The Climb Towards Conservation:

Identifying and Mitigating the Effects of Outdoor Rock Climbing on Surrounding Ecosystems in
Colorado

By
Chloe Sommer
University of Colorado Boulder

A thesis submitted to the

University of Colorado Boulder
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements to receive
Honors designation in
Environmental Studies
May 2019

Thesis Advisors:

Dale Miller, Environmental Studies, Committee Chair

Philip White, University Libraries
Lon Abbott, Geological Sciences

© 2019 by Chloe Sommer

All rights reserved
ii
Abstract

Since the 1960s, rock climbing has become an increasingly important player in
America’s recreation landscape. Today, rock climbing is a growing contributor to the nation’s
$800+ billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, and indoor and outdoor climbing are more
popular than ever. Historically, rock climbers and other outdoor recreationalists have claimed a
correlation between recreation and conservation of public lands. Ample evidence suggests,
however, that rock climbing still causes an array of negative impacts to ecosystems. This is the
first known study to analyze potential impacts of recreational outdoor rock climbing on a large
scale with GIS techniques, overlaying geographic data of outdoor climbing areas in Colorado
with government landcover data for the state from 1970 and 2011 as well as public land
ownership and designation data. Based on this analysis, around two-thirds of outdoor rock
climbs in Colorado are located in evergreen forests or shrub / scrub land as defined by the US
Geological Survey. Many historically forested areas frequented by climbers have experienced
changes in landcover, converted into developed areas and shrub / scrub land since 1970.
Additionally, 89% of climbing areas in Colorado are located on land with preexisting
environmental protections: 68% federally regulated, 6% state regulated, and 15% city or county
regulated. Using landcover and land use change data, I then propose specific management
strategies to be implemented by small-scale local climbing organizations working collaboratively
with larger governments to address environmental concerns identified through GIS analysis.

iii
iv
Preface

For as long as I can remember, I have felt the inclination to climb. From ascending
bookshelves in my childhood home as a toddler, to hiking up mountains hauling gear to climb
steep rock faces as a young adult, the sport has always held a special place in my heart. When I
moved to Boulder, Colorado and enrolled in university, my view of rock climbing shifted. As an
Environmental Studies major, I was constantly looking at the world around me as an
interconnected system of interactions between humans and their environment. Anthropogenic
disturbance has arguably become the most dominating influence on Earth’s natural
environments, and in studying the scope of human influence, I became passionate about
conserving the delicately balanced biodiversity around me.
Like most outdoor enthusiasts, I assigned a high value to nature as I continued to hike,
climb, and explore new terrain. There was a certain thrill in finding sites virtually undisturbed by
human influence, in stepping into unknown territory. But after a few years of studying human-
environment interactions, I realized that my presence in wilderness reaped negative effects on the
very landscapes I loved so much. Moreover, when I mentioned the concept of environmental
management in regard to rock climbing, many of my peers responded skeptically and even
hostilely. We discussed issues such as seasonal rock closures for raptor nesting, habitat
restoration, and cultural events. This led me to discover that some climbers carry a sense of
entitlement to access any outdoor locations they may desire, regardless of environmental or
social effects. In my 12+ years climbing outdoors, I have observed a preconception among the
community that rock climbing has little to no impact on its surrounding environment. This is the
idea that I decided to investigate, and the idea that eventually developed into this thesis project.
Rock climbing is not particularly well-studied in the world of academia, providing ample
opportunity for future research. My hope is that this project becomes a drop in the bucket of
scholarly research on outdoor rock climbing, and as the community continues to develop and
grow, it does so in a self-aware, environmentally conscious way. Outdoor enthusiasts have gotten
to play the role of environmentalists in the past, calling for land to be preserved as public parks
rather than opened for resource extraction. But given the rapid growth of outdoor recreation and
tourism over the past several decades, even non-extractive activities must be examined and
controlled to ensure an ecologically stable future.

v
Acknowledgements

This project would not have been possible without the ideas and support of many
important people in my life. Immense thanks to Ted Sommer: my dad, my first climbing partner,
and the source of the idea behind this thesis; and to Jennifer Sommer, for always picking up the
phone, and for learning to belay despite the fact that she does not climb. The encouragement of
countless friends and family members kept me going throughout the entire research and writing
process. Special thanks to Gwen and Tim Kittel, Dani Gurevitch, Miakoda Plude, Katie Mac
Slabach, Liam Fisher, and my Environmental Studies honors thesis peers for all of their advice
and support. I cannot thank you enough for listening to me talk through my project time and time
again.
I am indebted to my committee of advisors: Dale Miller, Philip White, and Lon Abbot,
whose patience and expertise made the impossible possible. Dale, thank you for believing in my
idea, for stepping up as Committee Chair, and for debating grammar with a clearly unqualified
undergrad. Phil, you were indispensable to the completion of this project. Thank you for letting
me clog your calendar with meetings, and for forgiving every missed deadline.
To Nick Wilder of The Mountain Project, thank you for creating an invaluable resource
for the climbing community, and thank you for trusting a random undergrad with your metadata.
This project stands on the shoulders of the many climbers who have worked, generally unpaid, to
balance climbing with conservation in the past. Your efforts inspire responsibility in us future
generations.

vi
“Most climbers are individuals who love freedom—they climb because it makes them feel free.
We may expect then, that having others suggest how they ought to climb will rub wrong. There
used to be so few climbers that it didn't matter where one drove a piton, there wasn't a worry
about demolishing the rock. Now things are different. There are so many of us, and there will be
more. A simple equation exists between freedom and numbers: the more people the less freedom.
If we are to retain the beauties of the sport, the fine edge, the challenge, we must consider our
style of climbing."

— Royal Robbins, Basic Rockcraft, 1977.

vii
viii
 Table of Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................iii

Preface .............................................................................................................................................v

Acknowledgements.........................................................................................................................vi

Epigraph.........................................................................................................................................vii

Introduction......................................................................................................................................1

Background......................................................................................................................................5

Recreation Ecology and Rock Climbing..............................................................................7

Vegetation..........................................................................................................................10

Soil.....................................................................................................................................13

Wildlife..............................................................................................................................14

GIS: A Novel Approach to Recreation Ecology................................................................15

Methods..........................................................................................................................................18

Results............................................................................................................................................22

Discussion......................................................................................................................................33

Limitations of Study..........................................................................................................38

Suggestions for Future Study.............................................................................................40

Application.....................................................................................................................................42

Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................48

References......................................................................................................................................50

ix
x
Introduction

Scaling sheer cliff faces for fun has never been more socially accepted. Since the 1960s,

rock climbing has become an increasingly important part of America’s recreation landscape.

Today, rock climbing is a growing contributor to the nation’s $800+ billion-dollar outdoor

recreation industry, and indoor and outdoor climbing are more popular than ever (Outdoor

Industry Association 2017). Outdoor recreation retailers boast more political prowess than they

have historically, as well; companies such as Patagonia, The North Face, and REI have funded

research studies on the industry’s contribution to the American economy as they lobby for the

protection of accessible public land. Historically, rock climbers and other outdoor

recreationalists have claimed a correlation between recreation and conservation of public lands.

Ample evidence suggests, however, that rock climbing still causes an array of negative impacts

to ecosystems, not unlike most outdoor activities. The outdoor industry can be harmful to the

very landscapes it claims to protect. As rock climbing is one of the most rapidly growing outdoor

sports in the nation, identifying and understanding its ecological consequences will be critical for

mitigating them. In the age of outdoor recreationalists calling for conservation, we must question

if and how to manage outdoor activities in order to align with conservationist values for a

sustainable future.

Nearly all research identifying the environmental concerns associated with rock climbing

suggest altered or increased management of outdoor recreation on publicly owned lands. Many

further specified that local conditions and research had to be considered, and that varied

ecosystems would require different, unique strategies for land management because different

ecosystems require different protocols. A detailed understanding of these location-specific

conditions is a necessity for moving toward sustainable policy that ensures conservation of

1
natural areas frequented by climbers. Currently, no large-scale academic studies have been

conducted that attempt to identify potential “problem” areas frequented by rock climbers that

may require management reform.

The state of Colorado, USA is home to some of the oldest and largest communities of

outdoor rock climbers. Its popularity is largely due to Colorado’s complex geologic history and

plentiful rock formations. Outdoor rock climbers travel all over the state, from the towering

alpine granite of Rocky Mountain National Park, to the soft pink sandstone of Garden of the

Gods. Descendants of early European settlers pioneered into Colorado’s wilderness in the late

19th Century, exploring the Rocky Mountains for natural beauty and physical challenge (Achey,

Chelton, & Godfrey 2002). The city of Boulder became home base for the first-ever Rocky

Mountain Climbers Club founded in 1896, many decades before the sport gained significant

recognition or popularity (Achey et al 2002). Through the years, travelers, immigrants, and

academics made their way through Boulder and beyond, sharing and developing new climbing

techniques. Technological advances during World War II brought army-supply nylon ropes to

replace old, static hemp ropes, allowing for safer falls and propelling early climbers onto steeper,

more challenging terrain (Achey et al 2002). By 1967, Boulder’s first outdoor climbing

guidebook was published, providing even the novice with information on how to locate and

safely climb local rocks (Achey et al 2002). These first steps were followed by decades of

adventurers moving to and vacationing in Colorado, exploring new rocks and establishing more

outdoor climbing areas. In 2019, Colorado remains one of the most important geographic and

cultural destinations for rock climbers worldwide (Adventure Projects, Inc. 2019).

This study gains a broad overview of recreational rock climbing’s potential ecological

impact in the state of Colorado by analyzing what types of ecological systems are visited by

2
climbers, determining any potential threats to those ecological systems, and assessing what legal

protections are currently in place for those ecosystems. By understanding the abundance and

nature of these potential impacts, specific and sustainable management strategies for climbing

communities are then proposed for the future. As the sport grows, and more climbers with less

experience head outside, customized novel management strategies are necessary to maintain the

stability of the ecosystems climbers so often visit.

3
4
Background

Recreational rock climbing has been a pastime of bold adventurers since the mid-18th

Century. In the United States, organized communities of climbers existed as early as the 1910s,

and the sport gained considerable attention and popularity in the 1980s as it was picked up by

seasoned outdoorsmen and adrenaline-seeking, counter-culture youth alike (Attarian & Pyke

2000, Achey et al 2002, Taylor 2006). As outdoor climbing gained popularity, indoor climbing

gyms popped up across the nation. More people than ever before had access to entry-level

climbing, complete with paid instructors. The turn of the century saw a continuation of this

trend; by 2000, an estimated 400,000 Americans identified as active climbers (Attarian & Pyke

2000). Self-made climbing legend Alex Honnold was featured on the cover of National

Geographic in 2011 and was the subject of Oscar-winning documentary “Free Solo” in 2018,

further launching outdoor rock climbing into the public eye. In 2017, over 6 million Americans

reported that they rock climbed at least once, indoors or outdoors, each year according to the

Outdoor Industry Association (OIA 2017).

Climbing has evolved with the times, representing more than just an adrenaline-inducing

pastime. Rock climbing, like most other outdoor recreation industries in the United States, has

progressively contributed to the national economy each year. In 2017, outdoor recreation of all

kinds directly resulted in $887 billion in consumer spending, supporting 7.6 million American

jobs (OIA 2017). Furthermore, this sector of the American economy contributes over $65 billion

in federal tax revenue and more than $59 billion in local and state tax revenue annually (OIA

2017). Population modeling and United States Forest Service statistics project a continued

increase in the number of outdoor activity participants through 2060; the entire industry is

expected to maintain its trend of growth (Cordell 2012). Outdoor recreation retailers and industry

5
professionals have been gathering these statistics in recent years to build a voice in Washington,

leveraging their collective political power into lobbying for protection and preservation of public

lands (Outdoor Industry Association 2017, Access Fund 2018). This draw toward outdoor

recreation is not an exclusively American trend, either; globally, nature-based tourism has been

rising in popularity over the past decade, and outdoor recreation is becoming an increasingly

large sector of such tourism (Balmford et. al 2009).

Historically, rock climbers and other outdoor enthusiasts have associated their outdoor

recreation with conservation of public lands. After all, recreation retailers like The North Face,

Patagonia, and REI lobby to preserve national monument land designations so their customers

may have publicly accessible rivers to ride on their kayaks, campsites to pitch their tents, and

rocks to climb with their specialized harnesses, shoes, and helmets. Support for public lands, on

a surface level, appears to be supporting environmentalist, conservation-oriented values

(Balmford et. al 2009, Reed & Merenlender 2008, Schild 2016). One study even correlates

frequency of outdoor recreation with higher likelihood of contributing private land to

conservation efforts (Farmer et. al 2016). Opening government-owned land to unbridled

recreation, however, can negatively affect natural ecosystems. The effects of outdoor recreation

on the environment pale in comparison to subsurface fossil fuel extraction or mountaintop

removal for mining precious metals, but many of its activities result in ecological consequences.

Nonetheless, rock climbing may not display such obvious ecological effects as “consumptive”

recreation, like fishing and hunting, but is still grouped among “nonconsumptive” activities that

result in harmful impacts despite their non-extractive nature (Reed & Merenlender 2008). These

impacts are of particular importance because nearly 60% of American climbing areas are located

on federally managed public lands (Access Fund 2018). As the rock climbing community is a

6
significant and rising player in the world of outdoor recreation, it must establish sustainable

environmental practices with well-designed management to garner public and political support.

Understanding and managing environmental impacts of rock climbing will be critical to

accomplishing these goals—especially for an industry looking to leverage more political power.

Recreation Ecology and Rock Climbing

Rock climbing has been integrated into American culture for over half a century, but

scholarly literature on rock climbing’s ecological effects did not pick up steam until the late

1990s. This is likely because it was a process of several decades for scientists to begin studying

how outdoor recreation of any kind impacts the environment, let alone to hone in on rock

climbing specifically. Research related to the ecological effect of rock climbing is a modern-day

subsection of recreation ecology, defined as “the study of the environmental consequences or

outdoor recreation/nature-based tourism activities and their effective management” (Monz,

Pickering, & Hadwen 2013). This field of research predates its own terminology; decades before

the term “recreation ecology” was commonplace, conservation biologist Emilio Meinecke

surveyed the impacts of tourism on vegetation in California redwood parks. He discovered that

human disturbance on and off-trail was responsible for trampling young plants, exposing and

damaging the roots of well-established plants, and threatening the survival of native vegetation

(Meinecke 1929). These anthropogenic disturbances deeply concerned Meinecke; he even

asserted that “the main objective of the parks is likely to fail” without better management of

sensitive ecosystems (Meinecke 1929).

Meinecke paved the way for later recreation ecologists. By the 1960s, biologist J. Alan

Wagar defined the problem of recreation-related disturbance in earnest. He suggested the

7
concept of “carrying capacity” be applied to wilderness areas in order to limit recreation-related

disturbance to a non-critical level. Based off of observed degradation, he argued that the quality

of recreation would decrease if the quality of environment decreased, inciting the need for

conservation measures in land management (Wagar 1964). Wagar’s work inspired peers, and

recreation ecology research increased in abundance around the 1970s, paralleling the growing

traction of the American environmental movement (Pickering et. al 2009).

Recreation ecologists began comparing the relative ecological impacts of different

recreational activities by the beginning of the 21 st Century. Pickering et. al (2009) observed trail

damage, soil erosion, and vegetation degradation of three different activities in Australia and the

United States: hiking, mountain biking, and horseback riding. They discovered that the different

activities reaped different types and severity of environmental impacts, concluding that

horseback riding displayed the greatest damage to ecosystems (Pickering et. al 2009). These

activities are easily comparable as they share the same trails and site of impact. This convenience

of study could be one reason why few to no studies exist comparing the relative impacts of rock

climbing to other outdoor sports.

Collectively, recreation ecologists have established a theoretical model graphing

frequency of use and severity of impact of natural resources. Most recreation ecologists agree

that, starting with no use or impact, the curve steeply increases until it reaches an “inflection

point” where the curve hits an asymptote, and any additional use only minimally increases

environmental impact at that point (see Figure 1a) (Wagar 1964, Monz, Pickering, & Hadwen

2013). This “inflection point” theory has convinced land managers that after a certain point of

disturbance, a site will not significantly change regardless of increases in use. The idea has

spurred decades of “confinement strategy” management, the near-sacrificial technique of

8
limiting human recreation to specific, confined areas while saving greater portions of land from

disturbance (Monz et al 2013). Literature shows, however, that even contained disturbance can

result in significant ecological impacts (Reed & Merenlender 2008).

Monz et. al also describe an alternative relationship between frequency of use and

severity of impact on an environmental resource. Their second model shows that environmental

impact increases slowly and minimally with increased recreational use until it reaches a “primary

threshold,” at which point the environmental impact dramatically increases with subsequent use,

then eventually levels off in a similar asymptote to that of the curvilinear model (See Figure 1b)

(Monz et. al 2013). Given this alternative model, the authors recommend allowing more regions

of wilderness be made available for low-frequency recreational use, as long as that use does not

surpass the primary threshold. This management strategy could be the “golden ticket” for

adventurous climbers seeking remote, less popular destinations for outdoor climbing.

Figure 1: Ecological impact as compared to increasing use of natural resources: two proposed models.
Source: Monz, Pickering & Hadwen (2013). “Recent advances in recreation ecology and the implications of
different relationships between recreation use and ecological impacts”

9
 Climbing is a unique sport in that it encompasses a variety of activities, including hiking

to the base of remote rocks, technical climbing itself, setting protection on rock faces, rappelling,

and full-blown mountaineering. Due to its broad scope, literature on its impacts covers three

main ecological elements: vegetation, soil, and wildlife. All three of these categories are relevant

to some facet of climbing, and they all experience distinct ecological impacts with their own sets

of implications.

Vegetation

Recreational outdoor rock climbing affects several different types of flora which grow in

a variety of habitats affected by climbers. The majority of climbing-related literature on

vegetation ecology studies cliff-face plant communities. Cliff-face flora are microbiomes that are

nearly always pristine prior to rock climbing disturbances because of their remote nature (Vogler

& Reisch 2011). Different outdoor recreation activities exhibit unique ecological impacts, and

rock climbing is the only sport which significantly affects ecological factors of cliff-face flora

(Attarian & Pyke 2000, Lorite et al 2017).

Several research studies have used similar methods: selecting several climbed cliff-faces

and several pristine, unclimbed cliff-faces in comparable or nearby environments, and analyzing

the ecological composition of the cliff-face flora of each. Across the board, climbing was found

to negatively affect abundance, percent cover, organism size, and species richness of cliff-face

plants with significant shifts in species composition as well (Lorite et. al 2017, Vogler & Reisch

2011, McMillan & Larson 2002, Attarian & Pyke 2000). Clark & Hessl (2015) conducted an

even more detailed study comparing climbed to unclimbed cliff faces. Their results indicated that

there was slightly lower abundance of vascular plants and lichens on climbed faces as compared

10
to unclimbed, but abundance of bryophytes remained unchanged. Cliff angle was reported to be

the strongest indicator of species richness and abundance across all taxonomic groups, with more

influence than disturbance from climbing (Clark & Hessl 2015). Lorite et. al (2017) went beyond

the binary of comparing climbed and unclimbed faces, designing tiered scale from low to high

climbing frequency. Their data supported that increasing severity of cliff flora disturbance was

correlated with increasing frequency of use from climbers (Lorite et. al 2017). Finally, Vogler &

Reisch (2011) further examined disturbed cliff faces, noting that lichen and vascular plants were

more abundant closer to the ground on climbed cliffs. The authors suggest that climbers may

accidentally displace plants by knocking them downward, which could contribute to this spatial

pattern (Vogler & Reisch 2011).

Cliff faces are not the only vegetated surfaces impacted by rock climbing. Anthropogenic

trampling of ground vegetation and soil degradation are some of the most commonly studied

topics in the field of recreation ecology (Monz et. al 2013). Vascular plant communities that

inhabit cliff bases decrease in species abundance, density, and percent cover with increased

frequency of rock climbing in a given area (McMillan & Larson 2002, Carr 2007, Rusterhok,

Verhoustracten, & Barr 2011). Carr’s 2007 study developed a unique procedure to determine

ecological impact of climbing on vegetation in two popular climbing areas of Kentucky, even

distinguishing between styles of climbing (sport, with permanent metal bolts in cliff walls; and

traditional, with removable gear inserted for protection). Carr found that the negative impact of

climbing on vegetation was three times more severe at sport climbing sites as compared to

traditional climbing sites (Carr 2007). Both McMillan & Larson (2002) and Rusterhok et al

(2011) expressed concern for endangered, rare, or sensitive vegetation inhabiting frequently

11
climbed areas. Both articles recommended a ban on establishing any new routes in their given

study areas in order to maintain pristine cliff habitat for remaining, living vegetation.

Hiking trails that lead to outdoor climbing routes pose even more threats to native

vegetation. The patterns that Meinecke (1929) and Wagar (1964) observed decades ago are still

prevalent today. Recreation-related anthropogenic disturbances to vegetation surrounding trails

still includes reduced height and abundance of flora (Pickering et. al 2009, Cole 2004). Cole

(2004) observed that plant stem length and leaf area also decreased with proximity to frequently

recreated areas, resulting in a subsequent loss of photosynthetic potential, which made plants less

competitive in their environments. Reproductive cycles of many vascular plants displayed

unusual patterns in areas closer to hiking trails as well (Cole 2004).

Presence of trails also causes an increased risk of foreign pathogens and seeds of non-

native species (Cushman & Meentemeyer 2008, Davidson et. al 2005, Mount & Pickering 2009).

Hiking boots, socks, and shoelaces have all been identified as active vectors for seed dispersal,

with associated risk of increased weeds and non-native plant abundance (Mount & Pickering

2009). In Northern California, where forests managers are scrambling to limit the spread of

pathogenic Phytophthora ramorum (Sudden Oak Death), both Cushman & Meentemeyer (2008)

and Davidson et. al (2005) found that the disease was more abundant in areas frequented by

outdoor recreationalists. Trails easily become thoroughfares for dangerous pathogens with

humans as vectors. Trail establishment increases likelihood of non-native species invasions and

disease outbreaks by creating areas of exposed soil, an easy target for non-native pathogens, as

well as providing mobile vectors for those pathogens. Rainy weather increases amount of soil

stuck to boot soles, thus increasing occurrences of anthropogenic pathogen distribution

(Davidson et. al 2005). Disturbances resulting in prolonged effects, such as the spread of

12
contagious pathogens, are known as self-propagating impacts, and can have more severe

consequences than other types of single-use disturbances (Pickering & Hill 2007).

It should be noted that, although trail impact studies are not sport-specific, rock climbers

everywhere use trails to access outdoor climbing areas (Access Fund 2018). Past research on the

ecological impacts of rock climbing has failed to recognize the significant role of hiking trails

related to climbing areas, quick to divide different recreational activities into separate categories.

Yet, many outdoor recreationalists (including climbers) self-identify as enthusiasts of more than

one activity, frequently combining several outdoor activities in single outings (Outdoor

Foundation 2018).

Soil

The impacts of rock climbing on soil are significantly less complex, or at least less

researched, than its impacts on vegetation. In 1929, Meinecke detailed changes in soil due to

frequency of hiking tourism in the California Redwoods. He noted that soil on trails experienced

increased light exposure as well as greater variability of temperature and moisture (Meinecke

1929). Most recent studies agree that recreational rock climbing and hiking compacted soil and

decreased its water storage capacity, leading to increased occurrences of runoff and erosion in

disturbed areas (Attarian & Pyke 2000, Cole 2004, Pickering et. al 2009). Pickering et. al (2009)

also noted increased exposure of rocks and bedrock in soil affected by hiking. Lastly, Rusterhok

et. al (2011) sampled and compared soil from climbed and unclimbed sites. They discovered that

climbing tourism decreased the density and altered the species composition of soil seed banks

among Mediterranean cliff communities (Rusterhok et. al 2011).

13
Wildlife

Unfortunately for outdoor recreationalists, the impacts of ecotourism on wildlife are

considered some of the most concerning effects of nature tourism (Wilkinson 2015). In the age

of what some label the “Sixth Mass Extinction” (Briggs 2017), a global pattern of decrease in

biodiversity has occurred for the past 20+ years (Buchart et. al 2010). Mammals, birds, and

amphibians have displayed particularly concerning decline (Buchart et. al 2010). Climate

change, recent increase in zoonotic diseases, nutrient pollution, and anthropogenic land use

changes are among the factors threatening species worldwide (Buchart et. al 2010). Endangered

species are threatened by numerous anthropogenic and environmental factors, motivating

wilderness managers to prioritize their survival. Rock climbing and hiking alike have been found

to cause declines in density of large predatory mammals (Reed & Merenlender 2008, Attarian &

Pyke 2000). A study in Northern California found similar results; even in regions with

exclusively “benign” activities like hiking and birdwatching, researchers found that large

mammals were only one fifth as abundant in areas with recreational trails than undisturbed areas.

Indeed, the real issue for some threatened species is not extinction, but rather “population decline

to the point where many species only exist as remnants of their former abundance,” according to

Briggs (2017). This is of particular concern, as decline in large carnivores is long-observed to

result in such consequences as trophic cascades and mesopredator release, further upsetting the

balance of ecosystems (Crooks & Soulé 1999). Recreational rock climbing and hiking, though

seemingly harmless activities, are both evidenced to displace and even occasionally extirpate

sensitive native mammal and bird populations (Wilkinson 2015).

Bird populations in particular are already evidenced to benefit from management of

outdoor recreation (Attarian & Pyke 2000). Although one study correlates outdoor recreation

14
with the displacement of threatened birds from their native habitat (Klein, Humphrey, & Percival

1995), management of outdoor activities has improved in recent years to better suit avian

species. Rock climbing, an activity that generally occurs on cliff faces, poses specific threats to

cliff-nesting raptor communities including Peregrine Falcons and Bald Eagles (Attarian & Pyke

2000). Climbers have identified and amended these threats; there are several success stories of

ecological management to facilitate raptor nesting including Boulder County’s local program of

seasonal climbing closures in Colorado (Attarian & Pyke). The impact of outdoor recreation on

avian communities, however, may be highly variable based on local conditions and species

composition (Klein, Humphrey, & Percival 1995).

GIS: A Novel Approach to Recreation Ecology

Recreation ecology has seen new strategies and significantly larger-scale studies in recent

years thanks to the emergence of Geographic Information System (GIS) technology. Since its

invention, GIS has become an increasingly popular tool to assist in identifying, modeling, and

predicting human impacts on natural ecosystems (Davis & Quinn 2004, Merem et. al 2011).

Broad-scale ecosystem studies are particularly valuable in the field of conservation biology,

which has historically focused on species, subspecies, and population ecology (Franklin 1993).

Large, ecosystem-scale studies are able to consider the many species that coexist within

interconnected habitats—terrestrial, aquatic, subterranean, tree canopy—and prioritize

biodiversity at the ecosystem level (Franklin 1993, Lathrop & Bognar 1998).

Lathrop & Bognar utilized GIS in a 1998 study assessing recent land use change and its

threat to the Sterling Forest on the border of New York and New Jersey. Their assessment

15
included land area change, gauged anthropogenic threats in the area, and was ultimately used to

propose a conservation-development plan with the developer in the area.

Butt et al (2015) conducted a similar GIS analysis of land use change in the Simly

Watershed of Vietnam, using landcover data over time to determine that historic areas of

vegetation and water had been developed into settlements and agricultural land. GIS was also

used to assess land use and suggest future management for a study in Poland, which used 5m

spatial resolution to compare vegetation and soil erosion to determine best locations for potential

trails (Tomczyk 2010). Merem et al (2011) used similar methodology for a GIS study of human

health and land use change in southern Texas watersheds. The study argues that geospatial

analyses of anthropogenic impact can be valuable for management suggestions (Merem et al

2011).

Outdoor rock climbing is a large-scale occurrence, and as such could benefit from large-

scale GIS analysis. Colorado alone is home to over 25,000 documented outdoor climbing routes

in regions all over the state, with particular abundance in the Rocky Mountains (Adventure

Projects Inc., 2018). This study examines the state of Colorado due to its abundance of rock

climbers, array of diverse ecosystems, and historic significance to the sport. Colorado is also

representative of the greater demographic changes in the “New West” (Hansen et. al 2002).

Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado have all seen an increase in population, especially

around their communities near natural amenities (e.g. Boulder’s flatirons). This influx of new

residents can be accredited to accessibility of outdoor recreation and has consequently increased

stresses on native ecosystems (Hansen et. al 2002) Biodiversity, species abundance, and

ecosystem processes have all suffered in newly populated regions (Hansen et. al 2002).

16
 Although past studies have identified acute effects of rock climbing on specific,

individual locations, few to no large-scale studies on the subject exist. This study utilizes large-

scale GIS analysis to determine outdoor rock climbing’s potential ecological impacts, and how

public land designations may influence such impacts. It analyzes locations of climbing areas in

Colorado to determine what type of terrestrial landcover and corresponding ecosystems are most

visited by recreational climbers and determines how many climbing areas are located in

protected land areas on local, state, and federal levels. Additionally, this data should identify any

regions or species in the state potentially threatened by outdoor recreational rock climbing. By

identifying which ecosystems and species display the most potential for suffering negative

impacts of rock climbing, this study suggests customized management strategies for some of the

state’s most-visited climbing hotspots.

17
Methods

A GIS database was created combining point data of outdoor climbing locations in

Colorado with landcover and land ownership raster data for the state. This study utilizes

landcover data from both 1970 and 2011 to compare how Colorado’s climbing landscape has

changed over 40 years, identify which climbing areas have undergone recent development, and

determine if there are any climbing areas that present serious threats to native ecosystems. A land

ownership / designation data layer is also implemented to understand how many climbing areas

are located in public lands with preexisting protections, regulated by different governing bodies

on local, state, federal, and nongovernmental levels. Geographic data for climbing locations in

Colorado was acquired by request from The Mountain Project, a crowd-sourced online map and

guidebook for outdoor climbing areas worldwide. The Mountain Project provided metadata for

2,686 points which each represent one of the state’s outdoor climbing areas, including rock wall

name and geographic coordinates. The Mountain Project defines a “climbing area” as distinct

rock face, boulder, or mountain with at least one established climbing route.

Landcover data from the 1970s was sourced from the United States Geological Survey’s

historical Land Use and Land Cover (LULC). This dataset was created using historic in situ

government surveys from 1970, refined with population density data from 2000, and published

in 2005. GIS computer applications were not invented until the 1960s and did not gain popularity

in academia until the late 1970s, so digitalized historic data is sparse, with lower levels of

accuracy than modern data (Clarke 1986). This 1970s dataset claims a resolution of 30m, but

functionally only displays blocks of 100m resolution. Its landcover categories are somewhat

broad and were defined based on land use and most dominant vegetation (or lack of) at the time

of survey. Colorado’s climbing areas spanned 15 landcover types in 1970.

18
 Modern landcover data was acquired from two different sources: 2011 National Land

Cover Data (NLCD) from the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, 2011

GAP/LANDFIRE National Terrestrial Ecosystems (NTE) data from the United States Geological

Survey, and 1970 USGS Land Use and Land Cover data. Two sources of landcover data from

2011 have been utilized because each dataset was created for a different purpose, and the two

possess value though comparison to one another. The NLCD’s objective is to gather basic

information on landcover and its change over time and defines each cell with one of just 16

landcover classes. NTE data focuses on precise classification of land in order to monitor and

preserve biodiversity. For its complete United States data, NTE cells are classified as one among

hundreds of specific ecosystem types. For the purposes of this study, climbing areas in Colorado

totaled 49 different ecosystem types. Both the NLCD and NTE data have grid cell resolution of

30 m, meaning that all of Colorado’s territory was divided into 30m2 plots and assigned

landcover values. The majority of landcover data for both 2011 sources was produced with

satellite imagery (Homer et al 2015, USGS 2016). Finally, land ownership / designation data was

acquired from the United States Geological Survey’s Gap Analysis Program. Their map

outlining federal, state, local, and tribal land designation boundaries published in 2016 provides

insight as to the legal owners of Colorado’s land as well as preexisting protections of that land.

All four landcover and ownership datasets were imported and overlaid with Mountain

Project climbing area data on QGIS 2.18 (See Figures 2, 3, 4 & 5). The QGIS Point Sampling

Tool plugin was used to extract LULC, NLCD, NTE, and land ownership designation values for

each geographic point of Mountain Project data (outdoor climbing locations). The landcover

values were added to the Mountain Project data’s attribute table, which was then exported to

Microsoft Excel for data analysis. At this point, landcover values for LULC, NLCD, and NTE

19
were numerically coded, and ultimately were converted back to the landcover classifications they

signified via each respective dataset’s legend. For example, the numerical code “41” equates to

“Evergreen Forest” landcover designation in the 2011 NLCD dataset.

Figure 2: Mountain Project Climbing Location Points Overlaid on 1970s LULC map of Colorado
Image exported from QGIS 2.18

Figure 3: Mountain Project Climbing Location Points Overlaid on 2011 NLCD map of Colorado
Image exported from QGIS 2.18

20
 Figure 4: Mountain Project Climbing Location Points Overlaid on 2011 NTE map of Colorado
Image exported from QGIS 2.18

Figure 5: Mountain Project Climbing Location Points Overlaid on USDA Land Ownership / Designation
Territories in Colorado
Image exported from QGIS 2.18

21
Results

The GIS analysis produced a comprehensive ranking of how many climbing areas in

Colorado were located in each 1970s landcover type (classified by LULC), 2011 ecosystem type

(classified by NTE) and 2011 landcover type (classified by NLCD). In the 1970s, Colorado

climbing areas were located in 15 different LULC types, with a select few landcover types

accounting for the majority of climbing areas (see Figure 6). 2011 data indicates that Colorado

climbing areas span throughout the state over 12 different NLCD landcover types and 49

different NTE ecological system types. NLCD landcover types, which have broader definitions

and thus fewer categories than NTE classifications, classify much larger portions of Colorado’s

outdoor climbs than any individual NTE ecological system type. The division of 2011 NLCD

vegetation zones and NTE ecosystem types in Colorado are illustrated in Figures 7 & 8 below.

Figure 6: Percent of Colorado Climbing Areas per 1970s Land Use / Land Cover Type
Note that resolution of 170s data is only 1/3 as high as both datasets from 2011. Sourced from the United States
Department of the Interior via data.gov.

22
 Figure 7: Percent of Colorado Climbing Areas per National Land Cover Data Vegetation Zone.
NLCD vegetation zones are defined by the U.S. Geological Survey. Evergreen Forest (39% climbing areas),
Shrub/Scrub (33%), and Developed, Open Space (8%) were the three most-visited landcover types for climbers.

Figure 8: Percent of Colorado Climbing Areas per National Terrestrial Ecosystem Type (2011)
National Terrestrial Ecosystem Types are determined by the dominant vegetation composition in any given area.
Descriptions of each individual ecosystem type are sourced from the United States Geological Survey in association
with NatureServe.

23
 According to LULC data (see Figure 6), in 1970 67% of Colorado climbing areas were

located in Evergreen Forest Land, 10% in Shrub and Brush Rangeland, 9% in Mixed Rangeland,

3% in Mixed Forest Land, and 3% in Bare Ground (Tundra), and 3% in Bare Exposed Rock. The

remaining 5% of climbs were located in a variety of landcover types accounting for 2% or less of

all climbs. This data has lower accuracy than modern data due to its lower resolution and

nonspecific categories, but is the best available landcover data for its time.

Under 2011 NLCD classifications (see Figure 7), 39% of Colorado climbs are located in

Evergreen Forest, 32% in Shrub/Scrub, 8% in Developed Open Space, 7% in Barren Land, 5% in

Developed Low Intensity land, and 4% in Grassland/Herbaceous territory. The remaining 5% of

climbing areas are located in landcover areas that account for 2% or less of all climbs in the

state. It is notable that together, Evergreen Forest and Shrub/Scrub land are home to over two

thirds of all outdoor climbing areas in Colorado.

As previously mentioned, GAP/LANFIRE National Terrestrial Ecosystem data has more

landcover categories with more specific definitions than the other two datasets. NTE’s specific

ecosystem types provide details that NLCD’s broad categories do not. The most common 2011

NTE ecological systems rock climbers visit (see Figure 8) are Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper

Woodland (15.6% climbing areas), Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland

(15.3%), Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland (9.1%), Developed, Open Space

(7.7%) and Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland (6.1%), Colorado Plateau Mixed

Bedrock Canyon and Tableland (4%), and Developed, Low Intensity land (4%). The other 37%

of climbing areas are located in ecosystem types that account for 2% or less of all ecosystems in

the state. The “Other” category includes 42 different ecosystem types. Within that list, seven

different ecosystem types are home to more than 50 climbing areas: Southern Rocky Mountain

24
Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland, Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed

Montane Shrubland, Southern Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and

Woodland, Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe, Rocky Mountain-Sierran Alpine

Bedrock & Scree, Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest, and Inter-Mountain Basins Big

Sagebrush Shrubland. Many of these ecosystems are found nearby large patches of Colorado

Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland (15.6% areas) and Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper

Shrubland (6.1%), so have a high potential for similar ecological concerns as the top 5 most

common ecosystems. There are not many large areas of land with exclusively “fringe”

ecosystems (containing <100 but >50 climbing areas in the state). The remaining 35 ecosystem

types contain less than 50 known climbing areas throughout the state. While these climbing areas

are likely ecologically significant to local ecosystems, this study seeks to gain a broad overview

of Colorado’s potential ecological concerns determined based on total percentage of climbs in

the state, and these ecosystems all account for <1% of the state’s total outdoor climbs.

In comparing 1970s LULC data (see Figure 6) with 2011 NLCD and NTE data (see

Figures 7 & 8), it is difficult to discuss differences between the graphs without reiterating that

the datasets were not necessarily designed to be compared; LULC is much lower resolution and

is defined by slightly different landcover categories as the other datasets used in this study.

However, 2011 NLCD data provides the closest resource with comparable landcover types (e.g.

1970 “Evergreen Forest Land” will be considered equivalent to 2011 “Evergreen Forest”). The

United States Geological Survey’s National Land Cover Database of 2011 was also developed

from historic land cover and land use surveys including the 1970 data examined in this study; it

is reasonable to compare the two, as they are closely related in methodology of data collection.

25
Figure 9 (below) shows how the amount of Colorado climbing areas located in four different

comparable landcover types changed between 1970 and 2011.

Figure 9: Number of Colorado Climbing Areas per NLCD Landcover Type, 1970 vs. 2011.
NLCD vegetation zones are defined by the U.S. Geological Survey. Landcover classes from 1970 and 2011 that
share similar names and definitions are compared as the best possible representation of landcover data for each year.

The number of climbs located in Evergreen Forest land, as defined by the NLCD, have

dramatically decreased from 1970 to 2011. This is likely because within that time, some of

Colorado’s historic evergreen forest land has been converted to Developed Land of varying

stages, ranging from building development to open space development. The number of climbs

located on Shrub / Scrub land has increased, indicating that historically different landcover types

have become dominated by shrub / scrub since 1970. Finally, there have been slight increases in

Barren Land / Rock and Developed Land territory in 2011 as compared to 1970. These land

cover and land use changes may be representational of how Colorado’s land has changed

statewide across the past four decades. This study observes how outdoor rock climbing affects

the land, but for these broad-scale changes, other factors including land privatization,

development, and urban sprawl also likely contribute to land use and land cover change.

26
 2011 landcover data is the most recent data available to determine the biggest ecological

concerns for each landcover type heading into the future. This study utilizes 2011 statistics to

draw conclusions about the condition of Colorado’s natural environments in 2019. Due to the

large amount of ecosystem types that only account for small fractions of the state’s total

climbing routes, the top five most common land types of each 2011 dataset have been ranked and

described below (See Figures 10 & 11), as they are the most abundant and relevant in

understanding potential large-scale impacts of recreational outdoor rock climbing.

Figure 10 (see page 29) lists the most prominent NLCD classifications for outdoor

climbing areas in Colorado, as of 2011. For each classification, potential concerns are drawn

based on common impacts of outdoor climbing as observed by past researchers, as discussed in

the Background. Figure 8 presents the top 5 NTE ecosystem types for 2011 in a similar manner,

but with the addition of specific at-risk species reported for each ecosystem rather than

hypothetical concerns sourced from background knowledge. Lists of at-risk species for each

NTE ecosystem type were acquired through NatureServe Explorer’s Ecological System

Comprehensive Reports.

Historically and currently, most climbing areas in Colorado are located in Evergreen

Forest or Shrub / Scrub land, as classified by the NLCD. Overall, NTE landcover data suggests

that Colorado climbers pose threat to the habitat of a select few birds (Pinyon Jay, Gunnison

Sage-Grouse, Greater Sage-Grouse) and low-lying shrubs (various Milkvetch species, Huber’s

Pepperwort). According to both NLCD and NTE data for 2011, developed land (including

Developed, Open Space and Developed, Low Intensity of NLCD and Developed, Open Space of

NTE) accounts for a greater amount of climbing areas than it did in the 1970s.

27
 Percentage of
NLCD CO Climbing Potential
Rank Classification Areas Located Description of Landcover Type Concerns for
Within NLCD Ecosystem
(USGS 2016) Classification (USGS 2016)
1 Evergreen Forest 39% Areas dominated by trees generally Preexisting threats
greater than 5 meters tall, and greater to evergreen
than 20% of total vegetation cover. forests, especially
More than 75% of the tree species bark beetles &
maintain their leaves all year. Canopy wildfires1
is never without green foliage.
2 Shrub/Scrub 33% Areas dominated by shrubs; less than Potential
5 meters tall with shrub canopy biodiversity loss,
typically greater than 20% of total loss of habitat for
vegetation. This class includes true animals and plants
shrubs, young trees in an early native to regions 2
successional stage or trees stunted
from environmental conditions.
3 Developed, Open 8% Areas with a mixture of some Balancing impact
Space constructed materials, but mostly from climbing with
vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. other nearby
Impervious surfaces account for less anthropogenic
than 20% of total cover. These areas impacts3
most commonly include large-lot
single-family housing units, parks,
golf courses, and vegetation planted in
developed settings for recreation,
erosion control, or aesthetic purposes.
4 Barren Land 7% Areas of bedrock, desert pavement, Exacerbated
(Rock/Sand/Clay) scarps, talus, slides, volcanic material, erosion, increased
glacial debris, sand dunes, strip mines, runoff, potential to
gravel pits and other accumulations of decrease nearby
earthen material. Generally, water quality4
vegetation accounts for less than 15%
of total cover.
5 Developed, Low 5% Areas with a mixture of constructed Balancing impact
Intensity materials and vegetation. Impervious from climbing with
surfaces account for 20% to 49% other nearby
percent of total cover. These areas anthropogenic
most commonly include single-family impacts5
housing units.
Figure 10 (above): Top 5 Most Common NLCD Landcover Types Frequented by Climbers
‘Descriptions of Landcover Type’ sourced from NLCD on the United States Geologic Survey website. Citations for
‘Potential Concerns for Ecosystem’ located in footnotes, with complete citations in Works Cited.
Figure 11 (page 30): Top 5 Most Common NTE Ecological System Types Frequented by Climbers
At-Risk Species Reported for Ecological System sourced from NatureServe’s online encyclopedia. Descriptions of
ecological systems summarized from NatureServe Explorer’s Ecological System Comprehensive Reports. “At-Risk
Species” are assessed and determined by independent researchers at NatureServe. Rarity, threats, and recent
population trends are all considered to conclude if a species is at risk of decline or extirpation.

1 Kulakowski & Veblen 2007, Bentz et al 2010

2
Attarian & Pyke 2000, Cole 2004, Reed & Merenlender 2008, Pickering et al 2009
3
Buchart et al 2010
4
Attarian & Pyke 2000, Davidson et al 2006, Pickering et al 2009
5
Buchart et al 2010

28
 Percentage of
Ecological System Colorado Description of At-Risk Species
Rank Classification Climbing Areas Ecological System Reported for Ecological
Located Within System
(USGS 2016) Ecological (NatureServe 2018)
System (NatureServe 2018)
1 Colorado Plateau Pinyon- 15.6% Found in dry 1. Astragalus cronquistii
Juniper Woodland mountains and (Cronquist's Milkvetch)
foothills on warm, dry 2. Astragalus debequaeus
land. Soils may vary in (DeBeque Milkvetch)
texture from stony, 3. Gymnorhinus
course sand to clay. cyanocephalus
Tree canopy (Pinyon Jay)
dominated by Pinus
edulis and/or
Juniperus
osteosperma.
2 Southern Rocky Mountain 15.3% Found at lower None
Ponderosa Pine Woodland treeline between
grass/shrubland and
coniferous forests.
Typically inhabit
warm, dry, exposed
sites, most common on
steep slopes to
ridgetops. Generally
coarse, rocky soil.
Dominated by Pinus
ponderosa.
3 Rocky Mountain Lower 9.1% Found in foothills, 1. Astragalus anisus
Montane-Foothill canyon slopes and (Gunnison's Milkvetch)
Shrubland lower mountains of the 2. Astragalus ripleyi
Rocky Mountains. (Ripley's Milkvetch)
Typically exposed, 3. Centrocercus minimus*
rocky, and dry with (Gunnison Sage-Grouse)
limited tree growth. 4. Centrocercus
Cercocarpus urophasianus
montanus and other (Greater Sage-Grouse)
grasses and shrubs 5. Lepidium huberi
dominate. (Huber's Pepperwort)
Disturbances (e.g.
fires) necessary to
maintain ecosystem.
4 Developed, Open Space 7.7% N/A N/A
5 Colorado Plateau Pinyon- 6.1% Found on rocky 1. Gymnorhinus
Juniper Shrubland mesatops and slopes of cyanocephalus
Western Colorado. (Pinyon Jay)
Typically dry, with
shallow/rocky soils
and stunted trees.
Dominated by short
Pinus edulis and/or
Juniperus osteosperma
and shrubs.
* = Federally Threatened under the Endangered Species Act

29
 Finally, analysis of Mountain Project data overlaid with land ownership / designation

data revealed that 89% of all climbing areas in Colorado are located on land with preexisting

legal protections (see Figure 12). Approximately 68% of climbs in Colorado are federally

owned; this includes Bureau of Land Management land (32% climbing areas) or National Forest

land (31% climbing areas), and National Park land (5% climbing areas). The State of Colorado

oversees 11% of all climbing areas studied, with state parks accounting for 10% (including

Eldorado Canyon, Castlewood Canyon, Lory, and Staunton State Parks) and other state-owned

areas constituting 1% of all areas (see “Other” in Figure 12). City park land accounts for nearly

as many climbing areas as state-owned land, home to 10% of Colorado’s outdoor climbing areas.

The cities with legal ownership to Colorado’s climbing areas include the City of Boulder

(majority), City of Colorado Springs, City of Rifle, and City of Denver. County-owned land is

also a significant regulator, home to 5% of the state’s climbing areas. 11% of climbing areas in

the state have no known land designations / legal protections as determined by GIS analysis.

Details on protections for each land designation are described in Figure 13.

Figure 12: Percent of Colorado Climbing Areas per Legal Land Designation (2011)
Land Designations are determined by governments in the United States on local, state, and federal levels. Land
designation data sourced from the United States Department of Agriculture.

30
 Figure 13 (below): Land Designations and Legal Protections of Colorado Outdoor Climbing Areas
Legal Land Designations sourced from the United States Geological Survey’s 2016 report on land ownership and
protections. Percentage of Colorado climbing areas determined through GIS analysis. Descriptions of Land
Protections acquired from various sources, listed in footnotes. Figure continued on page 31.

Legal Land Percentage of CO

Designation
Rank
(USGS GAP 2016a)
1 Bureau of Land
Management
2 National Forest Land
3 None
4 City Park
5 National Park
6 County Land
Climbing Areas Description of Land Protections
Located Within
Land Designation
32% Land must accommodate “opportunities for
commercial, recreational, and conservation
activities.” Little regulation of climbing, land
overseen by BLM field offices. Stricter regulation
within Penitente Canyon, a BLM Special
Recreation Management Area. Paid, registered
guides must file for commercial permits.6
31% Most climbing areas located within Arapaho and
Roosevelt National Forests, or in Pike and San
Isabel National Forests. Managed under “multiple
use concept,” balancing resource extraction,
grazing, and recreation. Generally no restrictions
on outdoor climbing, except in specially
designated areas (e.g. Wilderness Areas) 7
11% No known legal protections
10% Varies based on city. City of Boulder,
City of Colorado Springs, and City of Rifle
contain the most city park climbing areas in the
state. Include seasonal closures for wildlife
nesting, registration and certification for
commercial guides, restrictions on bolt placement
and replacement8
5% National Parks “protect a variety of resources,
including natural and historic features” and “strive
to keep landscapes unimpaired for future
generations while offering recreation
opportunities.” Include Rocky Mountain, Black
Canyon of the Gunnison, Rio Grande, and
Colorado National Monument. Regulations vary
depending on specific park. Generally, prohibit
new route establishment, implement seasonal
wildlife closures, & require permits for multi-day
climbs. Collaborate with LCOs. 9
5% Varies depending on county. Counties with the
most outdoor climbing areas are:
Jefferson County (includes Clear Creek Canyon

6
Bureau of Land Management. (2018, October 17). A landscape approach: How we manage. Retrieved from
https://www.blm.gov/about/how-we-manage
7
U.S. Department of the Interior. (2018, December 18). America's public lands explained. Retrieved from
https://www.doi.gov/blog/americas-public-lands-explained
8
Colorado Springs Department of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services. (2019, January 18). 2019 Rock
Climbing Permit. Retrieved from https://coloradosprings.gov/parks/webform/2019-rock-climbing-permit
9
U.S. Department of the Interior. (2018, December 18). America's Public Lands Explained. Retrieved from
https://www.doi.gov/blog/americas-public-lands-explained

31

7 State Park
8 Other
and North Table Mountain), Eldorado County,
Boulder County (includes Boulder Canyon),
Larimer County (Horsetooth Reservoir), &
Douglas County
5% Includes Eldorado Canyon, Castlewood Canyon,
Lory, and Staunton. Permit required to place or
remove any fixed climbing protection (bolts and
pitons). Commercial climbing guides must be
certified or employed by an accredited
organization & obtain permits. Additional
regulations vary depending on park.10
1% Protections vary based on owner. Includes 8 areas
owned by the State Land Bureau, 5 areas located
in a State Wildlife Area (the Vail Deer
Underpass), 1 area owned by the Commissioners
of the Land Office on “School Land,” and 1 area
owned by an NGO near Nederland, CO.

In addition to the land designations and protections described in Figure 13, it is notable

that 6.1% of climbing areas in Colorado are located within federally designated Wilderness

Areas, which can overlap with other federal land designations including BLM land, National

Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, and National Parks (Colorado’s Wild Areas 2019).

Wilderness Areas are unique from other public land designations, because regulations strive for

“preservation of their wilderness character” (Wilderness Act 1964). Man-made alterations to

landscapes by climbers, such as the placement of fixed hardware on rock faces, are debatably

permissible by the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Wilderness Act 1964).

10
Colorado Parks & Wildlife. (2019). Safety and Regulations. Retrieved from
https://cpw.state.co.us/thingstodo/Pages/Safety-and-Regulations-Rock-Climbing.aspx

32
Discussion

My results indicate that most outdoor rock climbs in Colorado are located in Evergreen

Forests or Shrub / Scrub land. I also discovered that historically forested areas frequented by

climbers may have experienced changes in landcover, converted into developed areas and shrub /

scrub land since 1970. These findings are meaningful because they could be representative of

greater land use change trends since the 1970s. This decrease in forested areas parallels

demographic patterns of the last several decades; Colorado’s population has increased

continually since the 1960s, and rock climbing has continued to grow in popularity over the same

time (Achey 2002, Bowker et al 2016, US Census Bureau 2018). Outdoor rock climbing is

hardly the driving force behind these land use changes, but must be considered within the

broader context of increased outdoor recreational activity over the past several decades (Outdoor

Industry Association 2018). Colorado is one state in the greater American West that has

experienced a dramatic increase in population growth of the 1990s as affluent people flocked

towards landscapes rich in scenery, wildlife, and outdoor recreation (Hansen et al 2002).

It is immediately clear from GIS analysis that the majority of rock climbing areas in

Colorado are located on or nearby the Front Range, on the edge between Colorado’s plains and

the iconic Rocky Mountains. This likely occurred because of presence of available climbable

rock faces, but also because of human convenience; most outdoor climbing areas were

established in close proximity to human civilization. There are, of course, outliers in this trend,

including long, alpine climbs up Colorado’s 14,000+ ft. peaks. But the majority of areas—

possibly even the most frequently climbed areas—are found near growing metropolitan areas

including Denver, Boulder, Fort Collins, and Colorado Springs (USGS GAP 2016b).

33
 My results also reveal that 39% of climbing areas are located in Evergreen Forest as of

2011, which could indicate a decrease in Evergreen Forests since 1970. This is notable because

Colorado’s evergreens have experienced heightened threats over the past two decades, including

increased prevalence of bark beetles and extensive wildfires (Kulakowski & Veblen 2007, Bentz

et al 2010). Bark beetle outbreaks range from Mexico to Alaska, and several recent outbreaks

have been more severe and expansive than ever before (Bentz et al 2010). Additionally, within

the context of climate change, population models suggest that certain bark beetle species

including Dendroctonus rufipennis and Dendroctonus ponderosae are likely to increase in range

as areas of the state warm and precipitation patterns change (Bentz et al 2010). Now is more

important than ever to take precautions to protect Colorado’s native forests. Anthropogenic

disturbance from outdoor recreation could build upon or even exacerbate preexisting threats to

evergreen forests (Kulakowski & Veblen 2007).

Discrepancies in data resolution between the 1970 and 2011 data could alternatively

imply that many climbing areas are located in boundary zones between ecosystems. Wherever

there are discrepancies for landcover data points, it is possible that the landcover, itself, has not

changed, but rather displays characteristics of more than one ecosystem / landcover type. These

“boundary zones” are also known as ecotones, transitional areas between adjacent ecological

systems (Risser 1995). Plants with unique adaptations to tolerate a variety of environmental

conditions often reside in ecotones, and changes to such species’ ranges can be indicative of

greater climatic changes (Risser 1995, Wasson 2013). These regions generally often rich in

biodiversity and thus beneficial to adjacent ecosystems (Risser 1995). Many climbing areas in

Colorado are located along its mountainous Front Range, or within the Rocky Mountains, often

found on steep cliff faces surrounded by rapid changes in elevation and, consequently,

34
vegetation. Stricter regulation and care of climbing areas located in such ecotones could be

considered priority areas for protecting Colorado’s native biodiversity.

The conversion of forest and shrubland to developed land observed is also indicative of

greater threats to ecosystems that outdoor climbers visit. When previously undisturbed or

minimally disturbed areas experience new development, native environments can suffer from

habitat fragmentation. Development causing such fragmentation can range from trail building, to

construction, to clear-cutting (Honnay et al 2014). Forest fragmentation in particular is known to

change species composition, alter ecological interactions among species, and increase genetic

drift and inbreeding in a given area (Honnay et al 2014, Magrach et al 2014). Anthropogenic

disturbances like development can also increase the severity of wildfires for that region

(Kulakowski & Veblen 2007). Much like threats to evergreens, the effects of forest

fragmentation provide more reason to manage outdoor recreation; as natural environments are

under fire from all sides, we must prevent disturbances when and where we can.

Anthropogenic developed land is a major contributor to land use change between 1970

and 2011. 2011 NLCD and NTE data indicate that anywhere from 7.7% to 13% of Colorado’s

climbing areas are located on “Developed Land” of some capacity. It is difficult to determine

exactly what “Developed Land” implies for the environment, because humans can alter the

environment and establish new building or open space developments in all kinds of ecosystems

that may vary in elevation, temperature, annual rainfall, and dominant vegetation (USGS 2016).

Climbs located in developed areas are still significant, however, because environmental impacts

from climbing build upon other negative anthropogenic impacts of development (Buchart et al

2010). Notable Colorado climbing areas located on “Developed Land” include routes in

Independence Pass, Boulder’s Flatirons, Garden of the Gods, Ute Valley, Eldorado Canyon,

35
Glenwood Canyon, Unaweep Canyon, Castlewood Canyon, Ouray, and more. Many of these

“Developed” areas were found to be under city, county, and state protection through land

designation / ownership analysis. This means that government organizations like Boulder Open

Space & Mountain Parks, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and even the National Park Service

already work to conserve and preserve the majority of “developed” lands, including popular

climbing areas. Despite these preexisting protections, the dangers of “edge effects” may still

exist in these areas, and local land managers should be wary of additional development (Buchart

et al 2010, Honnay et al 2014).

National Terrestrial Ecosystem data analysis also determined which threatened or

endangered species reside in outdoor areas frequented by climbers. Astragalus

cronquistii (Cronquist's Milkvetch) Astragalus debequaeus (DeBeque Milkvetch), and

Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus (Pinyon Jay) all reside in Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper

Woodland, home to 15.6% of the state’s climbing areas. Similarly, Astragalus anisus

(Gunnison's Milkvetch) Astragalus ripleyi (Ripley's Milkvetch) Centrocercus minimus*

(Gunnison Sage-Grouse) Centrocercus urophasianus (Greater Sage-Grouse), and Lepidium

huberi (Huber's Pepperwort) are all found in Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill

Shrubland, where 9.1% of Colorado’s outdoor climbing areas are located. Centrocercus minimus

is of particular concern, as it is listed as Federally Threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

Finally, Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland, which accounts for 6.1% of the state’s

climbing areas, is also habitat to Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus (Pinyon Jay). The habitat of these

birds and low-lying plants are under potential threat from rock climbers, as past studies have

proven that outdoor recreationalists can unintentionally extirpate birds from their habitats, and

trample vegetation nearby recreative areas (Attarian & Pyke 2000, Cole 2004, Reed &

36
Merenlender 2008, Pickering et al 2009). Seasonal closures for birds during mating season as

well as improved trail maintenance and signage could potentially mitigate these issues.

Analysis of land designation / ownership showed that 89% of climbing areas in Colorado

are protected on some level by government agencies. The Bureau of Land Management controls

32% of climbing areas in the state, closely followed by the Forest Service at 31%. Another 5% of

areas are federally managed as well, located within National Parks and National Monuments.

Regulations on rock climbing vary depending on National Park and recreation area. The State of

Colorado manages land that accounts for 5% of climbing areas, spanning four different state

parks as well as some outlier state-owned land patches, such as the Vail Deer Underpass.

Similarly to federal regulation, no two parks are managed identically by the state. Local climbers

have compromised with land managers in the past to establish regulations for individual

climbing areas, such as Eldorado Canyon State Park (Access Fund 2018). Finally, city and

county-owned land are significant regulators of outdoor climbing areas, at 10% and 5%,

respectively (USGS GAP 2016a). This data is good news for the climbing community, as many

government offices already work collaboratively with Local Climbing Organizations (LCOs)

(Access Fund 2018). Interactions like these have helped and can continue to help mitigate the

environmental impacts of outdoor rock climbing. If environmental problems related to rock

climbing arise in the future, suck as a decrease in population of jays, grouses and milkvetches,

then standards for rock climbers should be altered even more as locals see fit.

Of Colorado’s climbing areas, 6.1% are located within Colorado’s Wilderness Areas.

Most Wilderness climbing areas are found within Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness,

with additional clusters of climbing walls in James Peak Wilderness and Holy Cross Wilderness.

Historically, the strict landscape preservation intentions of Wilderness Areas have fought head-

37
to-head with the goals of recreational climbers, as seen in the temporary climbing ban in Joshua

Tree National Park (and Wilderness Area) of southern California (Broxson 1995, Murdock

2010). Heavy, repeated use of outdoor climbs is evidenced to result in environmental

degradation (Murdock 2010). Climbing is currently legal in all 3 Colorado Wilderness areas

containing climbing areas, and Rocky Mountain National Park has already established specific

climbing regulations: Seasonal closures for bird nesting, required permits for multi-day climbing

excursions, and a prohibition on new fixed gear in the National Park. Regulations like these will

be important to respect and maintain if land managers and climbers are to continue to cooperate

in the future.

Areas with no known legal protections account for 11% of climbing areas in Colorado.

Although there are no known protections to these areas, local climbing communities may

maintain these areas, unknown to governing bodies. No-protection areas mostly account for

obscure bouldering areas such Guano Rock near the South Platte River and boulders near South

Park. The Mountain Project describes these areas as small boulders on privately owned land, the

outskirts of national forest, or the fringe of urban areas. No-protection areas could easily threaten

surrounding ecosystems if no legal obligations are set in place to maintain environmental quality.

However, with little available data for these areas, it is difficult to say if these areas are more “at-

risk” than other heavily frequented climbing areas on government-regulated land.

Limitations of Study

My approach of comparing land cover and land use to climbing locations, rather than

collecting primary data from one specific climbing area / set of areas, was the best strategy for a

large-scale study with my available resources. However, this methodology is flawed in many

38
ways due to the lack of accurate, credible information on outdoor climbing tourism in Colorado,

or anywhere in the world. This study has many sources of possible error. First, the data points

used to represent geographic locations of outdoor climbs, sourced from the Mountain Project, are

inherently flawed by a number of limitations. The Mountain Project is the only available

geographic data for climbs in the state. The site was founded in 2005, and new routes,

descriptions, photos, and information for climbs have been added to it by recreational climbers

ever since. Many routes listed on The Mountain Project were established and climbed by 1970,

but many were not. And, while the website lists the date when a climbing route or area was first

posted by year, it does not include information on when routes were first established by climbers

historically. For this reason, overlaying 1970s landcover with geographic climbing points from

2018 must have a certain degree of inaccuracy. To a similar extent, if there are any novel

climbing areas in Colorado, the Mountain Project may not have uploaded data for those areas

yet, limiting the amount of actual climbing areas this study is able to address.

Outdoor rock climbing is also inherently difficult to study because many climbers self-

identify as enthusiasts of more than one outdoor sport, insofar as participating in more than one

sport in a single outing or day (Outdoor Foundation 2018). Where should the line be drawn

between the impacts of hikers and rock climbers, for instance? Many popular climbs in Colorado

overlap with state, regional, and national parks which see visitors participating in a wide range of

activities, including backpacking, hiking, hunting, fishing, mountain biking, horseback riding,

camping, and climbing. Isolating the environmental effects of rock climbing as distinct from

other sports would be a difficult task. This study’s approach, and recommended approach for

future studies, is to take the angle of potential risks of the sport. Managing outdoor

recreationalists of all varieties will be prudent for conserving wild, natural areas. Instead of

39
assigning blame to one sport in particular, a universal standard of best possible practices may be

the better solution. This study has no hard evidence to correlate rock climbing with negative

environmental impacts; rather, it determines notable threats the sport might pose to native

environments and suggests top priorities for conserving biodiversity in outdoor climbing areas.

Suggestions for Future Study

A more accurate argument correlating climbing tourism with environmental degradation

may be feasible if geographic climbing data points could be associated with number of annual

climbers, or some scale of relative popularity. The Mountain Project’s database of over 100,000

routes nationwide includes “ticks” on routes where climbers can self-report attendance at an area,

as well as the number of five-star-scale ratings per climb. Both may be used infer relative

popularity of a given climbing area. The metadata used in this study instead utilized climbing

“wall” data, which did not include any information on the popularity of the climbing areas, or

potentially how many visitors the sites saw annually. If “tick” metadata could be utilized, future

studies could relate frequency of visitation to land use change, or any other environmental

indicator. This could be a possibility for future research if a more sophisticated data extraction

script were used to extract data from the Mountain Project’s API.

On a smaller scale, future studies could use different approaches to attempt to define a

relationship between frequency of climbing tourism and severity of environmental impact. While

climbing tourism statistics are not available for many outdoor climbing areas, certain local legal

protections do record the number of annual climbers in given areas. The City of Colorado

Springs, for example, requires that every visitor to the Garden of the Gods Park intending to

40
climb submit a free Climbing Permit Application, providing the city with annual visitation

statistics (Colorado Springs 2019).

A final alternative approach of study would be to examine the establishment of climbing

areas in a state over time. There could potentially be a relationship between age of climbing area

and severity of environmental degradation. Creating a more complex GIS database that could

consider which climbing areas did and did not exist in the 1970s, for example, would provide a

more accurate analysis for comparisons of rock climbing’s impact throughout time. There may

even be a relationship between age of a climbing area and number of routes in that climbing area,

although historic government regulations have banned the establishment of new routes in select

small regions of the state. The general field of rock climbing within recreation ecology has ample

opportunity for further research.

41
Application

Identifying potential threats of outdoor rock climbing on its surrounding environments is

just the first step to managing those threats. Policy and practice both need to change if the

climbing community is to support conservation in the future rather than hinder it. In 2019, the

United States is governed by an administration notorious for rolling back environmental

regulations. This would appear an insurmountable obstacle to historic environmental thinkers

like John Muir and Gifford Pinchot, who believed that public lands would suffer and degrade

without federally implemented management (Fairfax, Huntsinger & Adelburg 1999). In reality,

their predictions are not accurate. Small-scale, community-based land management can be very

effective at conserving natural resources, particularly when decisions are made with public

participation and based on scientific evidence (Fairfax et al 1999).

The United States is world-famous for its National Parks system and manages much more

public land through the U.S. Forest Service and Wilderness Areas. Federal laws and executive

orders have worked in tandem to set a precedent for conservation in the country. I argue that,

while critical in preserving the resources still existing today, federal policy may not be necessary

to manage outdoor recreation in the future. Resource users, themselves, may be the best people

to take the reins of conservation through community-based management (Ostrom 2009).

Additionally, management which balances anthropogenic recreational use while maintaining

ecological function reaps direct economic benefits for surrounding areas (Defries et al 2007).

Rock climbers in the United States have a rich history of community-based management

already. The Access Fund is an organization founded by climbers who seek to acquire and

protect outdoor climbing areas in the United States, and has been active since 1991 (Access Fund

2019). Access Fund representatives work to “reverse or prevent closures, reduce climbers'

42
environmental impacts, buy threatened climbing areas, help landowners manage risk and liability

concerns, and educate the next generation of climbers on responsible climbing practices that

protect access” (Access Fund 2019). Its membership has grown from just a few hundred people

in the 1990s, to over 17,000 in 2018 (Access Fund 2018). This nationwide organization has

influence in 43 states and influences 117 LCOs that function on smaller scales, but are able to

source funding from the greater Access Fund.

Outdoor rock climbers have been self-organizing to mitigate their environmental impacts

since the 1980s (Achey 2002, Access Fund 2019), but that momentum may have decreased in

recent years as climbing has become more popular than ever before (Outdoor Industry

Association 2017). Gone are the days of climbers as an obscure, counter-culture minority (Taylor

2006). A film about a rock climber won the 2018 Academy Award for Best Documentary; indoor

sport and speed climbing are set to be included as Olympic sports in 2020, and an increase media

exposure only stokes the positive feedback loop of the sport’s growth (Outdoor Industry

Association 2017). Perhaps just as notable is the increase in climbing walls on university

campuses, which make climbing more affordable and accessible to the college demographic

(Eldorado Rock Walls 2019). Although college gyms only make climbing more accessible to a

relatively elite, privileged class, that is the very class of people who can afford to continue

climbing as they move on to their adult lives, considering the high cost of equipment for outdoor

climbing (Outdoor Industry Association 2017, Access Fund 2018). As the sport has grown and

even more climbers brave the wilderness, less experienced climbers impact surrounding

environments. New climbers do not necessarily learn to climb outdoors from mentors who

encourage stewardship, creating an unfortunate opportunity for climbing culture to shift. The

43
fierce fights of the “good old days” for land rights are slowly being replaced by a generation that

feels entitled to climb anything, at any time, at any cost (Wilkinson 2015).

One factor that may contribute to modern climbers’ increasing apathy towards

conservation is a shift in ideology. The Environmental Movement of the 1970s brought with it an

increase in outdoor adventurers and subsequent growth in the climbing community (Achey 2002,

Taylor 2006). It also provided a framework to change the mindset of climbers to a new ideology.

The outdated, environment-dominating mindset of early mountaineers was replaced by a desire

to preserve and protect the environment for the benefit of all, including future generations. But as

we approach half a century passed since the birth of the Environmental Movement, I would

argue that newer generations have not learned to value nature in the same way. Younger

generations who grew up enjoying the public lands protected by generations prior may lack

feelings of connection with and gratitude for the environment (Wilkinson 2015). Modern

climbing culture has returned to an environment-dominating mindset of the sport’s early days;

mastery of the human body and the natural environment are now fundamental to the sport

(Abramson & Fletcher 2007). For many modern adventurers, nature is not a location for quiet

contemplation and connection. Instead, “wild places often are treated as outdoor gymnasiums

whose highest touted value is delivering rushes of adrenaline” (Wilkinson 2015).

Community-based management of outdoor rock climbing is an accessible solution

achieve a future that balances outdoor rock climbing with conservation of biodiversity and

ecological balance. Not only do LCOs provide pathways for specific, localized concerns to be

identified and mitigated; they foster community involvement and stewardship that can be passed

on to newer generations of climbers, and even reverse anti-conservation, entitled ideologies.

44
Historically, the climbing community has a track record of recognizing ecological degradation

and improving their practices (Access Fund 2019). Although a notable cultural shift in the

climbing community occurred over the past several decades, that shift has the potential for

reversal. If LCOs target new climbers with educational resources and introduce avid new

outdoorspeople to principles of conservation, the environmentalist spirit of the 1970s could very

well return (Schild 2016).

Possible management strategies that Colorado LCOs should implement, indicated by the

species and ecosystems at risk identified in this study, and supported by past research of rock

climbing, include:

• Seasonal closures for wildlife mating and/or habitat

(Klein, Humphrey, & Percival 1995, Attarian & Pyke 2000)

o Particular priority to be granted to the Pinyon Jay, Gunnison Sage-Grouse,

and Greater Sage-Grouse (see Figure 11)

• Sections of cliff-face permanently closed for climbing to preserve cliff-face

biodiversity
(Clark & Hessl 2015, Volger et al 2017, Lorite et al 2017)

• Establish more developed trails to reduce soil erosion and runoff and maintain
protected habitat for at-risk plant species
(McMillan & Larson 2002, Carr 2007, Rusterhok et al 2011)

• Educational signs at every climbing trailhead to encourage visitors to stay on-trail,

prevent littering
(Attarian & Pyke 2000, Schild 2016, Access Fund 2018)

• Boot/shoe cleaner brushes at trailheads to reduce the spread of invasive seeds and
spores
(Cole 2004, Davidson et al 2005, Pickering et al 2009)

• Required fees at popular climbing destinations to help fund protective resources

and maintain facilities

45
The above policies would help lessen any potential negative impacts of outdoor climbers on

at-risk species in Colorado climbing areas, help preserve cliff-face biodiversity, help reduce

the spread of non-native pathogens, reduce soil runoff, encourage stewardship, and establish

a system for funding future conservation efforts, all while co-existing with recreational

climbing. These are also policies that could be implemented and potentially regulated by

LCOS, and could find additional support from government land managers like the BLM and

Forest Service. It should be noted that, ideally, no measure would be passed without the

education and consent of climbers in an area. At the very least, prominent members of LCOs

should approve of any changes implemented to popular climbing areas.

46
47
Conclusion

Rock climbing accounts for an increasingly large part of the outdoor recreation landscape

and economy in the United States each year. From college climbing walls to Oscar-winning

documentaries, rock climbing has entered the public eye and permeated culture in the 21 st

Century more than ever before. This paper is the first known of its kind to attempt to analyze the

ecological effect of rock climbing through geospatial analysis. A GIS database was created

overlaying U.S. Geological Survey landcover and land ownership data with point data of outdoor

climbing locations in Colorado. The analysis determined the most common environments

frequented by climbers, identifying concerns for each ecosystem, and describing the legal

protections already in place for some of such environments. Evergreen Forests may be under

threat from climbers, already prone to destruction from wildfires and bark beetles. Additionally,

seven species reported threatened (4 Milkvetch species, 2 Sage-Grouse species, and the Pinyon

Jay) were found to occur in Colorado’s ecosystems frequently visited by climbers: Colorado

Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland, Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland, and

Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland. GIS analysis also revealed that 89% Colorado’s

climbing areas are located on government-protected lands, with 68% federally managed, 10%

city-managed, 6% state-managed, 5% county-managed, and 11% unprotected. These preexisting

protections should stand to help climbers with conservation pursuits in the future.

Rock climbing is difficult to study academically because of its overlap in range with

other outdoor sports, as well as lack of annual visitor data for climbing areas. However, this

study utilizes and recommends the approach of identifying potential ecological concerns of rock

climbers, as indicated by the location of climbing routes. It seeks to help establish a universal

48
standard of best possible practices in sensitive native environments, rather than assign blame to

specific outdoor sports.

Small-scale, community-based management is likely the best strategy to mitigate impacts

of rock climbing due to bipartisan gridlock in federal, and occasionally state, governments. Over

100 Local Climbing Organizations already exist in the United States and could feasibly

implement the suggested management strategies described in this paper. It is my hope that local

policy change comes hand-in-hand with a cultural and ideological shift in the climbing

community, whose ideologies have somewhat devolved in recent years from environmentalist to

environment-dominating philosophy. Physical and ideological changes are both necessary for the

outdoor climbing community to sustainably coexist with its surrounding ecosystems.

Recreational climbing accounts for just one small fraction of anthropogenic disturbance

on Earth’s environments. A vast variety of ecosystems worldwide are already experiencing the

harsh impacts of natural disasters, anthropogenically introduced diseases, and invasive species.

Global climate change disrupts the ecological balance of the planet as we know it and is

predicted to worsen in years to come. Ecosystems carefully developed over hundreds of

thousands of years by natural selection are facing threats like never before. But the large extent

of anthropogenic impacts on the environment is the exact reason humans should strive to lessen

their impacts to the best of their ability.

49
 References

Abramson, A., & Fletcher, R. (2007). Recreating the vertical: Rock-climbing as epic and deep
eco-play. Anthropology Today, 23(6), 3-7. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8322.2007.00546.x

Access Fund. (2018). 2017 Access Fund Annual Report. Retrieved from
https://www.accessfund.org/our-impact/our-2017-work

Access Fund. (2019). Our History. Retrieved from https://www.accessfund.org/meet-the-access-

fund/our-history

Achey, J., Chelton, D., & Godfrey, B. (2002). Climb: The history of rock climbing in Colorado
(2nd ed.). Seattle, WA: Mountaineers Books.

Adventure Projects, Inc. (2018). Climbing Map of Colorado. Retrieved April 30, 2018,
fromhttps://www.mountainproject.com/map/105708956/colorado

Attarian, A. & Pyke, K. (2000). Climbing and Natural Resources Management - an annotated
bibliography: 1-56.

Bentz, B. J., Régnière, J., Fettig, C. J., Hansen, E. M., Hayes, J. L., Hicke, J. A., . . . Seybold, S.
J. (2010). Climate change and bark beetles of the western united states and canada: Direct and
indirect effects. Bioscience, 60(8), 602-613. doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.6

Bowker, J. M., Murphy, D., Cordell, H. K., & English, D.B.K. (2006). Wilderness and primitive
area recreation participation and consumption: An examination of demographic and spatial
factors. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 38(2), 317-326.
doi:10.1017/S1074070800022355

Broxson, T. A. (1995). Wilderness use: Recreation vs. preservation. the case of rock climbing in
wilderness areas within joshua tree national monument (Order No. 1360219). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. (304228380). Retrieved from
https://colorado.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.colorado.idm.oclc.org/docview/304228380?accountid=14503

Bureau of Land Management. (2018, October 17). A landscape approach: How we manage.
Retrieved from https://www.blm.gov/about/how-we-manage

Butt, A., Shabbir, R., Ahmad, S. S., & Aziz, N. (2015). Land use change mapping and analysis
using remote sensing and GIS: A case study of simly watershed, islamabad, pakistan. The
Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Sciences, 18(2), 251-259.
doi:10.1016/j.ejrs.2015.07.003

Carr, C. (2007). Variation in environmental impact at rock climb areas in red river gorge
geological area and adjacent clifty wilderness, Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky
(Electronic Thesis or Dissertation). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/

50
Christ, C., Hillel O., Matus S., Sweeting J. (2003). Tourism and biodiversity: mapping tourism's
global footprint. Conservation International, Washington , D.C .

Clark, P., Hessl, A., & Dengler, J. (2015). The effects of rock climbing on cliff‐face vegetation.
Applied Vegetation Science, 18(4), 705-715. 10.1111/avsc.12172

Clarke, K. C. (1986). Advances in geographic information systems. Computers, Environment

and Urban Systems, 10(3), 175-184. doi:10.1016/0198-9715(86)90006-2

Cole, D N. (2004). “Impacts of camping and hiking on soils and vegetation: A

review.” Environmental Impacts of Ecotourism. CABI Pub., p. 41-60.

Colorado Parks & Wildlife. (2019). Safety and Regulations. Retrieved from
https://cpw.state.co.us/thingstodo/Pages/Safety-and-Regulations-Rock-Climbing.aspx

Colorado Springs Department of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services. (2019, January 18).
2019 Rock Climbing Permit. Retrieved from https://coloradosprings.gov/parks/webform/2019-
rock-climbing-permit

Colorado's Wild Areas. (2019). Colorado Wilderness Areas. Retrieved from

http://www.coloradoswildareas.com/colorado-wilderness/

Crooks, K. R. & Soulé, M. E. (1999). Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a

fragmented system. Nature, 400: 563–566.

Cushman, J. H., & Meentemeyer, R. K. (2008). Multi-scale patterns of human activity and the
incidence of an exotic forest pathogen. Journal of Ecology, 96(4), 766-776. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2745.2008.01376.x

Davidson, J., Wickland, A., Patterson, H., Falk, K., & Rizzo, D. (2005). Transmission of
Phytophthora ramorum in mixed-evergreen forest in California. Phytopathology, 95(5), 587-596.
doi:10.1094/PHYTO-95-0587

Defries, R., Hansen, A., Turner, B. L., Reid, R., & Liu, J. (2007). Land use change around
protected areas: Management to balance human needs and ecological function. Ecological
Applications, 17(4), 1031-1038. doi:10.1890/05-1111

Eldorado Climbing Walls. (2019). Climbing Walls for Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from
https://eldowalls.com/collegeuniversity

Fairfax, S., Huntsinger, L., & Adelburg, C. (1999). Lessons from the past: Old conservation
models provide new insight into community-based land management. Forum for Applied
Research and Public Policy, 14(2), 84.

51
Farmer, J. R., Brenner, J. C., Drescher, M., Dickinson, S. L., & Knackmuhs, E. G. (2016).
Perpetual private land conservation: The case for outdoor recreation and functional leisure.
Ecology and Society, 21(2), 46. doi:10.5751/ES-08515-210246

Franklin, J. F. (1993). Preserving biodiversity: Species, ecosystems, or landscapes? Ecological

Applications, 3(2), 202-205. doi:10.2307/1941820

Hansen, A. J., Rasker, R., Maxwell, B., Rotella, J. J., Johnson, J. D., Parmenter, A. et. al (2002).
Ecological causes and consequences of demographic change in the New West. Bioscience, 52(2),
151-162. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0151:ECACOD]2.0.CO;2

Homer, C.G., Dewitz, J.A., Yang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Xian, G., Coulston, J., Herold, N.D.,
Wickham, J.D., and Megown, K., 2015, Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database
for the conterminous United States-Representing a decade of land cover change
information. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 81, no. 5, p. 345-354

Honnay, O., Jacquemyn, H., Bossuyt, B., & Hermy, M. (2005). Forest fragmentation effects on
patch occupancy and population viability of herbaceous plant species. The New
Phytologist, 166(3), 723-736. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01352.x

Kienast, F., Brzeziecki, B., & Wildi, O. (1996). Long-term adaptation potential of central
european mountain forests to climate change: A GIS-assisted sensitivity assessment. Forest
Ecology and Management, 80(1), 133-153. doi:10.1016/0378-1127(95)03633-4

Kulakowski, D., & Veblen, T. (2007). Effect of prior disturbances on the extent and severity of
wildfire in colorado subalpine forests. Ecology, 88(3), 759-769. doi:10.1890/06-0124

Lathrop, R. G., & Bognar, J. A. (1998). Applying GIS and landscape ecological principles to
evaluate land conservation alternatives. Landscape and Urban Planning, 41(1), 27-41.
doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00047-4

Lorite, J., Serrano, F., Lorenzo, A., Canadas, E., Ballesteros, M., & Penas, J. (2017). Rock
climbing alters plant species composition, cover, and richness in mediterranean limestone
cliffs. Plos One, 12(8), e0182414. 10.1371/journal.pone.0182414

Klein, M. L., Humphrey, S. R., & Percival, H. F. (1995). Effects of ecotourism on distribution of
waterbirds in a wildlife refuge. Conservation Biology, 9(6), 1454-1465. doi:10.1046/j.1523-
1739.1995.09061454.x

Magrach, A., Laurance, W. F., Larrinaga, A. R., & Santamaria, L. (2014). Meta‐Analysis of the
effects of forest fragmentation on interspecific interactions. Conservation Biology, 28(5), 1342-
1348. doi:10.1111/cobi.12304

McMillan, M. A., & Larson, D. W. (2002). Effects of rock climbing on the vegetation of the
niagara escarpment in southern ontario, canada. Conservation Biology, 16(2), 389-398.
10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00377.x

52
Meinecke, E. P. M., & California. Dept. of Natural Resources. Division of parks. (1929). A
report upon the effect of excessive tourist travel on the California Redwood Parks.

Merem, E., Yerramilli, S., Twumasi, Y., Wesley, J., Robinson, B., & Richardson, C. (2011). The
applications of GIS in the analysis of the impacts of human activities on South Texas
watersheds. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8(6), 2418-
2446. doi:10.3390/ijerph8062418

Monz, C. A., Pickering, C. M., & Hadwen, W. L. (2013). Recent advances in recreation ecology
and the implications of different relationships between recreation use and ecological
impacts. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(8), 441-446. doi:10.1890/120358

Mount, A., & Pickering, C. M. (2009). Testing the capacity of clothing to act as a vector for non-
native seed in protected areas. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(1), 168-179.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.08.002

Murdock, E. D. (2010). Perspectives on rock climbing fixed anchors through the lens of the
Wilderness Act: Social, legal and environmental implications at Joshua Tree National Park,
California (Order No. 3402895). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; SciTech
Premium Collection. (305183342). Retrieved from
https://colorado.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.colorado.idm.oclc.org/docview/305183342?accountid=14503

National Park Service. (2019). Rocky Mountain National Park Colorado: Climbing and
Mountaineering. Retrieved from https://www.nps.gov/romo/planyourvisit/climbing.htm

NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].

Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Retrieved from http://explorer.natureserve.org.
(Accessed: February 9, 2019).

Nelson, N. & McKenzie, L. (2009). Rock climbing injuries treated in emergency departments in
the U.S., 1990–2007. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 37(3), 195-200.
doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.04.025

Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological

systems. Science, 325(5939), 419-422. doi:10.1126/science.1172133

Outdoor Foundation (2018). Outdoor Participation Report 2017. Retrieved from

https://outdoorindustry.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2017-Outdoor-Recreation-Participation-
Report_FINAL.pdf

Outdoor Industry Association (2017). 2016 Annual Report. Retrieved from

https://outdoorindustry.org/2016-annual-report/

53
Pickering, C. M., & Hill, W. (2007). Impacts of recreation and tourism on plant biodiversity and
vegetation in protected areas in Australia. Journal of Environmental Management, 85(4), 791-
800. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.11.021

Pickering, C. M., Hill, W., Newsome, D., & Leung, Y. (2009). Comparing hiking, mountain
biking and horse riding impacts on vegetation and soils in Australia and the United States of
America. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(3), 551-562.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.09.025

Risser, P.G. 1995. The status of the science examining ecotones—a dynamic aspect of landscape
is the area of steep gradients between more homogeneous vegetation
associations. BioScience 45(5): 318–325.

Rusterholz, H., Verhoustraeten, C., & Baur, B. (2011). Effects of long-term trampling on the
above-ground forest vegetation and soil seed bank at the base of limestone cliffs. Environmental
Management, 48(5), 1024-1032. 10.1007/s00267-011-9727-z

Schild, R. (2016). Civic recreation: The promise of uniting outdoor recreation and
environmentalism in the 21st Century. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Sharon Collinge.
IRB protocol #: 14-0288

Taylor, J. (2006). Mapping adventure: A historical geography of Yosemite Valley climbing

landscapes. Journal of Historical Geography, 32(1), 190-219. doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2004.09.002

Törn, A., Tolvanen, A., Norokorpi, Y., Tervo, R., & Siikamäki, P. (2009). Comparing the
impacts of hiking, skiing and horse riding on trail and vegetation in different types of
forest.Journal of Environmental Management, 90(3), 1427-1434.
10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.08.014

Tomczyk, A. M. (2011). A GIS assessment and modelling of environmental sensitivity of

recreational trails: The case of Gorce National Park, Poland. Applied Geography, 31(1), 339-351.
doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.07.006

US Census Bureau. (2018). Resident population in Colorado from 1960 to 2018 (in millions).
In Statista - The Statistics Portal. Retrieved March 11, 2019, from
https://www.statista.com/statistics/206101/resident-population-in-colorado/.

U.S. Department of the Interior. (2018, December 18). America's Public Lands Explained.
Retrieved from https://www.doi.gov/blog/americas-public-lands-explained

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan.
Albuquerque, New Mexico. i-ix + 210 pp., Appendices A-O

United States Geological Survey. (2005). 1970's Land use data refined with 2000 population data
to indicate new residential development for the conterminous United States. Retrieved February

54
21, 2019, from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/1970s-land-use-data-refined-with-2000-
population-data-to-indicate-new-residential-development-f

United States Geological Survey (2014). NLCD 2011 land cover (2011 edition, amended 2015) –
National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDA) land use land cover. Retrieved February 1, 2019, from
https://www.mrlc.gov/data/nlcd-2011-land-cover-conus

United States Geological Survey Gap Analysis Program. (2016a). Federal, State, Tribal, etc.
Protected Area Land Ownership. Retrieved April 1, 2019, from
https://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/GDGOrder.aspx?order=QuickState

United States Geological Survey Gap Analysis Program. (2016b). GAP/LANDFIRE National
Terrestrial Ecosystems 2011: U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.5066/F7ZS2TM0.

Vogler, F., & Reisch, C. (2011). Genetic variation on the rocks — the impact of climbing on the
population ecology of a typical cliff plant. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(4), 899-905.
10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01992.x

Wasson, K., Woolfolk, A., & Fresquez, C. (2013). Ecotones as indicators of changing
environmental conditions: Rapid migration of salt Marsh—Upland boundaries. Estuaries and
Coasts, 36(3), 654-664. doi:10.1007/s12237-013-9601-8

Wilderness Act, Pub.L. 88-577, 16 U.S. C. 1131-1136 (1964). Retrieved from

https://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/documents//publiclaws/PDF/16_USC_1131-1136.pdf

Wilkinson, T. (2015, February 25). We're traveling a road that hurts our wildlife. Retrieved from
http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/opinion/columnists/the_new_west_todd_wilkinson/we-re-
traveling-a-road-that-hurts-our-wildlife/article_66bf42de-30aa-5696-9852-e59b6696267b.html

55