Tourism, Recreation and Trail Impacts - Tourism and Trails: Cultural, Ecological and Management Issues - page 133

those factors influencing trail impacts. Results suggested that 39% of the
variance for the cross-section area was explained by trail width, amount
of use and vegetation type; 55% of the variance for SPR was explained
by amount of use, soil texture and vegetation type; 24% of the variance
for exposed rocks and roots was explained by soil texture and elevation;
and finally 38% of the variance for trail width was explained by amount
of use and vegetation.
The level of management of both trails influences the extent of
impacts occurring on the trails. While management is the focus of the
next two chapters, it is important here to situate the severity of impact
with management strategies. Only BLT is routinely inspected by park
employees, and the level of maintenance ranges over the summer months
from weekly for BLT compared to only once for FWT. There are also
major differences between the trails in terms of staff deployment (four
full-time rangers across the summer months for BLT, none for FWT),
visitor information and education (BLT has a visitor center for pre-trip
information and orientation video, compared to trailhead signs for
FWT), use rationing/allocation system (hybrid reservation system for
BLT of first come, first served approach, compared to no rationing/
allocation system for FWT), and visitor registration (laser counter for
all users and a mandatory registration for overnight visitors for BLT,
compared to self-registration for all visitors to FWT). Nepal and Way
(2007a) noted a higher level of trail-related management features were
in place for BLT than for FWT, features that could mitigate ecological
impacts arising from trail use, such as culverts, draining ditches,
bridges, hand rails, stairs and rest platforms at viewpoints. Eighty-two
features were recorded for BLT compared to 31 for FWP, of which 17
were culverts. The remainder was drainage ditches and a number of
retention walls.
Research by Nepal and Way (2007a) found that while the two trails
have similar ecological characteristics, they are very different in terms of
use levels and management regimes. Both trails are more impacted with
respect to soil erosion (cross-section area) and soil penetration resistance
(more in highly compacted soil) as a consequence of the amount of use
and soil texture. While the FWT had more visible problems (impacts)
from low levels of use, for example, standing water and muddy sections,
the absence of management action (for example, culverts, ditches and
drains) is perhaps a deliberate decision to keep trails in as natural a state
as possible, maintaining trail aesthetics for visitors who want to walk in
a wilderness environment. An unwilling consequence of keeping trails
as pristine as possible may actually result in greater trail impact and
degradation over time.