Tourism, Recreation and Trail Impacts - Tourism and Trails: Cultural, Ecological and Management Issues - page 144

Their fear has been primarily based on the potential ecological impacts of
trails in wilderness and other rural areas. According to Lambrecht (1999: 17),
'the explosive growth of horseback riding on trails . . . has provoked conser-
vationists, who say their human companions are spoiling lands where
people commonly gather and threatening even more sensitive tracks sup-
posedly off limits'. By the same token, the closure of public lands to off-
road vehicles and horses often results in confrontations between land
management agencies and the local horse industry and mountain bike
enthusiasts (Lambrecht, 1999).
In spite of their initial concerns, research has shown that once trail devel-
opment occurs, few of the residents' apprehensions materialize (Hedberg,
1989; Kaylen et al. , 1993). After sufficient time has passed, anxieties begin to
alleviate, and they typically begin to support the trails, even using them for
their own leisure pursuits. Parker and Moore (1998) found that nearby land-
owners who had used a trail tended to look at it more favorably, and some of
the people who had initially opposed it become trail supporters. As Table 5.5
illustrates, the percentage of people whose concerns have subsided a couple
of years after the Katy Trail was established grew considerably, suggesting
that the trail was not as negative as some opponents thought it would be.
While there was positive change for every issue, there were still some con-
cerns related to safety, noise and animal harassment.
Something rarely considered in the research literature but which is never-
theless very important is how people in the less-developed world perceive
trails and their use. Although trail-based trekking in Nepal has improved a
great deal in recent years from ecological and social perspectives, its incipient
stage during the 1980s and 1990s raised some important socio-economic

Table 5.5 Changes in landowners' attitudes

N Positive change Negative change Signifi cance level

Safety 124 23 20 0.38

Privacy 126 29 14 0.02

Noise 116 27 19 0.15

Theft 112 40 14 0.00

Animals 89 19 10 0.07

Vandalism 113 41 10 0.00

Trespass 125 39 12 0.00

Litter 123 42 14 0.00

Liability 122 24 9 0.01

Maintenance 120 43 12 0.00

Fire 117 35 13 0.00

Source: After Kaylen et al. (1993: 287).