Content uploaded by Ricardo M Nogueira Mendes
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ricardo M Nogueira Mendes on Sep 04, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
169
Session 4B Monitoring and management of mountain biking
Assessing technical trail features for mountain
biking: examples from four countries
Yu-Fai Leung, North Carolina State University, USA, Leung@ncsu.edu
Eick von Ruschkowski, University of Hannover, Germany, eick.vonruschkowski@nabu.de
Catherine Pickering, Grifth University, Australia, c.pickering@grifth.edu.au
Ricardo M. Nogueira Mendes, Portugal, rnmendes@fcsh.unl.pt
Chris Kollar, University of Montana, USA, chris.kollar@mso.umt.edu
Introduction
Mountain biking is an outdoor activity with growing popularity internationally. Prior to mid-1980s it was largely a North
American phenomenon, but since then mountain biking activities have emerged in most continents, mostly notable in
Australia and Europe (Webber, 2007; Pickering, et al., 2010b). e continued increase in mountain biking participation is
accompanied by diversifying riding styles, including trail riding, cross-country and freeriding. Each mountain biking style
is associated with dierent set of management issues. is presentation focuses on the management concerns about one
particular style of mountain biking – freeriding.
e key element of a freeriding experience is technical challenges (Webber, 2007). Mountain biking trails that traverse
rough terrains oer such opportunities naturally, but when challenging terrains are limited or non-existent human-made
trail technical features (TTFs) are often created to provide such experience. IMBA (2004) dened TTFs as obstacles on the
trail requiring negotiation and natural obstacles that add challenge by impeding travel or features introduced to the trail
to add technical challenge. While some TTFs are formally provided by public land agencies, many are built unocially
by mountain bikers using local or foreign materials. e existence and use of unocial TTFs raise management concerns
about potential ecological impacts and visitor safety, though such concerns can also be applied to their ocial counterparts
(Newsome and Davie, 2009; Pickering et al., 2010).
e purpose of this presentation is to provide the rst international overview of TTFs as an emerging visitor impact
management issue. Specically, we highlight and discuss results from initial assessments of TTFs from Australia, the United
States, Germany and Portugal.
Methods
Pickering et al. (2010a) published the rst detailed assessment protocol specically for TTFs. is protocol (TTF-v1)
consisted of 24 attributes in four broad categories, including TTF characteristics, site details, environmental impacts, and
safety/management issues. ey applied the protocol to the Blackbutt Forest in southeastern Queensland, Australia. Kollar
and Leung (2010) adapted TTF-v1 with a dierent sampling design, three additional assessment items (TTF generic type,
TTF naturalness and ground cover) and two modied items (TTF safety and canopy cover). is modied TTF assessment
protocol (TTF-v2) was applied to two urban-proximate mountain biking sites located in central North Carolina (Legend
Park) and Montana (Spencer Mountain) in the United States (Kollar, 2011). Subsequently, TTF-v2 was applied to the
Deister mountains near Hannover, Germany, a popular mountain biking destination and ecologically valuable NATURA
2000 protected area (Lehrke et al., 2010). A rapid assessment of TTFs was also conducted in Sintra-Cascais National Park
near Lisbon, Portugal. Due to logistical constraints only locations and TTF types were recorded on the Portuguese site.
Results
Direct quantitative comparisons of TTF assessment data across four countries are not feasible due to the preliminary nature
of this project, but some initial comparisons are possible as the assessment protocols (TTF-v1 and TTF-v2) had many
common assessment items. Below is a brief country summary.
Australia: A total of 116 TTFs of eight TTF types were identied. Jumps were found to be the most common TTF type.
Almost all features received good or moderate condition scores. ere was a direct association of TTFs with removal
of vegetation, soil, and rocks to construct TTFs. Other impacts include bare ground exposure and the introduction of
littering and foreign materials. ere were signicant dierences among the TTF types on size and dimensions of TTFs as
well as the extent of bare ground (Pickering et al, 2010a).
USA: A total of 287 natural and built TTFs were assessed in the two U.S. study sites, representing 14 dierent types of
TTFs. e most common TTF types in Legend Park (coastal plain site in North Carolina) site were bridges and drop-o
features, while jump features were most common in Spencer Mountain (montane site in Montana). Wood was the most
dominant material used for constructing TTFs on both sites. Two thirds of the TTFs were in good condition while a higher
170
MMV – Tallinn 2014
proportion of TTFs in Legend Park received lower safety ratings (Kollar, 2011). More TTFs were clustered to provide
continuous challenges on the montane site.
Europe (Germany and Portugal): TTF assessment data of the German and Portuguese sites are being compiled and only
limited information is available at the time of this writing. At the Deister site near Hannover, 103 natural and built
TTFs were identied. e most common TTF types included single or multiple ramps (59), berms (17) and hill-natural
terrain (13). Some TTFs are combinations of multiple types, such as ramp + berm. Soil and wood was the most common
construction material for TTFs. e Portuguese site (Sintra-Cascais National Park) was recently assessed. Four-nine TTFs
were identied on two popular mountain biking trails. e most common TTF types included bridges (19) and ramps/
jumps (15).
Discussion
is presentation provides the rst international look at trail technical features (TTFs) and hopefully stimulates research
attention and collaboration in this topic. e assessment results suggest that some TTF types are common across dierent
countries, such as jumps and bridges, and they are mostly built using natural materials collected from adjacent areas.
While some management concerns about TTFs such as safety are comparable, environmental and social impacts may vary
across countries due to dierences in terrains, ecosystems and user proles. Despite the contextual complexity, by applying
standardized assessment protocols researchers and managers can share and compare TTF data more directly and begin to
explore common issues and solutions. Such eorts will benet future planning and management of mountain bike trails
and sites.
IMBA (International Mountain Biking Association) (2004). Trail Solutions: IMBA’s Guide to Building Sweet Singletrack. Boulder, CO: IMBA.
Kollar, C. (2011). Characterizing Mountain Biking Use and Biophysical Impacts through Technical Trail Features: A Case Study of a
Montane and a Coastal Plain Site in the USA. M.S. Thesis. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.
Kollar, C., & Leung, Y.-F. (2010). Assessing and Understanding Environmental Impacts of Mountain Biking’s Technical Trail Features. Paper
presented at the Emerging Issues 3: Urban-Rural Interfaces, 11-13 April 2010. Atlanta, GA.
Lehrke, F., von Ruschkowski, E., & Ruter, S. (2010). Mountain Bikers, recreationists, land owners and conservationists: Multiple conicts
in Hannover’s Deister region. In: Goossen, M., Elands, B., & van Marwijk, R. (2010). (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas (MMV5) (pp. 56-57). Wageningen,
the Netherlands: Wageningen UR.
Newsome, D., & Davis, C. (2009). A case study in estimating the area of informal trail development and associated impacts caused by
mountain biking activity in John Forrest National Park, Western Australia. Journal of Ecotourism, 8, 237-253.
Pickering, C., Castley, J. G., Hill, W., & Newsome, D. (2010a). Environmental, safety and management issues of unauthorised trail technical
features for mountain bicycling. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97, 58-67.
Pickering, C. M., Hill, W., Newsome, D., & Leung, Y.-F. (2010b). Comparing hiking, mountain biking and horse riding impacts on vegetation
and soils in Australia and the United States of America. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 551-562.
Webber, P. (ed.) (2007). Managing Mountain Biking: IMBA’s Guide to Providing Great Riding. Boulder, CO: IMBA.
