Tourism, Recreation and Trail Impacts - Tourism and Trails: Cultural, Ecological and Management Issues - page 139

2008). Perceptions of and tolerance for impacts varies among groups of park
users, but most studies have shown that visitors have a high tolerance for
trail and vegetation impacts arising from natural area visitation. Residents
often hold stronger values and connections to places than tourists, given
their geographical proximity to the resource setting being affected, as well
as being influenced by the extent to which they benefit from the tourism
activity taking place (Andereck et al. , 2005). Comparisons of tourist and resi-
dent perceptions of physical trail impacts are scarce in the literature, but the
case study of trail conditions around Lom, Norway, by Denstadli et al. (2010)
is a welcome exception.
Case Study: Stakeholder Consensus Regarding
Trail Conditions in Lom and its Surrounding
Region, Norway
Denstadli et al. (2010) used 337 tourist surveys and 201 resident inter-
views to evaluate the views of both tourists and residents in and near
Lom, Norway. To capture the tourist population driving through the
mountainous parts of Lom municipality, surveys were conducted along
the Sognefjell road, at two vehicle rest stops that had amenities and
facilities. The road is the highest pass in northern Europe and is a 'scenic
road' designated as a National Tourist Route. The residents of Lom (pop-
ulation ca. 2400) were surveyed face-to-face in their homes, after
responding to an announcement in the local newspaper. Both popula-
tions were shown 12 pictures depicting trails of different impact as a
result of trail hardening and human trampling. Seven pictures were
of 'high impact' trails with a high level of use by hikers and vehicular
traffic. Three pictures were of 'low impact' trails, with two remaining
pictures showing boardwalk-hardened sites. Based on the photos,
respondents were asked what type of trail most appealed to them and
how they would rank the depicted trails on a seven-point scale (one
being very negative, four being a neutral mid-point and seven being very
positive). Table 5.3 shows how both populations rated the trail photos.
Not surprisingly, photos that showed high-impact trails were rated
more negatively than those with low impacts; but, what is equally impor-
tant is that the range was not that far below and above the neutral point
(4), respectively. There was no real difference in the ratings by residents
depending on whether or not their income was dependent on tourism.
Expectedly, high-impact trails were perceived more negatively compared
to low-impact trails. Surprisingly pictures with boardwalks were ranked
by both populations less positively than those showing low-impact trails.
( Continued )