Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
Case Study: Stakeholder Consensus Regarding
Trail Conditions in Lom and its Surrounding
Region, Norway (
Continued
)
Table 5.3
Mean ratings of trail photos by tourists and residents in and near Lom,
Norway
Residents
Income from
tourism
No income from
tourism
Tourists
Residents
High-impact trails
3.9
3.7
3.8
3.7
Mean range
3.1-4.7
2.9-4.5
3.4-4.4
2.8-4.6
Low-impact trails
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
Mean range
5.5-5.7
5.2-5.9
5.2-5.9
5.2-5.9
Boardwalks
4.7
4.1
4.2
4.1
Mean range
4.5-5.0
4.1-4.2
4.2-4.3
4.0-4.2
Note: Rating scale: (1) very negative, to (7) very positive.
Source: Adapted from Denstadli
et al.
(2010).
The authors noted some surprise given the ecological role that board-
walks play in keeping pressure off the ground. The only noticeable dif-
ference between tourist and resident perceptions was that tourists rated
the boardwalk photos more positively than residents did. Denstadli
et al.
(2010) explain this resident-tourist variance by suggesting that tourists
use the trails more often than residents do, so they appreciate the role
the boardwalks play, and that residents likely prefer to see trails in their
natural state, without human-built boardwalks. This case shows that
even when management tries to protect the pathway by putting down
a boardwalk, low impact is still preferred over hardening measures. This
implies that there is some degree of tolerance for mild physical impacts
on nature trails.
Positive physical impacts
There are several positive physical outcomes of trail impacts with respect
to tourism and recreation, although these are fewer in number. These include,
among other things, conservation, interpretation and education, urban
renewal, and utility easements (Jones, 1985). Many observers agree that rail-
trails are a significant improvement to the natural landscape than the dirtier
and less maintained railway lines that used to run before them (Iles & Wiele,
1993). In fact, they have the potential to help protect and enhance the
Search WWH ::
Custom Search