de 18 de
julho de 2000. [National system of units of nature conservation.
Law No. 9,985, July 18, 2000.] Brasília: MMA/SBF. 32 p.
Ribeiro, K. T. 2001. Incêndio no Planalto do Itatiaia: Parecer técnico
sobre o Uso Público do Planalto do Itatiaia imediatamente após
o Incêndio. [Fire in the plateaus of the Itatiaia: a technical look at
public use of the plateaus of Itatiaia after fire.] Unpublished
report on file at: Itatiaia National Park. 11 p.
Serrano, C. M. T. 1993. A Invenção do Itatiaia. [The creation of the
Itatiaia.] Campinas, Brazil: University of Campinas. 180 p.
Thesis.
Stankey, G. H.; Cole, D. N.; Lucas, R. C.; Petersen, M. E.; Frissel, S. S.
1985. The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) system for wilderness planning. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-176. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Range Experimental Station. 37 p.
261