Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jort Do Canadians Leave No Trace? Understanding Leave No Trace attitudes of frontcountry and backcountry overnight visitors to Canadian provincial parks Clara-Jane Blye a,∗ , Elizabeth Halpenny b a University of Alberta, 3-136 University Hall, Van Vliet Complex, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2H9, Canada b University of Alberta, 2-130G University Hall, Van Vliet Complex, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2H9, Canada ARTICLEINFO Keywords: Park management Outdoor recreation Leave No trace Environmental behaviours Visitor management ABSTRACT Both Ontario and Alberta's provincial park systems receive more than 8 million visitors on an annual basis. Park managers must employ direct (e.g., rules and regulations) and indirect (e.g., education and interpretation programs) strategies to minimize negative environmental impacts caused by these visitors. Leave No Trace (LNT) is a widely accepted educational program that aims to reduce environmentally-depreciative behaviours and promote responsible outdoor recreation through low-impact camping practices. The purpose of this study was to understand the level of perceived LNT knowledge of Canadian provincial parks users as well as determine park visitors' attitudes towards LNT practices. Park visitors' knowledge of and attitudes towards LNT practices were measured to determine if there was a diference between (a) those who camped in the backcountry and front- country and (b) between those who camped in Alberta and Ontario provincial parks. Results suggest there are in fact statistical and substantive diferences between frontcountry and backcountry over-night visitors as well as those who visited parks in Alberta and Ontario. While those who camped in the backcountry had higher self- reported levels of LNT knowledge, those who camped in the frontcountry expressed pro-environment beha- vioural attitudes that more closely aligned with LNT practices. Additionally, Alberta park visitors reported higher levels of LNT knowledge and consistently demonstrated pro-environment behavioural attitudes more in line with LNT practices than those of park visitors in Ontario. Management implications: Understanding diferences between park users’ knowledge and attitudes, will help park managers develop more efective education programs designed to foster pro-environmental behaviours and attitudes with the goal of reducing the negative impacts associated with camping. There has been controversy in recent years related to the appropriateness and efectiveness of LNT, however, this research suggests that park visitors do in fact know what LNT is and hold attitudes largely in line with the principles, therefore suggesting it is still highly relevant. Signifcant diferences in LNT attitudes and knowledge can be observed between users (i.e., backcountry and frontcountry), which may be explained by social demographics; education eforts should target the most common depreciative behaviours (e.g., dogs of leash) and be tailored to context and user group. Finally, this study suggests that perhaps the LNT brand is not enough, but rather consistent and tailored com- munication from park staf focusing on consequences of inappropriate behaviours and benefts to the park may be more efective at changing knowledge and attitudes than campaigns ofcially associated with the LNT brand. 1. Introduction Outdoor recreation involves the interaction between humans and the natural environment. However, this interaction creates impacts on the natural environment, such as soil compaction and habitat frag- mentation (Hammitt, Cole, & Monz, 2015). Hiking and camping on designated trails and campsites assigns visitor use impacts to these already impacted areas. However, when visitors venture of designated trials, hike and camp in remote sections, or simply do not use recreation areas correctly, negative efects can be devastating and possibly irre- versible (Cole, 2004; Dearden, Rollins, & Needham, 2014; Pigram & Jenkins, 2006). Recreation settings are typically separated into two “types” or opportunities; frontcountry and backcountry. Frontcountry can be thought of as areas that are accessible by car whereas https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2019.100258 Received 29 March 2017; Received in revised form 17 September 2019; Accepted 18 September 2019 ∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: clarajan@ualberta.ca (C.-J. Blye). Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 29 (2020) 100258 2213-0780/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. T