December means time spent with family, winter warmers, festive feasts and winding down. It is also married with the hustle and bustle of Christmas shopping, overeating, waste and commercialism. Over the Christmas period we tend to shut off from our usual duties and indulge in the season’s treats. In fact, over the festive period, the UK produces30%more waste than usual. Should all our festivities cost so much for our environment? How do we tackle Christmas waste and make the season of giving a gift to our environment as well as our families? Here are a few ideas that might help.
Please include attribution to http://londoncleaningsystem.co.uk/ with this graphic.
O Christmas Tree, O Christmas Tree…
Both natural and artificial trees cause an environmental impact. Approximately 6 million Christmas trees are discarded each year; which equates to 250 tonnes of Christmas trees that are thrown away after Christmas instead of composted/recycled (London Cleaning System). Whilst real Christmas trees - evergreen conifers - are replanted in rotation, providing an ongoing home for wildlife, Christmas trees plantations offer limited diversity for natural habitats. Poorly managed plantations can lead to soil degradation (Woodland Trust). Obviously, the use of a Christmas tree is a short-lived gift and most Christmas trees end up in landfill, despite being renewable and biodegradable. Artificial trees are also not so ‘green’. They are made with Petroleum-derived plastic PVC trees are non-renewable and are polluting; adding to the emission of carcinogens. In addition, lead is often used to create the needles which can cause negative health impacts presenting a real hazard! Asking people to forego their Christmas tree experience is going to be a challenge to say the least! So, here’s a few things we can spread the word about:
Picking a Christmas Tree
• Artificial: There is no such thing as an entirely eco-friendly artificial tree. Let’s not mistake reusable for green. Once these trees have fulfilled their Christmas use they will end up in landfill. What can you look for to lessen your impact? Try a PE plastic tree which is made from polyethylene rather than PVC and lead. Keeping your artificial tree for as long as you can will reduce it's impact.
• Real: Try and find a locally grown tree. Look for sustainable growers such as Christmas Tree Sale Centres. After Christmas think about shredding and composting your tree, burning it for firewood or recycling. Check out your council’s Christmas tree scheme – they might even pick it up from your house.
• Alive: If you want a real tree – think about a potted tree. Think of UK grown trees to cut down on transport: Blue Spruce or Nordman. At the end of Christmas, the family can celebrate by replanting their tree for a few years’ time (trees may take a few years to recuperate). This is a great way to do something outdoors with the family, foster a sense of responsibility for our Christmas trees and reap the rewards of growing a tree year after year.
On the first day of Christmas my true love sent to me…
Whether you are a high street shopper or do your shopping online, Christmas calls for presents! Gidgets, gadgets, novelty gifts, basics, his & hers are some of the things we end up buying and gift wrapping before the big day. Some of these things we use and are grateful for, some of which end up being forgotten all too quick and discarded. Along with the presents 30,000 tonnes of card packaging, 1 billion cards and 227,000 miles of wrapping paper are thrown away at Christmas time. Here are some ideas to limit waste when sending gifts this Christmas:
• Consider where you are buying from. Santa travels all the way around the world to deliver his presents – as do most of our gifts. 4,000 tonnes of Christmas presents come from China each year. Support small businesses and buy locally – this has the added benefit that you can refuse any extra packaging at the till such as plastic bags.
• Look for sustainable, battery-free and durable gifts. There are plenty of options out there including recycled materials for clothing and children’s toys. Replace plastic toys and gadgets for more durable materials such as metal and wood.
• Make your own. Making your own gifts is special, cheaper and more festive than a ‘click-click’. A simple start is to make your own wrapping paper and cards. From there who knows… hand knitted gifts, home-made sweets, hand-carved ornaments… There are endless ideas for package-free and thoughtful pressies that will really impress! Check out Pinterest for endless ideas!
• Pass on the gift of sustainable living. Look for pressies that will promote a sustainable lifestyle. A reusable coffee cup, a bicycle, a national trust pass or subscription for something outside; gardening starter kits or a seasonal veggie box subscription. Gifts that keep on giving.
• Try organic turkey’s sourced locally or rear your own.
• Cut your carbon footprint by buying fruit and veg locally or try a local food box.
• Refuse packaging. Buy loose veggies and scan them without plastic packaging at the till. Buying loose fruit and veggies is sometimes cheaper than those that are packaged!
• Compost your waste! At Christmas we get clogged up with waste in the kitchen, waiting for the next bin-day to arrive. Make it easy. Start a compost bin and enjoy a guilt free trip to the garden to make up new space in the kitchen.
• Cut down on meat or go vegetarian. Meat is a major contributor to our greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing or replacing meat dishes with tasty vegetarian dishes is one way to help reduce your carbon footprint.
Being sustainable is certainly not at the top of the list when it comes to most people’s Christmas. Statistics on waste don’t exactly spread Christmas cheer. But you don’t need to turn into the Grinch to make a few alterations at Christmas time. This Christmas take small steps to pass on the message.
Now I don't think there is a person amongst us who can't appreciate the warmth, security and entertainment a camp fire brings when we're enjoying wild, outdoor places. But fires are all too often misused, and frequently damage the landscape and surrounding habitats.
When I ask outdoor users about the need for a fire answers usually fall into one, or more than one, of three categories:
"We need it to cook and keep warm"
"We enjoy sitting around it, it encourages conversation!"
"It keeps away wild animals"
Well yes, having a fire can serve a purpose. They can transform a camping experience into a enjoyable, social gathering. They certainly have their place amongst outdoor education as an ultimate way of brining students 'back to nature', learning new skills, and gaining an appreciation of managing risk and danger.
Let's not forget the relationship between humans and fire is one of the oldest, and the power to control fire separates humans from the rest of the animal world. But, as I'm sure I've heard somewhere before...'with great power comes great responsibility'.
The thing is, fire is no longer essential for comfort or food preparation. Many of the lasting impacts associated with campfires are easily avoided by carrying a light weight cooker and pot. Using a cooker also removes the requirement to forage for wood, and eating habits are likely to be a lot cleaner - attracting less animals in the longer term.
If you insist on having a fire, a few simple guidelines can ensure greatly reduced impact:
Judge wind, weather, wood availability. Is it a safe and responsible place to make a fire?
Is there any provision for a fire? An existing grate or stove, have you thought about carrying a lightweight fire pan?
Do you have the time to build a 'Leave No Trace' fire and clean up appropriately?
Building a 'Mound Fire' fire: Mound fires are built on piles of sand, gravel or soil. The mound sits on top of a tarp, or even a bivvi bag or bin bag. Whatever you use, the edges can be rolled and buried under the mound to prevent any singeing.
It's easiest if you carry a small trowel to collect material for your mound. The kinds for digging 'cat holes' are ideal. The material can be collected from a nearby location and carried in an old stuff sack or bin bag to your fire site.
Your tarp (or whatever you choose) is laid on the floor, and the soil placed on top and compacted into a mound 6-8 inches thick and 18-24 inches in diameter.
A good sized mound prevents heat from the fire reaching the ground, and provides a manageable platform that doesn't encourage the fire to grow bigger than needed.
When looking for fuel, dead and downed wood is most preferable - ideally sticks that can be broken by hand and no larger than your wrist. Larger pieces of wood play an important role in nutrition and soil productivity, as well as providing shelter for small animals and many plant species.
Smaller firewood burns completely to a fine ash, making cleaning up easier. Half burnt logs are difficult to dispose of and encourage future, larger fires. Once the fire is completely out, bearing in mind the amount of time needed to burn all those little stick ends, the ash can be scattered, or mixed with the soil from the mound and returned to the ground where it was first taken.
Before leaving, try to restore the appearance of the fire site by replacing any surface debris and sweeping the area for litter and food waste.
The choice to become a responsible outdoor user is ultimately yours, but as more people spend time in our wild places it's surely important to encourage minimal impact. By thinking about your location and purpose, and by following some straightforward guidelines it is possible to enjoy a fire outdoors without leaving any trace!
If you're interested in learning more Leave No Trace techniques, have you considered joining one of our courses?
In its simplest form, 'leave no trace' is the practice of using our wild areas in a way that reduces impact to a minimum. The phrase was used during the 60’s and 70’s in the United States following a large increase in the amount of visitors to wild areas due to the introduction of recreational equipment such as synthetic tents and gas stoves.
The ‘United States Forest Service’ in conjunction with NOLS – the National Outdoor Leadership School, developed the national education program of Leave No Trace in 1990. Since 1994 the “Leave No Trace Centre For Outdoor Ethics”, a non-profit organisation, has existed to educate about recreational impact on nature as well as how to prevent and minimise these impacts through utilisation of seven key principles.
The Leave No Trace organisation has since provided hands on training, workshops and events for over 9.5 million children and adults with representatives in more than 30 countries. There are now international centres in the U.S.A, Canada, Australia, Ireland and New Zealand.
Knowing where you want to go, being prepared for weather changes and emergencies. Where possible, avoiding times of high use and splitting larger groups into smaller.
Pre packing food and removing excess wrapping.
Travel and Camp on Durable Surfaces
Sticking to established trails of rock, dry grass or snow. Where paths are muddy, stick to the middle rather than walking around.
"Good campsites are found, not made."
Dispose of Waste Properly
Check your campsites and stopping areas for rubbish and spilled food.
"Pack it in, pack it out."
Human waste in a 'cathole' at least 200 feet from water - take tissue out with you! Better still, refer to rule one.
Leave What You Find
Avoid picking live flowers in delicate areas.
"Preserve the past"
Examine, but do not touch or move historic structures and artifacts.
Minimise Campfire Impact
Fires cause long lasting impact on the environment, consider lightweight stoves for cooking where possible.
Use established fire rings or fire pans, and burn only the required wood to a fine ash.
Observe fauna from a distance and avoid feeding and encouragement.
Keep pets under control when appropriate.
Be Considerate of Other Visitors
Courtesy and politeness goes a long way!
Pause in a convenient place to let others pass whilst walking, take breaks and camp off the path.
More Than 7 Rules
At Life Trek Adventures we feel these seven principles offer a great basis for minimum impact outdoor recreation, they can be applied in any location during any sport or activity. They are also brilliant for teaching with younger children, and make an ideal starter point for those looking deeper into development of environmental ethics.
However, Leave No Trace is also often reduced to seven principles to follow like a guidebook. It is clearly more than this, it is about developing an individual’s relationship and stewardship for the outdoors. For us, it is an area of education often missed within the curriculum and one that should substantiate and be at the heart of outdoor education.
As more and more people begin to use the United Kingdoms wild spaces for their own recreational activities, it is of clear importance to promote practice that encourages sustainability. This can start from an early age and in easy to access locations such as a local park or woodland, even in a back garden.
If you would like to attend a Leave no Trace Trainer course or Awareness Workshop, please get in touch using the contact page!
This study compares a low grade accessible and popular route; Rocking Stone Gully, graded V Diff at the Lower tier (Site A) with a less popular high grade route; Ascent of Man, graded E3 6a at the Lower tier (Site B) at the Roaches to determine biodiversity and measure the environmental impact of rock climbers. The Roaches was selected as a popular and historic climbing venue.
Rock climbing has been highlighted for causing environmental impact by Attarian (1996) and Cole (1993). It was hypothesized the biodiversity would decrease closer to the base of the two crags, site A would have a lower biodiversity to site B and soil density would increase nearer the base of the crags and at Site A. Biodiversity was measured by the number of species, the percentage of plant cover and soil density within quadrats of convenience increasing in distance from the base of the crag.
Results supported the hypothesis with high soil density nearer the crag bases, and greater biodiversity at Site B. Possible remedies include education in environmental responsibility for climbers and closing off certain crags for restoration and rehabilitation.
The Roaches is a historic gritstone climbing venue owned by the Peak District National Park Authority (British Mountaineering Council 2009). With a plethora of British traditional grades from Moderate (low beginner grade) to E8 (very high advanced grade), the crag’s diversity has attracted many climbers (British Mountaineering Council 2009).
Such high usage has a negative impact upon the environment. The British Mountaineering Council (2013) warns of environmental damage occurring at the Lower and Upper Tier crags at the Roaches, encouraging climbers to use established footpaths, not short-cuts on moorland areas, restrict leaving litter and human waste and restrict abseiling. Attarian (1996) establishes general impacts to crags caused by rock climbers: visual damage, sanitary damage, increasing soil compaction, erosion, multiple trails and disturbance to wildlife and vegetation.
Cole (1993) considers the impact of recreational activities, and warns activities such as rock climbing, can impact the vegetation by erosion and path formation, trampling, uprooting and damage which risks death and impacts the food chain to grazing animals. Liddle (1975) examines how trampling affects stem height, seed and flower production and carbohydrate reserves, reducing reproduction of plants. Cole (1993) mptes compaction and erosion of the upper layer of soil, the organic horizon, an important layer of dead organic matter that increases the absorption of water into soil thereby decreasing water runoff.
This research investigated whether rock climbers visiting the Roaches have a detrimental effect to the biodiversity and percentage of species local to the environment.
Hypothesis: The biodiversity, number of species measured and plant cover percentage, will decrease closer to the base of the crag. Increased damage will be recorded at the more popular crag (Site A). Soil density will be greater nearer the base of the crag and at the popular crag (Site A).
Design: A study was designed to compare the impact of a popular crag: Rocking Stone Gully, graded Very Difficult at the Lower tier (site A), and a less popular route: Ascent of Man, graded E3 6a at the Lower tier (site B) (Appendix A). Old text by Hurlbert (1984) promotes comparative or manipulative experiments as measurements of a property within an ecological system at two points to ascertain differences. Both points of comparison were taken at the Lower Tier to minimise the chance extraneous variables could affect the data; less trees could create more sunlight which could be responsible for the difference in biodiversity and richness of species.
To generate quadrats, a 10-meter rope was used at 90 degrees to the base of the crag downhill. At 1 meter intervals, a quadrat of convenience was taken maximising the percentage of ground cover and minimising the percentage of rock cover. The quadrat was a 220cm sling using 4 pegs to provide a 55cm by 55cm square and a volume of 3025cm².
To measure biodiversity, the number of species was recorded. Dupuis and Joanchim (2006) term the quantity of species present in a specified sample region as species richness. Krebs (1989) encourages quadrats for estimating species richness in a biological community when the researcher does not want to sample the entire region. Dupuis and Goulard (2011) suggest the sample region is divided into special units termed quadrats for convenience, generally of equal size and numbered 1 to the total sample size, to visually record species detected (Dupis and Goulard 2011).
Morris et al. (1995) warn quadrats can be subjective to observer error and small, randomly placed samples such as portable quadrats providing poor, inaccurate data. The quadrats were photographed to provide visual research data validity, reducing observer subjectivity. Manning and Freimund (2004) promote visual research methods for measuring the impact of outdoor recreation, providing a valid representation of visitor standards at the site.
Three factors were tested within each quadrat; the number of species, the percentage of plant cover, and soil density. The number of species and percentage of plant cover were measured visually through counting and estimation of proportion. Williams et al. (2001) offer the probability of detecting species depends on how identifiable the species are. Measuring species and plant cover might lack accuracy however; small quadrats provided sufficient time to confirm data.
Soil density was taken throughout the quadrat providing an average measurement. A tent peg was inserted into the ground with practiced, consistent pressure performed by the same person for continuity. The peg was measured with a ruler, measuring peg height above ground to calculate soil penetration. This test mimicked static cone penetrometers, which measure soil density by applying force into the ground at a constant velocity until it can be pushed no longer (Jones and Kunze 2004). The reliability and accuracy of using a tent peg instead of a penetrometer is reduced as human error is greater in maintaining constant velocity and pressure.
To ensure safe practice a risk assessment was completed. Risk assessments are advised for environmental studies for determining the probability and magnitude of risk and offer a means of decision-making and consideration for the benefits of environmental action or land use (Brown 1988). Equally, risk should be determined in terms of potential ethical impact (Brown 1988).
As predicted in the hypothesis, the biodiversity of the crag is reduced nearer the base of the crag, illustrated by figure 2 as the base of the crag (0->3m) has no species present. McMillan and Larson (2002) note the base of the crag, the talus, is used as a belay stance, a rest position for climbers, a place for storing and sorting packs and gear and commonly very rocky. This high intensive usage of the talus could correlate to the lack of species richness. McMillan and Larson (2002) also consider hikers a major source of disturbance on the talus. Climbers moving around from crag to crag account for disturbance.
Such impact is demonstrated by a recently uprooted tree at the base of Piece of Mind crag, near Site A. This could be due to a lack of nutrients or water within the soil resulting in the death of the tree, suggesting the base of the crag and talus has been damaged by climbers and is struggling to sustain species.
McMillan and Larson (2002) found in a study measuring climbed and unclimbed routes, an increase in species richness and percent cover for unclimbed crags. Comparing this with Sites A and B, there is more plant percent cover and species richness at site B (less frequently climbed) (figure 4). The species richness does not reach the same quantity as Site A, but is more consistent in cover across the distance measured, including the base of the crag.
Figure 5 demonstrates an increase in plant cover percent with increasing distance from the base of the crag. At 5 and 9/10 meters a path intersects the line of measurements, reflected by a sudden decrease in plant cover. The percentage of rock is illustrated to understand the layout of the quadrats. Despite positioning quadrats in areas of convenience at marked intervals of 1m from the crag, there were quadrats where rock formed part of the cover, reducing the plant cover for sampling.
Figure 6 illustrates Site B, where a much higher and consistent plant cover percent with a range of 95-100%. This confirms the hypothesis that Site B, the less frequently climbed route, has more plant cover than Site A.
Figure 7 demonstrates high soil density at the base of the crag which is a popular site for groups to belay from, leaving packs and gear. At 5 and 9/10 meters where paths intersect, the soil density increases, seen by a reduction in the depth (cm) the peg was able to penetrate. This suggests in areas of high intensity usage and footfall, there is a higher soil density. Comparatively, the density of Site B is much less with higher penetration values across the distance measured. Pickering and Hill (2007) evaluate daily use such as trampling, causes damage to the mineral soil exposure, compaction and plant cover. Site B is able to maintain minerals, equal density and an organic horizon which Cole (1993) reports important so soils can absorb water, decrease water runoff and decompose natural organic waste.
The results indicate rock climbing and recreational activities cause environmental damage such as complete loss of species, high soil density and path erosion at the base of the crag measured to sample the impacts of group use (Site A) (0->3m). The species of richness is greater at Site B and more consistent with percentage of plant cover, indicating less effect of rock climbers causing environmental impact at this site. The results support the hypothesis that high use of crags for rock climbing causes more damage than low use. This study was limited to comparing two sites; further research should compare multiple sites and monitor the number of people using the crags regularly.
Attrian (1996) approaches the solution to environmental impact as climber education regarding environmental impact and increased awareness and responsibility for the environment and a hands-on approach with community and management processes. Such as educating climbers to leave no trace and pick up litter left by others. Sanitation has been marked by the British Mountaineering Council (2013) as a problem causing environmental disturbance (Figure 9). Human waste indirectly affects the environment through acceleration of some species growth and directly through removal of soil and vegetation to dig a hole (Pickering and Hill 2007). Attarian (1996) also notes poor sanitation as an environmental impact. In solution sanitation and pollution, Hanemann (2000) encourages making rock climbing more accessible by constructing pathways to crags, toilets, rubbish bins, parking and bolting routes to stop people lighting fires and damaging vegetation. The disadvantage is reduction in the sense of adventure some climbers relish and the negative impact of increased participation. Ebert and Robertson (2007) describe traditional climbers search for exploration and risk and being in a remote area, seeking gratification in increasing self-reliance to overcome obstacles.
Whilst it is unfavourable to close off an area of climbing where damage has occurred, the damage caused requires restoration and time to recuperate. Cole (1994) advocates removing the disturbance can provide quick recovery. However, the practicality of blocking access is difficult, especially at a popular venue such as the Roaches. Additionally, closing one section will increase the areal extent of damage (McMillan and Larson 2002). McMillan and Larson (2002) believe providing information on the ecological rational the restrictions will produce positive reactions. Nuzzo (1995) considers more than two years is required to restore damage to heavily used crags. A more adaptive approach would be to monitor progress of the crag talus and dynamically assess when the crag is ready to accommodate climbers. Further, Kuntz and Larson (2006) highlight the need for research into the environmental impact of rock climbing both on the plateau and talus.
Figures 10-15: Erosion from Crag with increasing distance: Site B (left), Site A (right)
If you are interested in this subject and would like to know more or check out the references, please use the contact us page.