Perception and Reality of Conflict: Walkers and Mountain Bikes on the Queen Charlotte Track in New Zealand
Cessford, G.R. 2002. Perception and Reality of Conflict: Walkers and Mountain Bikes on the Queen Charlotte Track in New Zealand.
Extracted from Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas. Proceedings of the Conference held at Bodenkultur University Vienna, Austria, January 30-February 02, 2002. Edited by Arnberger, A; Brandenburg, C. and Muhar, A. (eds.). Institute for Landscape Architecture and Landscape Management, Bodenkultur University, Vienna.
A version of this paper is also due to be published (late 2002/early 2003) in the Journal of Nature Conservation (in affiliation with the European Centre for Nature Conservation - ECNC). Publishers - Urban & Fisher Verlag, D-07743, Jena, Germany
Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas
Bodenkultur University Vienna, Austria
January 30 - February 02, 2002
Arne Arnberger, Christiane Brandenburg, Andreas Muhar
Institute for Landscape Architecture and Landscape Management
Bodenkultur University Vienna
Released: January 2002
The editors wish to thank:
Markus Barth, Renate Eder, Ingrid Kletzl,
Thomas Schauppenlehner, Petra Sterl, Sophie Strasser,
Perception and Reality of Conflict: Walkers and Mountain Bikes on the Queen Charlotte Track in New Zealand
Science and Research Unit, Department of Conservation, PO Box 10420, Wellington, New Zealand. Email:†
Abstract: A variety of social and physical impacts are attributed to mountain biking. In many cases, the perception of these impacts differs from the reality of on-site experiences. This distinction is explored in two ways. First, a brief review of impact issues associated with mountain bikes is carried out. Second, results are presented from a survey of 370 walkers on a multi-day natural track where biking has been allowed on a trial basis. Walker opinions are surprisingly positive toward bikes. These opinions are found to be more positive among those walkers who had actual encounters with bikes. By contrast, more negative opinions were found among those who had no such encounters.† Such distinctions between perception of a conflict and the actual outcome from an experience have important implications for park managers responsible for providing a range of different recreation opportunities.
Like most other government departments managing conservation areas, the Department of Conservation (DOC) in New Zealand has dual responsibility for protecting environmental values and allowing appropriate recreational uses. With this responsibility, the DOC manages almost 30% of New Zealand's land area, most of which is, by international standards, highly protected natural environment of high wilderness quality. Development of roads is not normally allowed, and as a consequence, recreation use has traditionally been limited to foot access through an extensive network of backcountry walking tracks and unmarked wilderness routes.
While rough surfaces and challenging terrain prevent bike access to most of these tracks, there are many that could be ridden by very fit and technically experienced riders. A smaller proportion would be relatively easy to ride by less experienced riders. These are the types of tracks providing the range of natural environment and challenging single-track riding experiences most sought by off-road riders (Cessford, 1995b; Hollenhorst et al., 1995; Hopkin and Moore, 1995; Goeft & Alder, 2000; Symmonds et al, 2000). The range of riding opportunities is one of the main reasons that such natural settings have experienced such biking growth (Hollenhorst et al., 1995). Such spread into a wider range of previously walking-only tracks is a world-wide trend, and the issues arising provide similar challenges to park managers everywhere. One of the main options available to managers has been to incorporate bike use through allowing shared use tracks. This option is often attractive to managers as it makes more effective use of existing resources, limits costly replication of facilities, avoids additional environmental effects from new track development, and in the case of areas with limited new-development capacity, may be the only feasible course available. Woehrstein (1998, 2001) notes this latter point is often the case in Europe for example.
While national legislation in New Zealand restricts bikes to formed roads in the national parks, biking is otherwise recognised as a legitimate activity in most other protected lands. Here the DOC does designate some shared tracks for walking and biking, where such use does not exceed acceptable levels of social, physical or ecological impact. A key New Zealand example is the popular Queen Charlotte Track (refer www.qctrack.co.nz for description). It is open for walking and biking all year, apart from partial closure to bikes during the peak-use summer season. Provision for shared use here has been opposed by some walker advocacy groups, and is characteristic of recreation conflict situations. This paper explores some of the impact issues managers face in providing such shared biking/walking tracks, and reports on a recent survey of walker perceptions of biking on this track.
MOUNTAIN BIKING IMPACTS
The variety of reasons people give for disapproving of biking can be summarised in three types of impact issues. First; from perceptions of physical impacts on the environment. Second; from social impact perceptions of safety hazards. And third; from social impact perceptions that biking is inappropriate in many natural settings (Moore, 1994; Cessford, 1995a; Woehrstein, 1998, 2001; Weir, 2000). Perceptions of these types of impacts lead to conflict between riders, other track users, and track managers. Based on current knowledge, the perceptions and realities of these impacts are discussed briefly below, followed by exploration of a conflict perception example from the Queen Charlotte Track.
Environmental concerns often feature when people discuss problems associated with biking in natural areas. In a sample of walkers, Horn (1994a) found that 75% considered that environmental damage from biking was a problem. A similar focus for concern has been found among park managers, including 35% of those surveyed in Chavez et al. (1993), and 42% in Chavez (1996a). However, it is important to note that these impacts have almost always been related directly to the tracks on which bikes are ridden, rather than on the environments though which the tracks pass. Like any outdoor recreationists, riders will have impacts on the environment, including the soils, vegetation, water, and wildlife. But because most walkers and riders stay on the tracks, wider environmental consequences are minimal because the direct physical effects are generally confined to the track surface.
Only in particular cases may the passage of bikes or walkers result in significant impact on important environmental features, as opposed to normal wear-and-tear on tracks. For example, Goeft & Alder (2000) described a case where bikes were included along with walkers, forestry vehicles and wildlife as potential vectors by which a particular plant disease could be spread. Woehrstein (1998, 2001) noted that numerous European studies had found little difference in effects of walkers and bikers on wildlife. And Papouchis et al (2001) found that bikers had far less disturbance effects on Bighorn Sheep than walkers, mainly due to walkers more often moving off tracks and surprising or approaching the animals. To date there appears to be no evidence of bikes having any more significant impact on important environmental features than other recreation uses (Cessford, 1995a; Woehrstein, 1998, 2001; Weir, 2000).
Biking does have an effect on the condition of tracks. These effects are often highly visually distinctive from those of walking due to the basic differences between tyre tracks and footprints. Related to this visual perception, the main concern expressed is that bike tyres create linear channels that may promote runoff and erosion, as opposed to the puddling caused by footprints (Keller, 1990). Bjorkman (1996) and others have made extensive investigations that clearly demonstrated impacts on tracks from bikes, although these were not compared with those of walkers. What is not clear is the relative significance of bike and boot impacts on tracks. For park managers, this distinction is particularly important when they are considering the costs of track maintenance. The usual perception is that biking has disproportionately higher impact on tracks than does walking. However, when the comparative effects of different recreation activities have been investigated, the real differences identified do not conform to these perceptions.†
Comparative research on track impacts by Weaver & Dale (1978) found that motorbikes had the greatest effects while going uphill, but that when going downhill, the effects of horses and walkers were greater. Including bikes, Wilson and Seney (1994) identified a similar pattern, and noted that lighter and low-powered bikes had much less track impact potential than motorbikes. And European research has found that while bikes had greater uphill effects, walkers had greater downhill effects (Woehrstein 1998, 2001). This draws attention to the basic distinction between the mechanical effects of rolling wheels and stepping feet (Cessford 1995a; Weir, 2000), which both have impacts in different ways.
Despite the general perception otherwise, most available comparative reviews and studies have concluded that while visibly very different, the physical impacts of bikes on tracks were not any worse than those of walkers overall (Keller, 1990; Wilson & Seney, 1994; Chavez et al. 1993; Ruff & Mellors; 1993, Cessford, 1995a; Woehrstein, 1998, 2001; Weir, 2000; Thurston & Reader, 2001;). This appears to be the case whether considering important biological features or the physical state of the tracks. On this basis, selective restrictions to biking based on physical impact concerns may be inappropriate. Any physical impact problems that arise are more likely to be the effects of greater use-levels overall, or from tracks passing through physically sensitive environments, particularly related to bad drainage characteristics. Here it seems that the problem relates more to how biking is generally perceived rather than the actual effects it may have.
Perceptions of Safety Hazards
Bikes are perceived as a hazard when they are considered to be riding too fast for the conditions (e.g., on crowded, multiple-use trails); not slowing enough when approaching blind corners; or where they surprise people because they move quickly and quietly (Moore, 1994; Cessford, 1995a). These are valid concerns that managers do recognise (Chavez et al. 1993; Chavez, 1996b), and it is apparent that the behaviour of some riders has posed a hazard. Keller (1990) noted a number of problems from the reactions of horses to bikes in particular. With reference to data from an unpublished survey of almost 1500 walkers (Pettit & Pontes, 1987), both Grost (1989) and Jacoby (1990) noted that most did not consider bikes were a safety hazard, and in fact characterised riders as being polite. Jacoby (1990) also noted that only 15 bike encounters were cited by walkers as potentially hazardous, and the only actual accident reported involved bikes hitting each other while making way for a walker. From a survey of 40 resource managers, Chavez et al. (1993) found only one case of reported walker injury. From 300 accident records, Edger (1997) stated very few resulted from bike-walker collisions. Almost none of the many thousands of incidents reported in several years of accident statistics in the German Alps involved bikes and walkers (Woehrstein, 1998, 2001). And on the Queen Charlotte track itself, while managers were aware of some accidents, these were all bike-only (Grose, 2001).
There is some indication that increased familiarity with biking and accumulated experience of encounters with bikes may change the hazard perceptions of walkers (Chavez et al., 1993; Bannister et al., 1992; Horn, 1994; Woehrstein, 1998, 2001). When referring to the Pettit & Pontes (1987), study, Chavez et al. (1993) noted that negative attitudes by walkers toward bikes remained constant despite an increase in riding use-levels from 7 to 24% in two years, and safety issues remained minimal.
While it does appear that actual safety hazards are over-estimated by walkers, it seems clear that some will feel uncomfortable knowing that bikes may be present, whether a real hazard exists or not. Reducing this social impact issue is of concern to track managers. The real danger from bikes appears to be for their own riders.
Perceptions of Social Impacts
Perceived conflict between walking and biking parallels other widely documented inter-activity conflicts. As has been apparent for biking, the perceived impacts of motorised use have similarly emphasised environmental impact and safety; the appearance, noise, behaviour, presence of mechanisation; and the inappropriateness of these in natural settings. Implicit in this has been the assumption that the recreation objectives, environmental attitudes, and values of these other recreationists are also different.
Inter-activity conflict research has often found clear differences that reflect these perceptions, such as those between the recreation preferences and motivations of snowmobilers and cross-country skiers (Knopp & Tyger, 1973; Butler, 1974; Devall and Harry, 1981; Jackson & Wong, 1982). When both groups are trying to use the same settings, perceptions of conflict are almost inevitable. Similar patterns of experience preferences were also reflected in the other activities in which these groups participated. Given these differences, it was concluded that such groups would always tend to be in conflict, even when in different activities and settings. The main question here is if such differences are represented between walking and biking.
Qualitative comments made about bikes (e.g. Keller, 1990, Horn, 1994) indicate that for many walkers (and managers), bikes are conceptually indistinct from motorised off-road vehicles. The characteristic conflict perception asymmetry, where walkers perceived bikers more negatively than vice versa, has also been identified (Watson et al., 1991; Ramthun, 1995; Carothers et al., 2001). Biking is visually very distinctive. Qualitative comments commonly indicate that the use of bright cycling clothing and the mechanised appearance of bike and rider can create conflict perceptions from walkers (e.g. Keller, 1990; Horn, 1994). In addition, most research profiles of riders (e.g. Cessford, 1995b; Hollenhorst et al., 1995; Horn; 1994; Ruff & Mellors, 1993; Keller, 1990), show that riders usually over-represent males and younger ages relative to walkers. Such obvious visible differences will have had effects on the general perceptions of biking. However, it is not clear whether these differences are also reflected in the actual motivations, preferences and environmental attitudes of riders.
While some differences are found, the main studies that have compared the attitudes and preferences of the two groups have found they are more similar than was perceived. (Watson, et al., 1991, 1997; Horn, 1994; Ramthun, 1995). When Watson et al. (1991) compared perceptions of similarity with the actual characteristics, they found that for hikers in particular, the perceptions were different from the reality. In addition, the degree of asymmetry in these perceptions was less than anticipated given the characteristic patterns found in wider conflict research. In follow-up work to the 1991 study, Watson et al. (1997) found a high proportion of walkers and riders did both activities. In the European setting where use intensity is higher and bicycle riding in general is more common, differences between walkers and bikers appear even less distinct. While restrictions commonly remain on single-track riding, shared tracks are becoming more common, more walkers are also riding, and perceptions of conflict appear to be reducing in general (Woehrstein, 1998, 2001; ADFC, 2001;). While comparative research has not been extensive, results suggest that differences in attitudes and preferences between bikers and walkers are less than is generally perceived. This inconsistency may diminish as participants gain greater familiarity with each other. For example, a reduction in conflict perceptions from 30 to 21% was identified over a 5 year period (Watson et al, 1997).
However, among the complicating factors that may affect the validity of conflict perception measures is the possibility that this reduction results in part from recreation displacement (Bjorkman 1996; Watson et al., 1997). Another is that the conflict levels reported often exceed those that actually occurred (Countryside Agency, 2001). And there is also a distinction between conflict perceptions based on wider social values, and those based on actual interpersonal encounters in the field. Some of inconsistencies in walker perceptions of conflict with biking point to such an effect (Carothers et al., 2001), and the following brief research results provide another example of such inconsistency.
CONFLICT PERCEPTIONS ON THE QUEEN CHARLOTTE TRACK
Shared use of the track was established as a trial. This survey of 370 walkers was carried out to monitor walkers' acceptance of this arrangement, and their opinions about bikes. However, when the walkers who encountered bikes were distinguished from those who did not, it has also provided useful insight into the difference between perceived and actual conflict situations. Results relating to this difference are the main ones reported here.
Satisfaction and seeing bikes
The most important primary results for managers were those related to the high levels of walker satisfaction on the track. In total, 97% of walkers stated they were totally or mostly satisfied with their visit, and this high level did not significantly vary according to any walker characteristics or visit experiences. Among these visit experiences were encounters with bikes. These results indicated that walkers who encountered bikes were no less satisfied with their visit were those who did not. Reinforcing this, when walkers who encountered bikes were specifically asked if these bikes caused them dissatisfaction in any way, 88% indicated that they did not. And when walkers who did not expect to encounter bikes were asked if they might have changed their trip plans had they known, 92% said that they would have come to the track anyway.
Overall, these represent very positive results for this management arrangement. However, in acknowledgement that overall satisfaction scales are often coarse measures, some additional evaluative questions were asked of all walkers. Firstly, they were asked if seeing bikes had, or would have, affected their enjoyment of the track. Bikes were reported as having no actual or anticipated effect on enjoyment by 69% of walkers, as having positive enhancing effects by a further 10%, and having negative detracting effects by the remaining 21%. While these are highly positive results for the shared track approach, the notable proportion of people feeling bikes had or would have detracted from their experience does require management consideration.
Who perceived conflicts with bikes?
To improve understanding of the conflicts walkers have with bikes, additional data analysis was carried out on these enjoyment perceptions. This was done using a classification tree approach suitable for the primarily categorical data generated from the survey (D'eath & Fabricus, 2000), which in this case comes from the AnswerTree application associated with SPSS 10. Figure 1 was generated from this application, and represents a map of significant relationships between variables. The effect of bikes on walker enjoyment was the target variable, and notable variations in response were identified.
Figure 1: Factors influencing how bikes affected track visit enjoyment
Most variation was related to whether walkers had encountered bikes on the track or not (Figure 1). Surprisingly, the more negative perceptions of bikes came from walkers who had not encountered any (32%). This reflects the distinction between perceptions based on wider social values and those based more on actual interpersonal encounters in the field, as described by Carothers et al. (2001).
Among those not encountering bikes, this negative effect was strongest among the older walkers (58%). Among those who did encounter bikes, the negative effect (14%) was greater among those not expecting to see them there. While omitted from Figure 1 due to space constraints, it is notable that among those not expecting to see bikes, the negative effect (24%) was again stronger for the older walkers than the younger (8%).
This gives managers a clear message that many of the social conflict issues surrounding bikes on this track are based on perceptions about meeting bikes, which appear to be different from the reality of experiencing them. In addition, a specific group of older walkers appear more inclined to hold these negative perceptions. These key distinctions were reinforced when specific opinions about bikes were explored.
Conflict perception issues
Walkers were asked to indicate their level of agreement with a set of characteristic opinion statements commonly made in association with bike conflict issues (Table 1). These results are largely self-explanatory, and show that opinions both for and against biking varied considerably among walkers. The strongest responses were the 74% of walkers who considered most problems came from a few irresponsible riders, the 60% who disagreed that biking should be banned on the track, and the 58% who disagreed that biking and walking have similar track impacts. The latter is a particularly interesting example of the power of perception, when it appears that research has not established any notably greater effects from bikes on tracks. What is apparent on wet tracks with poorly consolidated surfaces is that the visibility of tyre-tracks is much higher than that of boot-prints. In that situation, attributing greater impacts to bikes is not surprising, even if it may be somewhat misplaced.
|Common opinions on biking||Agree||Neutral||Disagree||Compared by encounters with bikes||Compared by† age-group|
|Bikers are reckless and go past walkers too fast||29||27||44||***Not seen† - agree more||***>40† - agree more|
|Bikers are reckless and go round corners too fast||27||36||37||*** Not seen - agree more||***>40† - agree more|
|Only a few irresponsible riders cause most problems||74||18||8||-||-|
|People over-estimate danger to walkers from bikes||38||36||26||-||-|
|People over-estimate conflict between bikers/walkers||42||41||17||-||-|
|Bikers and walkers are different sorts of people||23||25||52||-||***>40† - disagree more|
|Walkers are more interested in the environment||41||22||37||-||***>40† - agree more|
|Bikers are louder and noisier than walkers||28||21||51||-||*>40† - agree more|
|Biking and walking have similar impact on tracks||25||17||58||-||-|
|As bikers learn better behaviours, conflicts will reduce||52||34||15||-||-|
|As people get used to bikes, conflicts will reduce||40||32||28||**Seen -agree more||*>40† - disagree more|
|Shared tracks for walking and biking won't work||25||25||50||***Not seen - agree more||***>40† - agree more|
|Biking should be banned on the Queen Charlotte||18||22||60||***Not seen - agree more||***>40† - agree more|
While many of these responses may be encouraging to park managers considering provision of shared-track approaches, notable proportions of negative opinions are apparent. Almost 30% considered that bikes go too fast when passing people or going around corners. A notable minority (23%) considered bikers and walkers were different kinds of people, while a majority (41%) considered walkers were more interested in the environment. As briefly noted earlier, these types of negative perceptions of behaviour and inter-group differences are the foundation for wider conflict perceptions. They are therefore important areas for improved management understanding and practice.
Acknowledging this need, it is notable that, as with overall visit evaluations, there was also distinct variation in opinions according to age, and to the occurrence of bike encounters (Figure 2). Those walkers who had encountered bikes on the track had more positive opinions about them in general. For example, walker opinions about hazard from bikes going too fast were less negative among those who actually met bikes. And opinions about biking were consistently more negative among those walkers over 40. This again draws attention to the distinction apparent between the evaluations of biking made according to perceived and actual situations, and to the consistently more negative perceptions of older walkers about bikes.
The emerging conclusions from research on bike impacts, and the largely positive evaluative results from specific surveys such as that on the Queen Charlotte Track, suggest a positive outlook for developing shared tracks. It seems that the perceptions and realities of impacts can sometimes be quite different, and that greater awareness and experience can lead to a reduction in problem perceptions. The generally more positive perceptions among those who actually encountered bikes suggests that some "encounter-effect" may occur that somehow results in reduced negative feelings. This may reflect some unanticipated positive aspect from experiencing bikes and their riders, such as friendly contact, and riding behaviour that was less threatening than expected. Or, it may reflect some form of conciliatory coping response by visitors when faced with perceived conflict situations, as widely documented in conflict literature. Some caution is required regarding possible displacement effects on the more "bike-sensitive" walkers, such as the older walkers on the Queen Charlotte Track. All of these possibilities suggest fundamental and important research questions for managers to address if considering shared-track options.
There is a general need to ensure people are aware that bikes are likely to be encountered, and that biker behaviour is appropriate and friendly. The efforts of biking advocates to promote positive riding and encounter behaviours through codes of conduct would appear to be very appropriate. How these strategies may affect walker perceptions of biking over time represent another important area of research. Managers who are concerned about the notable proportion of walkers feeling that bikes detract from their enjoyment should be concentrating attention on the needs and concerns of older walkers, and how this might change as they are succeeded by the younger generation.
Given the emerging understanding of the differences between the perceptions and realities of conflict, opting to provide for shared tracks will require managers to become more proficient at conflict management processes. Emphasis will be required on the types of indirect (education, information) and bridge-building (co-operation, volunteerism) approaches described by Moore (1994), Chavez (1996) and others.
ADFC, 2001. Mountainbiking: Ein Leitfaden für Planer, Touristiker und Biker. Allemenigner Deutscher Fahrrad-Club. Bremen.
Bannister, C., Groome, D., & Pawson, G. (1992): The Shared Use Debate: a Discussion on the Joint Use of Canal Towing Paths by Walkers, Anglers and Cyclists. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 34, 149-158.
Bjorkman, A.W. (1996): Off-Road Bicycle and Hiking Trail User Interactions: A Report to the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Research.
Butler, R.W. (1974): How to Control 1000 000 Snowmobilers. Canadian Geographical Journal, Vol. 88, No. 3, 4-13.
Carothers, P; Vaske, J.J., & Donnelly, M.P. (2001): Social Values versus Interpersonal Conflict among Hikers and Mountain Bikers. Leisure Sciences, Vol, 23, No. 1, 47-61.
Cessford, G.R. (1995a): `Off-Road Impacts of Mountain Biking: A Literature Review and Discussion.' Science and Research Series No. 92. Science and Research Division. Department of Conservation. (see www.imba.com/resources)
Cessford, G.R. (1995b): `Off-Road Mountain Biking: A Profile of Participants and their Recreation Setting and Experience Preferences.' Science and Research Series No. 93. Science and Research Division. Department of Conservation.
Chavez, D.J. (1996a): Mountain Biking: Direct, Indirect, and Bridge Building Management. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, Vol. 14, No.4, 21-35.
Chavez, D.J. (1996b): Mountain Biking: Issues and Actions for USDA Forest Service Managers. Res. Paper PSW-RP-226. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Chavez, D.J., Winter, P.L., & Baas, J.M. (1993): Recreational Mountain Biking: A Management Perspective.† Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration, Vol. 11, No. 3, 29-36.
Countryside Agency (2001): How People Interact on Off-Road Routes. Research Notes CRN 32. The Countryside Agency.
De'ath, G. & Fabricus, K.A. (2000). Classification and Regression Trees: A Powerful yet Simple Technique for Ecological Data Analysis. Ecology, Vol. 81, No. 11, 3178-3192.
Devall, W. & Harry, J. (1981): Who Hates Whom in the Great Outdoors: The Impact of Recreational Specialisation on Technologies of Play. Leisure Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 4, 399-418.
Edger, C.O. (1997). Mountain Biking and the Marin Municipal Water District Watershed. Trends, Vol. 34, No. 3, 5-10.
Goeft, U. and Adler, J. 2000. Mountain Biker Rider Preferences and Perceptions in the South-West of Western Australia.† CALMScience Vol. 3, No. 2: 261-275.
Grose, R. (2001), pers. com. - Area Manager, Sounds Area Office, Department of Conservation† (Queen Charlotte Track).
Grost, R. (1989): Managing the Mountain Bike.† American Forests, Vol. 95, 50-53, 75-77.
Hollenhorst, S., Schuett, M.A., Olson, D., & Chavez, D. (1995): An Examination of the Characteristics, Preferences, and Attitudes of Mountain Bike Users of the National Forests. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, Vol. 13, No. 3, 41-51.
Hopkin, T.E. & Moore R.L. (1995): The relationship of recreation specialization to setting preferences of mountain bicyclists. Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 14, No. 1, 47-62.
Horn, C. (1994). Conflict in Recreation: the Case of Mountain-Bikers and Trampers. Unpublished Masterate thesis, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand.
Jackson, E.L. & Wong R.A.G. (1982): Perceived Conflict between Urban Cross-Country Skiers and Snowmobilers in Alberta. Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 14, No. 1, 47-62.
Jacoby, J. (1990): Mountain Bikes: A New Dilemma for Wildland Recreation Managers?† Western Wildlands, Vol. 16, 25-28.
Keller, K.J.D. (1990): Mountain Bikes on Public Lands: A Manager's Guide to the State of Practice. Bicycle Federation of America. Washington D.C.
Knopp, T. & Tyger, J. (1973): A Study of Conflict in Recreational Land Use: Snowmobiling vs Ski-Touring.† Journal of Leisure Research Vol. 11, No. 4, 317-326.
Moore, R.L. (1994): Conflicts on Multiple-Use Trails: Synthesis of Literature and State of the Practise. Report No. FHWA-PD-94-031, Washington, D.C. Federal Highway Administration. (see www.imba.com/resources).
Papouchis, C.M. Singer, F.J. & Sloan W.B. (2001): The respnses of Desert Bighorn Sheep to increased human recreation. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 65, No. 3, 573-582.
Pettit, B. & Pontes, P. (1987): Kepner-Trego Analysis - unpublished reports prepared for the US Forest Service (Santa Barbara Ranger District, Los Padres National Forest).
Ramthun, R. (1995): Factors in User Group Conflict Between Hikers and Mountain Bikers. Leisure Sciences Vol. 17, 159-169.
Ruff, A.R. & Mellors, O. (1993): The Mountain Bike - the Dream Machine?† Landscape Research, Vol. 18, No. 3, 104-109.
Symmonds, M.C., Hammitt, W.E. & Quisenberry, V.L. (2000): Managing Recreational Trail Environments for Mountain Bike User Preferences. Environmental Management, Vol. 25, No. 5, 549-564-71.
Thurston, E. & Reader, R.J. (2001): Impacts of Experimentally Applied Mountain Biking and Hiking on Vegetation and Soil of a Deciduous Forest. Environmental Management, Vol. 27, No. 3, 397-409.
Watson, A.E., Williams, D.R. & Daigle, J.J. (1991): Sources of Conflict Between Hikers and Mountain Bike Riders in the Rattlesnake NRA.† Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration, Vol. 9, No. 3, 59-71.
Watson, A., Asp, C., Walsh, J. & Kulla, A. (1997): The Contribution of Research to Managing Conflict among National Forest Users. Trends, Vol. 34, No. 3, 29-35.
Weaver, T & Dale, D. (1978): Trampling Effects of Hikers, Motorcycles and Horses in Meadows and Forests.† Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 15, 451-457.
Weir, D.V. (2000): A Guide to The Impacts of Non-Motorized Trail Use. Donald V. Weir and Associates, Edmonton, Canada
Wilson, J.P. & Seney, J.P. (1994): Erosional Impact of Hikers, Horses, Motorcycles and Off-road Bicycles on Mountain Trails in Montana.† Mountain Research and Development, Vol. 14, No. 1, 77-88.
Woehrstein, T. (1998), †Mountainbike und Umwelt. Verlag, Pirrot & Druck, Saarbrücken.
Woehrstein, T. (2001), pers. com. about translations of his book - Woehrstein, (1998). †
(Acknowledgement - Claudia Kling, then working at Sounds Area Office, carried out fieldwork and data entry for the survey, and provided a preliminary data report to track managers).
Conference Proceedings - Table of Contents
Preface by Arne Arnberger, Christiane Brandenburg, Andreas Muhar. I
Opening address by Günter Liebel, Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management III
*** Keynote address
***Methods for Visitor Monitoring in Recreational and Protected Areas: An Overview.
Andreas Muhar, Arne Arnberger and Christiane Brandenburg. 1
Visitor Structure of a Heavily Used Conservation Area: The Danube Floodplains National Park, Lower Austria.
Arne Arnberger and Christiane Brandenburg.. 7
Developing New Visitor Counters and Their Applications for Management.
Gordon Cessford, Stuart Cockburn and Murray Douglas.. 14
Predicting Transgressions of the Social Capacity of Natural Areas.
Sjerp de Vries and Martin Goossen.. 21
GIS - Supported Network Analysis of Visitor Flows in Recreational Areas.
Beate Hinterberger, Arne Arnberger and Andreas Muhar. 28
Spatial Requirements of Outdoor Sports in the Nature Park Southern Blackforest - GIS-based Conflict Analysis and Solutions for Visitor Flow Management.
Alexander Krämer and Ralf Roth.. 33
Observation as a Technique for Establishing the Use made of the Wider Countryside: A Welsh Case Study.
Ian Keirle. 40
Understanding Visitor Flows in Canada's National Parks: The Patterns of Visitor Use Study in Banff, Kootenay, and Yoho National Parks.
Dave McVetty.. 46
Monitoring Low Volume Walker Use of a Remote Mountain Range: A Case Study of the Arthur Range, Tasmania, Australia.
Sue Rundle. 53
Monitoring of Recreation-Affected Forest Stands in the National Park Losiny Ostrov.
Mark S. Shapochkin and Vera Kiseleva.. 59
Recreation Monitoring at the Dutch Forest Service.
Peter A. M. Visschedijk and Renè J. H. G. Henkens.. 65
Visitor Management by Visitor Monitoring? Methodological Approach and Empirical Results from the Wadden Sea National Park in Schleswig-Holstein.
Christiane Gätje, Andrea Möller and Mathias Feige. 68
Conflicts Between Nature Conservation and Recreational Goals
Tourism Infrastructure Planning in Tusheti National Park of Georgia.
Ramaz Gokhelashvili, Alexander Gavashelishvili, Zurab Javakhishvili and Lela Azniashvili.. 74
The Visitor Flows and the Bird Communities in the Paklenica National Park, Croatia (between 1997-2001).
Gordan Lukac.. 78
Visitor Management in the Wilderness Area Dürrenstein, Lower Austrian Kalkalpen.
Reinhard Pekny and Christoph Leditznig. 84
Actual Numbers and Effects of Recreational Disturbance on the Distribution and Behaviour of Greylag Geese (Anser Anser) in the "Neusiedler See - Seewinkel" National Park Area.
Wolfgang Steiner and Rosemarie Parz-Gollner.. 89
Integrating Tourism and Grouse Habitat Protection in the Black Forest.
Rudi Suchant and Andreas Schäfer.. 95
***Perception and Reality of Conflict: Walkers and Mountain Bikes on the Queen Charlotte Track in New Zealand.
Gordon Cessford. 102
Resolving Inter-Group Conflict in Winter Recreation: Chilkoot Trail National Historic Site, British Columbia.
Siobhan A. Jackson, Wolfgang Haider and Tom Elliot.. 109
Modelling of Visitor Behavior
***Stated Preference & Choice Models - A Versatile Alternative to Traditional Recreation Research.
Wolfgang Haider.. 115
Segmentation of Outdoor Recreationists: A Comparison of Recreationists' Perceptions of Importance and Satisfaction Across Activities.
Robert C. Burns and Alan R. Graefe. 122
Predictive Model of Responsible Environmental Behaviour: Application as a Visitor - Monitoring Tool.
Stuart Cottrell.. 129
Integrating Multiple Wilderness Values into a Decision-Making Model for Denali National Park and Preserve.
Steve Lawson and Robert Manning.. 136
Visitor Management and Ecological Integrity: One Example of an Integrated Management Approach Using Decision Analysis.
Wictoria Rudolphi and Wolfgang Haider. 143
Destination Choice Modelling of Leisure Trips: The Case of Switzerland.
Anja Simma, R. Schlich and KW Axhausen.. 150
Modelling and Simulation of Visitor Flows
***Modeling Visitor Flow from the Visitor Perspective: The Psychology of Landscape Navigation.
Terry C. Daniel. 159
Models to Predict Visitor Attendance Levels and the Presence of Spezific User Groups.
Christiane Brandenburg and Alexander Ploner.. 166
Serial Experiences: Monitoring, Modeling and Visualising the Free Independent Traveller in New Zealand at Multiple Scales with GIS.
Pip Forer. 173
Deriving Artificial Models of Visitors From Dispersed Patterns of Use in Sierra Nevada Wilderness.
Randy Gimblett, John Lynch, Terry Daniel, Lisa Ribes and Garry Oye. 180
Simulating Visitors' Dispersion in a Nature Reserve based on a Friction Model.
Hubert Gulinck and Barbara Dumont. 187
RBSim2: Simulating the Complex Interactions between Human Movement and the Outdoor Recreation Environment.
Robert Itami, Rob Raulings, Glen MacLaren, Kathleen Hirst, Randy Gimblett, Dino Zanon and Peter Chladek. 191
A Concept for Coupling Empirical Data and Microscopic Simulation of Pedestrian Flows.
Andreas Keßel, H. Klüpfel, M. Schreckenberg and T. Meyer-König. 199
Using Simulation Modeling to Facilitate Proactive Monitoring and Adaptive Management of Social Carrying Capacity in Arches National Park, Utah, USA.
Steven Lawson, Robert Manning, William Valliere, Benjamin Wang and Megha Budruk.. 205
A Spatial Model of Overnight Visitor Behavior in a Wilderness Area in Eastern Sierra Nevada.
John Lynch.. 211
Cyclical Visitor-Behavior Patterns of Urban Forest Recreation Environments and their Determinants - A Statistical View.
Rüdiger Mutz, Dagmar v. Janowsky and Gero Becker. 218
Modeling the Dependency between Visitor Numbers and Meteorological Variables via Regression Trees.
Alexander Ploner and Christiane Brandenburg.. 225
GIS - based Modeling of Car-borne Visits to Danish Forests.
Hans Skov-Peterson.. 233
Visitor Monitoring Standards
Monitoring of Tourism in the Czech National Parks.
Martin Cihar, Jan Stursa and Viktor Trebicky.. 240
Visitor Use of USDA Forest Service Recreation Areas: Methods and Results from the National Visitor Use Monitoring Effort.
Donald B. K. English, Susan M. Kocis, J. Ross Arnold, Stanley J. Zarnoch and Larry Warren.. 246
Standardisation of Visitor Surveys - Experiences from Finland.
Joel Erkkonen and Tuija Sievänen. 252
Standardisation of Visitor Counting - Experiences from Finland.
Jere Rauhala, Joel Erkkonen and Heikki Iisalo.. 258
Visitor Monitoring and Management of Urban Parks
Measurement and Analysis of Congestion at the Traditional Japanese Garden "Korakuen".
Yoji Aoki, Hitoshi Fujita and Koichiro Aoki.. 264
Public Use of the Public Parks and Protected Areas of Budapest.
Katalin Nagy. 271
A Survey of Recreation Interests in Urban Forests, the Influence of Travel Distance.
Pieter Roovers, Martin Hermy and Hubert Gulinck. 277
Recent Trends of Park Use at Tokyo Metropolitan Area.
Yasuo Sumiyoshi and Kaoru Uchiyama.. 284
The Planning of User Flows in Istanbul Groves for Sustainability in Natural Structure.
Adnan Uzun, Zerrin Ozsule and Ahmet Yesil.. 290
Recreation in Urban Forests: Monitoring Specific User Groups and Identifying their Needs with Video and GIS-support.
Dagmar v. Janowsky and Gero Becker. 296
Recreational Forest Management: Sustainably Protecting and Improving the Recreational Function of the Vienna Woods.
Herbert Weidinger. 302
Visitor and Park Management
***How Much is Too Much? Carrying Capacity of National Parks and Protected Areas.
Robert E. Manning.. 306
Managing Commercial Recreation on Crown Land: The Commercial Recreation Transition Plan for the Sea to Sky Corridor, BC.
Neil Curtis. 314
Developing a Visitor Management Framework for WWF's PAN Parks Project - Case Study of a National Park in France.
Mylène van der Donk and Stuart Cottrell. 320
The Effectiveness of Wayfinding Systems with Forest Users.
Catherine Findlay, Katherine Southwell, Catherine Ward Thompson, Mohamed Salheen and Peter Aspinall.. 328
Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Preservation.
Simona Kubicková and Libor Grega.. 335
Customer Satisfaction as an Indicator of Social Carrying Capacity - Case Heritage Centre Ukko in Koli National Park, Finland.
Lasse Lovén. 340
Objectives and Basis of Management of Visitor Flows in the Biosphere Reserve Vessertal/Thuringia Germany.
Franz Moder and Elke Hellmuth. 346
NATURA 2000 - The Influence of the European Directives on the Development of Nature-based Sport in Mountain Areas.
Ulrike Pröbstl.. 353
Visitor Management and Ecological Monitoring in Austrian, Italian and Bavarian Skiing Resorts by Adapting the EU-Eco-Audit.
Peter Schneider, Ulrike Pröbstl and Gabi Fürnrohr. 359
Impacts of Tourism Load on the Mountain Environment: A Case Study of the Krkonose Mountains National Park - the Czech Rebuplic.
Jan Stursa.. 364
Development of Ecotourism in the Largest National Park "Yugyd va".
Veronica Tarbaeva and Tatyana Fomichyova. 371
Ecotourism Demand in North-East Italy.
Tiziano Tempesta, Francesca Visintin and Francesco Marangon. 373
Visitors and Managers: Differing Evaluations Concerning Recreational Impacts and Preferences for Management Actions?
Odd Inge Vistad. 380
Ecotourism and Sustainable Development
Environment and Rural Tourism in Bustamante, Mexico.
Sergio Arzac.. 384
Towards Quality Rural Tourism in Alpine Recreational Areas in Europe: Integrated Quality Management of Rural Tourist Destinations & Presentation of a Case Study in Bregenzerwald, Austria.
Ulrike Mast. 390
Problems of Recreational Use of the World Natural Heritage Territories (Ubsunur Hollow Example).
Elena Petrova. 397
Visitor flows in National Parks and other Protected Areas of Serbia: Case studies of Proper and Improper Practices.
Snezana Prokic.. 402
The Contribution of the Alpine Convention to Nature Conservation and Visitor Flows Mangement.
Andreas Weissen and Andreas Götz. 407
Reasonable Illusions: Participatory Planning and Protected Areas.
Ephrat Yovel and Anna Hersperger.. 412
Some Problems of Tourist Activity in the Tatra National Park.
Anna Blazejczyk. 417
From the Beginning Until the World HeritageTtitle: The Tendencies and Management of Visitor Flows at the Hortobàgy National Park.
Zoltàn Karàcsonyi, Csaba Aradi and Làszlò Lisztes.. 421
Managing Visitors Through Certification of Protected Areas' Business Partners - A Practical Application in Bialowieza National Park, Poland.
Zoltán Kun.. 423
Recreational Use and Wildlife Movement near Mountain Park Communities: Integrating Social and Ecological Management Objectives in Banff National Park
John McKenzie and Eva Katic.. 429
Dajti National Park: A Recreational Area for Citizens of Tirana, Albania.
Nasip Mecaj and Vezir Muharremaj. 432
Estimating Visitor Occasions and Recreational Visits at an Urban Park District.
Andrew J. Mowen.. 436
Conflicts of Interest on National Parks and Protected Areas During the Transition Period in Albania.
Vezir Muharremaj. 439
Nature Protection in the Service of the Visitors who visit National Park Mljet.
Marija Nodilo.. 444
Interaction of Land and Water Ecosystems in Recreational and Protected Areas.
Nickolai Shalovenkov.. 452
Water Sports Activities and their Effects on the Avifauna of the Danube Floodplains National Park, Austria - First Results.
Petra Sterl, Simone Wagner and Arne Arnberger. 460
Types of Conflicts between Recreational Use and Nature Conservation in National Parks and Biosphere Reserves.
Karen Ziener.. 467
Observing Visitors Behaviour as a Methodical Alternative to Questionnaires - a Proposal.
Thomas Coch.. 474
Simulation of Recreational Use in Backcountry Settings: an Aid to Management Planning.
David N. Cole.. 478
Video Monitoring Visitors as a Management Tool: Identifying the Issues.
Mark I. Ivy.. 483