Lake Louise Area Visitor Use Management — Phase 1: Validation of Desired Conditions

We asked visitors to list what experiences in the Lake Louise area were most important to them. This question was open-ended, not multiple choice.

Many respondents appreciated that the area was being managed to sustainably support outdoor activities and mentioned these activities as important experiences even if they did not directly participate in them. We also heard an emphasis on the importance of the Lake Louise area being a culturally significant place for Indigenous Peoples, and important to Canadian identities. This intrinsic value drove concern for maintaining the area as an important Canadian landmark and protecting the ecosystem for purposes beyond human enjoyment.

Top Responses:

---

Other Responses less frequently mentioned included:

• Mountain climbing/mountaineering  8% 
• Downhill skiing/snowboarding  6% 
• Cross-country skiing  5% 
• Wildlife viewing  5% 
• Biking/cycling  4% 
• Camping  4% 

We asked,

“What prevents you from visiting and enjoying the Lake Louise area?”

The natural and cultural desired conditions received the highest proportion of support across the four categories with 75% of all respondents supporting these desired conditions. On a 5-point scale this resulted in a mean support rating of 4.01 out of 5 (where higher is more supportive).

Those supportive (75%), agreed that these goals aligned with their priorities for protecting local wildlife and cultural resources. 40% of supporters mentioned that Parks Canada needs to do more to manage natural areas, and that these goals align with that priority. Those who supported also felt that these goals address their concerns about overcrowding/too many visitors, prioritizing protection for wildlife, and balancing protection and visitor access.

The top reasons given by those unsupportive (9%) of these conditions were that they:

• restrict visitor access too severely,
• are not achievable as the area is too crowded and more needs to be done to reduce/limit daily park visitors to achieve them,
• place too much focus on tourism and do not prioritize local residents,
• do not go far enough to protect, preserve, or manage natural areas/wildlife,
• do not support personal vehicle parking availability in the area.

Those who provided neutral ratings (15%) shared themes similar to those who were unsupportive with emphasis around the desired conditions being hard to achieve without changing current levels of visitation.

Many respondents, both more and less supportive of these desired conditions, often mentioned that the preservation of natural and cultural resources is of high importance. They feel increased public education should be a key consideration to helping achieve these goals.

Visitor experience garnered lower ratings of support than any other category of draft conditions with 62% of all respondents supportive. On a 5-point scale, this resulted in a mean support rating of 3.68 out of 5 (where higher is more supportive).

Supporters (62%) of these desired conditions most frequently advocated for these goals because they identified the area as overcrowded and believed that the goals would support reductions in visitation and a move towards mass/public transportation as the main mode of transportation in the area. Supporters were interested in reducing traffic congestion on roadways and in parking lots. They feel their actions can help limit or prevent environmental damage. They believe that achieving these desired conditions will also help improve overall visitor experience.

Those unsupportive (16%) also mention overcrowding as an issue. 31% indicate the goals do not align with their vision for Lake Louise because the project area is currently too crowded. They feel these visitor experience goals will be hard to meet without reducing visitation or were skeptical about whether the stated goals would help alleviate their concerns. Others were unsupportive because they misunderstood that these are desired conditions and not a measure of current conditions. Other top responses provided by those unsupportive indicate goals are:

• too restrictive for visitor access,
• too focused on tourism or does not prioritize local residents,
• too focused on mass transit system as the main mode of transportation– preferences were made in some instances for personal vehicles,
• too vague when discussing a limit on commercial operations/activity.

Respondents who were neutral (18%) had similar areas of concern as those who were unsupportive. However, unique to this group were criticisms of and suggestions for improving the shuttle service. Main discussion points centred around the need to reserve too far in advance, the complicated reservation system and a desire for expanded hours of operation. This group also mentioned the desire for additional hiking, walking and cycling trails.

Also noted was an appreciation regarding transparency of acceptable visitation levels.

There was some criticism that these conditions are lacking an emotional component – greater detail or conditions around how visitors should feel when experiencing the area. Some people challenged the distinction between guided and un-guided groups.

Visitor and staff safety related goals received above average support. Many respondents thought these goals were attainable. 72% of respondents were supportive. On a 5-point scale this resulted in a mean support rating of 4.02 out of 5 (where higher is more supportive).

Those supportive (72%) agree that staff and visitor safety is important and well aligned with their goals. They expressed concerns about poor visitor behaviour in the park. Some identified the current conditions of the Lake Louise area as overcrowded and believe this may be leading to visitor safety issues. Others feel these goals can only be achieved if visitors are made more aware of the risks/dangers and expectations of visiting this unique place. They suggested that awareness should be raised through increased education and resources.

Those unsupportive (6%) did not necessarily disagree with the desired conditions, however they expressed concern that these goals could not be achieved without a reduction in visitation, increased public education and increased enforcement of park rules. In some cases, safety was viewed as contradicting other desired conditions by leading to increased access and environmental degradation.

Those who were neutral (18%) towards these goals often repeated similar themes as those who were unsupportive. They tended to mention that there should be more focus on protecting wildlife rather than visitor safety. They also identified limitations and feasibility issues such as the need to hire more park staff for enforcement.

Across all levels of support, respondents indicated a desire for greater public education and enforcement of park rules to effectively reach these goals, as well as increased resources online for park visitors.

Facilities and operations related goals received slightly less support in comparison to human safety or natural and cultural desired conditions. 66% of respondents were supportive. On a 5-point scale this resulted in a mean support rating of 3.90 out of 5 (where higher is more supportive).

Many supportive (66%) respondents did not state a reason for their support. Those who did, most commonly suggested the need for more and better washroom facilities, and reduced vehicle traffic and visitation volumes to limit environmental damage. Additionally, many within this group, supported increased cycling infrastructure and prioritizing mass/public transportation. Some survey respondents suggested a new goal, specifically that any new or expanded commercial projects should include net new housing to alleviate regional housing pressures.

Those unsupportive (10%) of these conditions were split. Some felt the goals should limit daily park visitors and infrastructure growth to prioritize natural spaces. While others felt the goals should be less restrictive of personal vehicles and prioritize more infrastructure and services for personal vehicles including parking.

Other observations – Respondents believe that funding for the operation and improvement of the park does not appear to grow at a rate proportional to visitation and that this would make desired conditions for infrastructure difficult to achieve. They expressed concern that the perceived funding shortfall would inevitably have a negative impact on quality of infrastructure and visitors’ ability to access the park. Some respondents also suggested Parks Canada explore and incorporate alternative energy.