Leave No Trace: The Benefits and Problems

Leave No Trace principles are at the core of responsible outdoor recreation, emphasizing the importance of minimizing our impact on the environment. However, as outdoor enthusiasts increasingly adopt these principles, questions have arisen about their effectiveness and potential harms. In this post, I reflect on the benefits and problems of Leave No Trace.

The Growing Impact of Outdoor Recreation

Leave No Trace gained prominence in response to growing numbers of visitors to parks and public lands. This began in a big way in the 1960s, with more people looking to escape to the outdoors and the expansion of parks, staff, outdoor recreation organizations, and commercial ventures. The more people got out, the more their impact became clear: plants were trampled, soil compacted, waterways polluted, and wildlife disturbed. Leave No Trace became an educational tool for park managers, who could point to a set of guidelines that helped mitigate environmental degradation.

By encouraging outdoor enthusiasts to be mindful of their actions, Leave No Trace aims to protect the delicate balance of ecosystems. It emphasizes the preservation of not only picturesque landscapes but the diverse flora and fauna that call these places home. In essence, Leave No Trace is a philosophy that embodies respect and appreciation for the natural world. It serves as a reminder that our actions, no matter how small, can have a profound impact on the environment.

Advantages of Leave No Trace

Without a doubt, these principles have been important to help maintain the integrity of parks and public lands. Chris Loynes explains, “Leave No Trace has value in that it alerts recreational users to the need to tread lightly in fragile landscapes and impacts the of recreational users of such places.”¹ Sometimes people genuinely don’t realize that even small actions, like picking flowers or feeding animals, can have far-reaching consequences.

We’ve all seen what happens when people don’t respect the places they recreate in. Over-foraging has become a hot button issue, particularly as localized plant populations, such as ramps, are disappearing.² Human cause wildfires have ravaged many parts of Canada.³ There’s also been a major spike in trash being left in parks.⁴ Leave No Trace serves as a logical response to these issues, providing a framework for responsible outdoor behaviour.

Problems With Leave No Trace

The issue that people have with Leave No Trace is the philosophy that underpins it as a model of conservation. Leave No Trace sees nature, intentionally or not, as external to our everyday lives. It promotes conservation in our parks and public lands without discussing the larger picture.

For example, someone can practice Leave No Trace despite packing their gas-guzzling SUV with synthetic camping gear and driving 3 hours to reach a campground. Leave No Trace focuses on preserving spaces used for outdoor recreation without considering the larger impacts people might have outside of these places.

This impact includes the growing consumerism that’s associated with outdoor recreation.⁵ We’re buying more and more gear without considering our environmental footprint. For example, a butane stove still has an impact even if it replaces a campfire. We have to consider the impact associated with the extraction of natural gas and the of metals.

In this way, conservation under Leave No Trace has centred around “protecting wilderness as a recreational landscape” while “dismissing larger questions of the modern economy, consumerism, and the environment.”⁵ We come to accept that our urban environments are polluted and seek to escape into the ‘wilderness’ which we aim to keep clean.

But, it’s a myth that we do no damage to our parks even when we practice Leave No Trace principles. Our everyday behaviours outside of them also have effects. Pollution to the air, soil, and water makes its way into our parks. Deforestation around the perimeters of parks put stress on flora and fauna. So too does the stress of climate change.

Additionally, some argue that Leave No Trace dissuades people from interacting with their landscapes causing them to lose important knowledge about their local ecosystems. They argue that the more separate we feel from nature, the less invested we are in preserving it. Sometimes, they argue, the best conservationists are those that have something to lose when the plants and animals disappear (i.e. foragers, hunters, fisherman).

Leave No Trace on Indigenous Lands?

Finally, we must consider the ethical and historical issues with applying Leave No Trace to colonized lands. In Canada, the establishment of public lands and parks has contributed to the displacement of Indigenous peoples from their traditional lands, disrupting their cultures, economies, and ways of life. As a result, public lands in Canada are often managed and governed without sufficient consideration for Indigenous perspectives, knowledge, and stewardship practices. This can lead to conflicts over land use and management, as well as ongoing challenges related to Indigenous rights and self-determination.

In this context, the application of Leave No Trace principles can be particularly problematic, as it may further marginalize Indigenous voices and perspectives, and perpetuate the erasure of Indigenous knowledge and stewardship practices. Strict adherence to Leave No Trace principles can limit access to traditional activities and cultural practices for Indigenous communities, such as gathering plants for food and medicine or conducting ceremonies on the land.

While Leave No Trace principles can be valuable for minimizing environmental impact in many contexts, they need to be applied with sensitivity and respect for Indigenous perspectives and practices.

Rethinking Leave No Trace

While Leave No Trace principles are helpful in mitigating the effects of recreation on public lands, we must broaden our understanding to consider how our gear, travel habits, and activities outside of parks can affect the environment inside them. Also, Leave No Traces needs to respect the traditional and cultural practices of Indigenous peoples.

Chris Loynes argues, we must acknowledge “that traces are inevitable and encourage debate about what traces are reasonable, proportional, and ethical.”¹ He also asks that we consider the ways that people can “leave a trace” in their communities that make positive impacts.¹ I can think of a few ideas include redesigning urban areas to include more green spaces, offering outdoor education to children, ensuring outdoor areas are accessible to everyone, establishing community gardens and green playgrounds, improving public transportation to outdoor spaces, and investing in sustainable energy sources.

What Do You Think?

What’s your opinion of Leave No Trace? Have you found it to be beneficial? Do you think there are limitations? Let me know in the comments section.

Note About the Text

When I originally wrote this post, I understood Leave No Trace as a set of principles or guidelines, but it’s also an organization with a Board of Directors, corporate sponsorship, and community partners.

Other Posts You May Enjoy

Celebrating Atlantic Canada’s Wetlands

From Grass to Gardens: Creating Habitat and Biodiversity With Native Plant Gardens

Monarchs and Milkweeds: Resilience in the Face of Adversity

Articles and Further Resources

¹ Chris Loynes. 2018. “Leave More Trace.” Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education and Leadership.

² Michelle Lucas Larving. 2017. “Why Ramps Should Stay Off the Menu This Spring.” Chatelaine.

³ Eric Stober. 2023. “What Causes Most Wildfires in Canada, and Why We’re ‘Primed’ for A Lot More.” Global News.

⁴ Jessica Cheung. 2021. “Ontario Parks Have Seen a Spike in Garbage. A New Campaign is Trying to Change That.” CBC.

⁵ James Morton Turner. 2002. “From Woodcraft to ‘Leave No Trace’: Wilderness, Consumerism, and Environmentalism in Twentieth-Century America.” Environmental History.