Content uploaded by Ernesto Viveiros de Castro
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ernesto Viveiros de Castro on Aug 01, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
A PATH TO NATURE CONSERVATION: THE ROLE OF MEGA TRAILS IN
CONNECTING HIKERS, COMMUNITIES, AND LANDSCAPES
By
ERNESTO BASTOS VIVEIROS DE CASTRO
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2023
© 2023 Ernesto Bastos Viveiros de Castro
To all who work for nature conservation in Brazil,
who have faced even greater challenges in recent years
4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to my advisor Dr. Taylor Stein, who agreed to advise
me on the journey already half-traveled and was so supportive at all times. Taylor, your advice,
good humor, and permanent willingness to camp and enjoy the outdoors inspire me. I would also
like to thank the committee members, Dr. Martha Monroe, Dr. Robert Fletcher, and Dr. João
Pedro Ferreira, for your advice and comments, and patience in guiding me along new paths. Such
diverse expertise and willingness to help with work outside your respective areas of knowledge
were fundamental to guiding me in this multidisciplinary research. Martha, your advice and
careful reviews were really important to me. Rob, thanks for finding time to advice and
feedback, even during your sabbatical and fieldwork in Africa. João, thank you for the
conversations about the research, economy, politics, and life during these years (and for the
bolinhos de bacalhau, too!). Thanks to Dr. Lance Gravlee, Dr. Becky Williams, and Dr. John
Dain for insights into my research and my future work during courses. Thanks to Dr. Eben
Broadbent and Dr. Angelica Almeyda-Zambrano for their support in the application and at the
beginning of this journey. Thanks to Wayne Freimund and Stephen McCool for showing me, in
the now distant 2011, that tourism and recreation are also science, and their study can contribute
to nature conservation.
Thanks to ICMBio for the leave and the opportunity to take advantage of the dark years
of Bolsonaro government to update and improve my knowledge. I am especially grateful to my
colleagues at the Serra dos Órgãos and Tijuca national parks and to Katia Torres Ribeiro and
Silvana Canuto, who defended my proposal against attacks that foreshadowed the bad times to
come. Thanks also to all my colleagues who bravely faced the fight against the dismantling of
Brazilian environmental policy. FORA BOLSONARO!
5
Thanks also to my lawyer, Bruno Barata, for facing the denial of the anti-minister
Ricardo Salles and obtaining my authorization to travel. It was hard, at the last minute, but I hope
this dissertation shows that the effort was worth it.
Thanks to all my sponsors: the Tropical Conservation and Development Program
(TCD/UF), especially Bette Loiselle and Patricia Sampaio. Thanks for all the support! TCD
Community, your Latinity made me feel at home. Thanks to the UF School of Natural Resources
and Environments and the Robin E. Nadeau Research Award for funding, especially Karen Bray
and Christy LaPlante for all their support. Thanks to the USFS International Program, especially
Jayleen Vera, Suelene Couto, and Michelle Zweede. A long partnership that I hope will continue
for many years.
Thanks to all the “trail people”: the ATC, especially Leanna Joyner, Julie Judkins, Laura
Belleville, David Startzell, and Brian King; CDTC, especially Teresa Martinez; PCTA,
especially Jennifer Tripp; the AT Museum, Kurt Bodling; to everyone who welcomed and helped
me in the trail towns, especially Tuesday Pope (Damascus), Charmeine Wait (Silver City), and
Lori Roberts (Salida); to the trail managers, Ben Lara (USFS/CDT), Matt Robinson (NPS/AT),
Lindsey Steinwachs (USFS/PCT), and Becky Blanchard (USFS/PNT); to Mac
(Halfwayanywhere) for sharing his surveys and so much information about the world of mega
trails; to all hikers and local actors who contributed with their information and perceptions, told
stories and were interested in the research. Thanks to the National Park Service for the permits to
research in Great Smoky Mountains, Crater Lake and Glacier, especially to Paul Super
(Smokies), and Heidi Barker and Wendy Wayne (Crater Lake). My special thanks to all the
partners and volunteers who share the dream with me and build the Atlantic Forest Trail: “People
6
in the hearth of the forest, the Atlantic Forest in the hearth of people”, and all of you in my
hearth too.
Thanks to my family and friends. To all my colleagues at UF, especially to the “bubble
Brazilians vaccinated" by partnership and company, especially during the hard quarantine of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Thanks to my friends of life: from Senador, CEAT, Biologia UFRJ, and
Boldo FC. You kept Brazil close. Thanks to my mom, Solange, and my daughter, Julia, for
always being by my side, even far away. Thanks also to my brave camper van, which
accompanied me over 30K km, 34 US States, and 37 National Parks and helped turn challenging
fieldwork into enjoyable trips.
Finally, the most important: thanks to Nina, who invented this whole story and was
always my partner on this journey. Te amo!
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4
LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................10
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................11
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................13
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................14
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................16
1.1 US National Scenic Trails ................................................................................................18
1.2 Mega Trails Worldwide ....................................................................................................20
1.3 Mega Trails as Conservation Tools ..................................................................................21
1.4 Conceptual Framework and General Research Questions ................................................23
1.5 Dissertation Structure .......................................................................................................25
2 THE ROLE OF MEGA TRAILS IN CREATING MEANING AND SENSE OF
PLACE TO CONSERVE LARGE LANDSCAPES ..............................................................29
2.1 Background and Hypotheses ............................................................................................31
2.2 Methods ............................................................................................................................35
2.2.1 Study Areas ............................................................................................................35
2.2.2 Participants and Data Collection ............................................................................36
2.2.3 Procedures and Measurements ...............................................................................37
2.2.3.1 Sense of place ...............................................................................................37
2.2.3.2 Sense of place spatial scale ..........................................................................38
2.2.4 Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................39
2.3 Results ...............................................................................................................................40
2.3.1 Profile of Respondents ...........................................................................................40
2.3.2 Research Question 1: Hike Duration’s Relationship with Sense Of Place and
its Spatial Scale ............................................................................................................41
2.3.3 Research Question 2: Motivation Relationship with Sense of Place and its
Spatial Scale .................................................................................................................43
2.3.4 Research Question 3: Section Popularity Relationship with Sense of Place and
its Spatial Scale ............................................................................................................44
2.4 Discussion .........................................................................................................................44
2.4.1 Hike Duration and Sense of Place ..........................................................................45
2.4.2 Motivation and Brand Effect ..................................................................................47
2.4.3 Section Popularity ..................................................................................................51
2.4.4 Limitations and Further Research ..........................................................................52
8
2.5 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................53
3 CAN SENSE OF PLACE PROMOTE PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS? ............61
3.1 Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Formulation ....................................................62
3.1.1 Sense of Place .........................................................................................................62
3.1.2 Pro-Environmental Behaviors ................................................................................63
3.1.3 Connection to Nature ..............................................................................................65
3.1.4 Conceptual Model and Hypotheses ........................................................................66
3.2 Methods ............................................................................................................................68
3.2.1 Study Areas ............................................................................................................68
3.2.2 Data Collection .......................................................................................................69
3.2.3 Procedures and Constructs Measurement ...............................................................70
3.2.3.1 Sense of place scale ......................................................................................71
3.2.3.2 Pro-environmental behavior and intentions scales .......................................72
3.2.3.3 Connection to nature scale ...........................................................................73
3.2.4 Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................74
3.3 Results ...............................................................................................................................75
3.3.1 Factor Analyses ......................................................................................................76
3.3.2 Full Structural Model .............................................................................................77
3.4 Discussion .........................................................................................................................78
3.4.1 Constructs, Dimensions, and Scales .......................................................................78
3.4.2 Relationships Between Sense of Place, Connection to Nature, and Pro-
Environmental Behaviors.............................................................................................80
3.4.3 Implications for Conservation ................................................................................82
3.4.4 Limitations and Future Directions ..........................................................................82
3.5 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................84
4 A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PERCEPTIONS ON THE ROLE OF MEGA
TRAILS IN GATEWAY COMMUNITIES’ ECONOMY AND IDENTITY .......................93
4.1 Methods ............................................................................................................................96
4.1.1 Exploratory Research and Hypotheses Development ............................................96
4.1.2 Study Areas ............................................................................................................97
4.1.3 Interviews, Processing and Data Analysis ............................................................100
4.2 Results .............................................................................................................................103
4.3 Discussion and Conclusions ...........................................................................................105
4.3.1 Influence of Trail Town Programs on Perceptions ...............................................105
4.3.2 Influence of the Economic Importance of Tourism on Perceptions .....................109
4.3.3 Influence of Previous Experiences on Perception ................................................111
4.3.4 Perceptions About Negative Impacts ...................................................................113
4.3.5 Limitations and Further Research ........................................................................115
4.3.6 Outcomes and Implications for Trail Planning and Management ........................117
5 DOES THE APPALACHIAN TRAIL CONTRIBUTE TO LANDSCAPE
CONNECTIVITY? ...............................................................................................................126
9
5.1 Methods ..........................................................................................................................129
5.1.1 Study Area ............................................................................................................129
5.1.2 Research on the ATC Magazine Collection .........................................................130
5.1.3 Landscape Analyses .............................................................................................131
5.1.3.1 Legal Protection of the AT Corridor ..........................................................131
5.1.3.2 Landscape Connectivity .............................................................................132
5.4 Results .............................................................................................................................137
5.4.1 A Brief History of the Appalachian Trail Corridor ..............................................137
5.4.2 Protected Areas Coverage Along the AT Corridor ..............................................140
5.4.3 Temporal Changes in Resistance to Movement Along the AT ............................141
5.4.4 Extension of Trail Influence on Connectivity ......................................................142
5.5 Discussion .......................................................................................................................143
5.5.1 Influence of the Appalachian Trail in Protected Area Designation .....................143
5.5.2 Influence of the Appalachian Trail on Connectivity ............................................145
5.5.3 Implications for Trail Management and Landscape Conservation .......................149
5.5.4 Limitations and Further Research ........................................................................152
6 CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................163
APPENDICES
A SURVEY APPLIED TO HIKERS (CHAPTERS 2 AND 3) ...............................................169
B SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS GUIDE – LOCAL KEY ACTORS .......................181
C UF INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD EXEMPT APPROVALS .................................185
D NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RESEARCH PERMITS .....................................................188
LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................202
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................232
10
LIST OF TABLES
Table page
2-1 Internal Consistency of Sense of Place scale .....................................................................56
2-2 Hikers’ demographic profiles by trail ................................................................................57
2-3 One-way ANOVA, pairwise comparisons, and effect sizes for hike duration ..................59
2-4 T-tests for motivation .........................................................................................................60
2-5 T-tests for section popularity .............................................................................................60
3-1 EFA results with Sense of Place items factor loadings and total variance explained .......87
3-2 Pro-Environmental Behavior items tested and EFA results for CDT and PCT .................88
3-3 Mean values of hikers' responses for each construct .........................................................88
3-4 Confirmatory factor and reliability analysis ......................................................................89
3-5 Direct effects in structural model tests ...............................................................................91
3-6 Test for Mediation using Bootstrap Analysis ....................................................................92
4-1 Trail towns and their geographic and demographic contexts ..........................................120
4-2 Conditions, outcomes, and thresholds for each town. .....................................................121
4-3 Truth Table grouping towns with similar conditions and outcomes................................121
4-4 QCA results for positive outcomes after Boolean minimization and remainders. ..........122
4-5 Illustrative quotes of predominant perceptions in each town. .........................................123
5-1 Costs to potential movements in each raster layer. ..........................................................155
5-2 Total protected area by GAP-status and their proportional coverage of the corridors
of different widths and in the study region in 1918, 1968, and 2018 ..............................157
5-3 Cumulative costs along the Appalachian Trail and the Least-Cost Path in before and
after scenarios ..................................................................................................................160
5-4 Average resistances over time, and paired t-test results for resistance changes at
different corridor widths along the Appalachian Trail (AT) and in control areas ...........160
11
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page
1-1 Conceptual framework showing the relationships between natural environments, trail
users, and local communities around mega trails. .............................................................28
2-1 Map of the Triple Crown of Hiking (trails in red) showing the sections sampled:
popular sections (orange circles) and moderately used sections (green circles).
aBasemap from ESRI ArcGIS ............................................................................................55
2-2 Means of SoP and SSP by hike duration with 95% confidence intervals estimated
with BCa bootstrapping with 1,000 repetitions. ................................................................58
2-3 Heatmaps showing the “places that matters” for hikers surveyed in the Northern
Appalachian Trail sections: Clarendon Gorge (moderately used; circle) and
Killington Peak (popular; triangle). *Basemaps from ESRI ArcGIS. ................................58
2-4 Means of SoP and SSP graphs by motivation with 95% confidence intervals
estimated with BCa bootstrapping with 1,000 repetitions. ................................................59
2-5 Means of SoP and SSP graphs by section popularity with 95% confidence intervals
estimated with BCa bootstrapping with 1,000 repetitions. ................................................60
3-1 Conceptual model and hypotheses (Hx) on the relationships between sense of place
and pro-environmental behavior (dark gray arrows), including their subdimensions
(dashed light gray arrows) and connection to nature as possible mediators. .....................86
3-2 Full structural models associating the constructs (ellipses), including the variables
contributing to each construct (rectangles) and residual errors (circles). In light grey
constructs and variables excluded in the second structural model (values in
parentheses correspond to the second structural model after excluding variables that
did not meet the criteria). * Significant values at p<0.01 level in bold. ............................91
4-1 Map of the Triple Crown of Hiking (trails in red) showing the communities studied:
designated trail towns popular sections (green circles) and non-trail town (orange
circles). aBasemap from ESRI ArcGIS. ...........................................................................120
4-2 Trail brands in gateway communities – A: The At brand on sidewalks and walls in
Damascus; B: Damascus Visitor center; C: AT Community sign; D: AT brand in
wall art; E/F: AT brand in local business; G: Mural in Silver City Visitor Center; H:
CDT Gateway Community sign; I: CDT in a highway sign; J: Mammoth sign not
mentioning PCT; K: Hiker friendly business along the PCT (Kennedy Meadows,
CA); L: PCT sign in Cascade Locks (OR). Photos by E.B. Viveiros de Castro. .............125
5-1 Buffers along the Appalachian Trail (300m, 2 km, and 10 km wide corridors) with
existing protected areas in 1918, 1968, and 2018. Colors represent GAP-Status: 1
(dark green), 2 (leaf green); 3 (light green); and 4 (orange). ...........................................154
12
5-2 Before-After-Control-Intervention (BACI) comparison with matched samples. A:
buffers around random points along the AT and control paired points selected
randomly with similar land use, elevation, and slopes; B: Resistance map of point
AT 70 with 300m, 2km, and 10km diameter buffers in before scenario; C: Point AT
70 in after scenario; D: Point Control 70 in before scenario; E: Point Control 70 in
after scenario. ...................................................................................................................156
5-3 Protected area coverage (%) considering different corridor widths along the
Appalachian Trail (300m, 2km, and 10km) and in the whole study region (200 km)
at three moments in time (1918, 1968, and 2018). ..........................................................158
5-4 Appalachian Trail (black line) and Least-Cost Path (blue line) over the Resistance
map for before scenario, showing proximity between them in the South and North
parts and the distance in the Central part. ........................................................................159
5-5 Change in land use along the Appalachian Trail (black line) in eastern New York
from 1974 to 2012 showing that very low-use areas only remain along a narrow AT
corridor. Land use intensity ranges from 1 to 13, following the land use classes from
Table 1. ............................................................................................................................161
5-6 The narrow AT corridor in the Cumberland Valley and adjacent croplands. A: aerial
image of Google Earth Pro on 8/14/2022; B: AT crossing York Road; and C: AT
entering the tree corridor and corn fields (B and C photos by Ernesto V. Castro on
5/8/2021). .........................................................................................................................162
13
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AT
Appalachian Trail
ATC
Appalachian Trail Conservancy
CDT
Continental Divide Trail
CDTC
Continental Divide Trail Coalition
CN
Connection to Nature
GIS
Geographic Information System
GR
Grande Randonée or Gran Recorrido
IUCN
International Union for Conservation of Nature
NP
National Park
NPS
National Park Service
NST
US National Scenic Trails
PCT
Pacific Crest Trail
PCTA
Pacific Crest Trail Association
PEB
Pro-Environmental Behavior
SoP
Sense of Place
SSP
Sense of Place Spatial Scale index
TT
Trail Town
US
United States of America
USFS
Unites States Forest Service
WTN
World Trails Network
14
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
A PATH TO NATURE CONSERVATION: THE ROLE OF MEGA TRAILS IN
CONNECTING HIKERS, COMMUNITIES, AND LANDSCAPES
By
Ernesto Bastos Viveiros de Castro
August 2023
Chair: Taylor V. Stein
Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology
Trail advocates argue that trails promote contact with nature, generate economic benefits
for communities, and raise awareness about the importance of nature conservation. Mega trails,
thousands of kilometers long crossing different regions, could spread these benefits for extensive
landscapes, protecting important ecological and climate corridors. However, these benefits are
poorly supported, and few studies evaluated whether these trails show effective conservation
outcomes. This study uses a multidisciplinary approach to explore these outcomes and assess if
mega trails are effective conservation tools. Based on extensive surveys and interviews along the
three most renowned US national scenic trails – NST (Appalachian, Pacific Crest, and
Continental Divide Trail) the influence of these trails on hikers, local communities, and
landscapes is investigated. Regarding hikers, the results suggest that the longer the hiking
experience, the stronger and broader the sense of place. Hikers motivated by NSTs present a
stronger and broader sense of place, and this difference occurs even among day hikers,
suggesting a brand effect. Mega trails help create meaning for extensive landscapes, facilitating
the understanding of large-scale ecological processes. However, the path leading from sense of
place to support for conservation and pro-environmental behavior is complex and seems to be
mediated by a connection to nature as a whole. Mega trails also influence residents’ perceptions
15
of trail benefits. Initiatives such as trail town programs and personal experiences influence the
gateway communities’ residents’ perceptions more than economic benefits. The engagement of
hikers, communities, and other actors to protect trail corridors, scenic views, and landscapes
results in legal protection, land acquisition, and other land use actions. Trails with a high level of
mobilization result in greater landscape connectivity and can be large corridors to allow species
range shifts in response to climate change and habitat destruction. These findings suggest some
guidelines for mega trail implementation worldwide, such as investing in the association of trail
brands with geographical features or ecoregions and alternate routes to reach a diverse audience.
Overall, when properly managed, mega trails seem to contribute to people’s awareness,
community engagement, and habitat connectivity, corroborating the discourse in favor of mega
trails as conservation tools.
16
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Since its origin, humankind has used trails to move between different environments for
basic activities such as gathering food and interacting with other groups. Initially done on foot,
new means were developed for overland travel, from horses and carts to trains and cars. Trail
networks were gradually replaced by railroads and highways as the main transport routes
(Kaszynski, 2000). The process of industrialization and urbanization over the last 200 years
heavily impacted the relationship between people and natural environments and resulted in a
progressive alienation from nature (Bogert et al., 2022; Zylstra et al., 2014). In recent decades,
the rise in the use of electronic devices (Pergams & Zaradic, 2006) and poorly designed dense
urban settings (Hartig et al., 2014) further compound the problem by making it more difficult to
experience nature. The problems arising from this alienation have been emphasized in terms such
as extinction of experience (Pyle, 2003) and nature-deficit disorder (Louv, 2005). Reconnecting
humans to nature is seen as strategic for mitigating the environmental crisis (Tam, 2013).
If in the past trails were present in everyone's routine, being essential for accomplishing
essential tasks, today they stand out more as an opportunity for recreation and outdoor
experiences. They are the most basic element to provide opportunities of contact with natural
environments. Hiking is the simplest of natural outdoor activities, being accessible in terms of
the skills and equipment needed (Mitten et al., 2016). It is practiced by millions of people
worldwide, and because of its low speed allows closer contact with the environment. The recent
restrictions and confinement measures necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic encouraged
people to seek nearby natural environments and further reinforced the growth trend of these
activities (Hansen et al., 2022; Morse et al., 2020). Furthermore, there is ample evidence that
nature-based experiences positively affect human health and well-being (Brymer et al., 2010;
17
Naidoo et al., 2019), even having a major economic impact on health spending and work
productivity (Buckley et al., 2019).
Trails can be seen as facilities to access an attraction or as attractions themselves (Moore
& Shafer, 2001). They can be defined by their scope (historical, cultural, nature), settings
(natural, rural, urban), scale (different lengths), and surface (paved, natural, water), but they are
“essentially a visible linear pathway of many varieties, which is evident on the ground and which
may have at its roots an original and historical linear transport or travel function” (Timothy &
Boyd, 2015, p. 4). In a more management-oriented definition, a trail is “a linear corridor, on land
or water, with protected status and public access for recreation or transportation” (American
Trails, 1990, p.2).
Regarding the scale, trails can vary from a few meters to thousands of kilometers
(Timothy & Boyd, 2015). The widely used term long-distance trail (Amerson et al., 2020; Moore
& Barthlow, 1998; Stender et al., 2018) sounds intuitive. However, it is subjective and
encompasses everything from trails of only tens of kilometers (Cook, 2008; Sarmiento et al.,
2002) to thousands of kilometers long that require months to be completed (Fondren &
Brinkman, 2022). Long trails often receive designations such as regional, national, or
transnational (Timothy & Boyd, 2015). However, these classifications are unrelated to length
and may also vary with the size of each country. Timothy & Boyd (2015) used the term mega
trail to describe paths thousands of kilometers long crossing more than one region or country.
Seeking a more objective definition, here I adopt the term mega trail for trails longer than a
thousand kilometers, requiring at least 30 days to be thru-hiked, and crossing different
ecoregions, biomes, or political borders, such as regions or countries.
18
1.1 US National Scenic Trails
Mega trails aimed at outdoor experiences have the Appalachian Trail as a global
landmark. The proposal presented by forester Benton MacKaye (1921) started from the idea of
connecting existing trails in the White Mountains (New Hampshire) and the Green Mountains
(Vermont). The trail that would eventually cross the entire Appalachian Mountains, some 3,500
km, was part of a regional planning vision. Socialist-inspired (L. Anderson, 2002), the paper
questioned the little paid rest time of workers, highlighted the importance of contact with nature
for health, and proposed autonomous communities along the trail to create rural jobs, in an
attempt to reverse the intense urbanization and promote local development in settlements with
limited numbers of people (MacKaye, 1921).
These early trails were managed voluntarily by mountaineering clubs such as the
Appalachian Mountain Club and the Green Mountain Club. Led by MacKaye, these and other
groups founded the Appalachian Trail Conference in 1925 (King et al., 2000). Propelled by
Civilian Conservation Corps, work fronts created to generate jobs during the Great Recession,
the trail was completed in 1937 (Mittlefehldt, 2013). In 1948, Earl Shaffer was the first to hike
the entire AT in a single journey (King et al., 2000). Since then, the number of people attempting
to thru-hike the AT exceeds 4,000 per season, and an estimated three million people visit at least
one AT section annualy (ATC, 2023b).
Also in the 1930s, the Pacific Crest Trail, proposed by Clinton Clarke, began to be
implemented (Elkinton et al., 2008). Traveling 4,265 km near the US Western Coast, between
the borders with Mexico and Canada, the PCT crosses seven national parks, including the
renowned Yosemite, Crater Lake, and Mount Rainier (Goldenberg & Soule, 2014). The trail was
thru-hiked for the first time in 1970 by Eric Ryback (Livermore, 2014) and considered fully
19
implemented in 1993 (Wilson & Belote, 2022). About 800 people thru-hike the PCT annually
(PCTA, 2023).
In 1968, AT and PCT were recognized as National Scenic Trails (NSTs) by the National
Trail System Act, which also created other categories, such as historical and recreation trails,
with the objective of providing “simple, inexpensive recreation opportunities for all people by
having an abundance of trails for walking, cycling, and horseback riding near home, as well as
providing some major historic and scenic interstate trails of national significance” (Elkinton et
al., 2008, p. 1). Another 14 trails were indicated for studies and future inclusion in the system.
Among them is the Continental Divide Trail, designated in 1978 (Wilson & Belote, 2022). Still
considered unfinished due to tracts along highways, the CDT is 4,873 km-long (Elkinton et al.,
2008). Just over 150 people successfully thru-hike the CDT annually, and this number is
increasing (CDTC, 2023b). These three mega trails cross the United States from north to south,
following great mountain ranges. They are considered “The Triple Crown of Hiking” in the US
(Wilson & Belote, 2022) and are on the wish list of many hikers worldwide.
In 2023, the US National Trail System has 11 national scenic trails, nine longer than
1,000 km, which would fit this definition of mega trails. In addition to the “Triple Crown”
already mentioned, they are North Country (6,760 km, designated in 1980), Ice Age (1,600 km,
1980), Potomac Heritage (1,770 km, 1983), Florida (2,250 km, 1983), Arizona ( 1,300 km,
2009), and Pacific Northwest (1,930 km, 2009). Some of these trails have yet to be fully
implemented, such as the North Country trail, which has about 50% of its route open for public
use (NPS, 2023b).
20
1.2 Mega Trails Worldwide
Inspired by the AT example, indigenous paths, Roman roads, historical routes, and nature
trails have been connected and structured as mega trails worldwide for the past 100 years
(Stender et al., 2018). In Europe, Hungary began implementing the Országos Kéktúra, meaning
Blue Trail due to to the color used in signs, in 1938 (Molnár, 2022). It crosses 1,128 km between
the borders of Austria and Slovakia, passing through Budapest. Networks of ancient Roman and
medieval roads and park trails in France and Spain are recognized by the mountain sports
national federations and named Grande Randonée or Gran Recorrido — GR, meaning long trail.
It is possible to follow the entire Pyrenees mountain range from the Mediterranean to the
Atlantic coast on GR–10, on the French side, or the GR–11 on the Spanish side (Mauri, 1994;
Siroux, 1968). In 1969, many of these trails were connected in an international network with 12
mega trails called the E-paths, totaling 55,000 kilometers in 22 countries (ERA, 2022). The
famous Camino de Santiago de Compostela, a pilgrimage route for centuries connecting different
paths between France and Spain that today is one of the most popular mega trails worldwide, is
the GR–65 and part of the E-3 (Gallegos et al., 2005). The Bechyne Declaration, from the
European Ramblers Association, establishes criteria for integrating E-paths and other trails but
values historic trails and previous initiatives and recognizes different signaling systems as
cultural heritage (ERA, 2004).
In New Zealand, many overnight trails known as the Great Walks, such as the Milford
Track and the Tongariro Alpine Crossing, are connected by the Te Araroa Trail. The 3,000 km-
long trail traverses the North and South Islands. Proposed in 1967 (Chapple, 2001), the trail was
officially opened in 2011 and is thru-hiked by more than 1,000 people annually (TAT, 2019). In
Australia, there are mega trails for hikers, bikers, and horse riders. The longest is the National
21
Trail, proposed in 1972, is 5,330 km long following the Eastern Coast but only a few hikers
hiked the entire trail (BNT, 2023). The Bibbulmun Track, in the Southwest, is a 1,000 km-long
trail proposed in 1972 and thru-hiked by more than 100 people per year (BTF, 2023). In Japan,
the Tokai Nature Trail was proposed in 1969 (Oi, 1969) and is 1,697 km long. Soon after, in
1970, the 2,932 km Kyushu Nature Trail was created. Today, Japan has a network of mega trails
totaling almost 28,000 km (TNT, 2023).
In South America, mega trails are still in their infancy. The Sendero de Chile, with 6500
km following the Andes from north to south of the country, began to be implemented in 2000 but
stopped at about 1,500 km broken up into many sections. Due to difficulties with land tenure and
other issues, the project today focuses on promoting contact with nature, but without the
intention of building a continuous foot-track (FSC, 2023). In Brazil, The Atlantic Forest Trail
was proposed in 2012, following the Southern Atlantic Coast and the Serra do Mar Mountain
Range. The 4,270 km-long trail was conceived as an ecological corridor to reconnect forest
fragments in one of the most threatened biodiversity hotspots (Grelle et al., 2021; Viveiros de
Castro et al., 2021). In 2018, the Brazilian Trail Network was created to connect several existing
long-distance trails (Gonçalves, 2021). All these initiatives motivated the creation of the World
Trails Network in 2012. This organization brings trail associations, advocates, hikers, and
researchers to promote creating, enhancing, and protecting outstanding trail experiences (WTN,
2023).
1.3 Mega Trails as Conservation Tools
Advocates argue that trails are conservation tools by promoting closer contact with
nature, raising awareness about the importance of nature conservation, protecting important
ecological corridors, and generating economic benefits for small communities, (ATC, 2023a;
22
Cerveny et al., 2020). If the pioneer Benton Mackaye already mentioned the importance of
contact with nature and the AT as a regional development strategy (MacKaye, 1921), the
perception of the role of trail corridors in connecting natural areas emerged much later (ATC,
2023a, 1964a, 1975). The Island Biogeography theory (MacArthur & Wilson, 1967) proposes
that the size of islands and their isolation determines the species richness in a given area. Its
application to forest patches in landscapes fragmented by human activities drew attention to the
importance of habitat connectivity and ecological corridors to conserve forest-dwelling species
(Saunders & Hobbs, 1991; Taylor et al., 1993).
The growing awareness and concern about climate change have drawn the attention of
wildlife biologists to the potential of mega trails as climate corridors (Hunter Jr. et al., 1988).
Trails with a predominant poleward orientation, such as the US Triple Crown and the Atlantic
Forest Trail, can allow species range shifts in response to climate change (Carroll et al., 2018;
Grelle et al., 2021). This view of mega trails as conservation tools has gained momentum in
recent years. In 2000, the ATC proposed the AT Mega Transect, an initiative involving
researchers and citizen scientists to monitor the AT corridor (Dufour & Crisfield, 2008), which
evolved into the AT Landscape Partnership (Igelman, 2017b). In 2019, the IUCN created the
Trails and Conservation Working Group to discuss long-distance trails as conservation tools
(WCPA-IUCN, 2023), and in 2022, the World Trails Network created the Trails & Conservation
Task Team (WTN, 2023).
Despite the growing attention, few studies have evaluated whether mega trails show
effective conservation outcomes, considering the effects on users, local communities, and
landscape connectivity. Much of the accumulated knowledge is empirical, based only on claims
by trail advocates (Decker, 2020; Godtman Kling et al., 2017; Moore & Barthlow, 1998). Most
23
studies that address the effects of trails on the environment focus on negative impacts at a local
scale, such as trail soil erosion or compaction, trail widening, or avoidance by animals (Godtman
Kling et al., 2017; Kays et al., 2017; Marion et al., 2016). Some studies assess environmental
integrity (McKinley et al., 2019) or connectivity (Wilson & Belote, 2022) along mega trails but
only report the current situation without evaluating the influence of the trails themselves on the
degree of conservation of these landscapes. Filling this knowledge gap about the benefits and
role of mega trails as large-scale conservation tools is important to assess the extent to which
they are helpful conservation strategies and to guide investments.
1.4 Conceptual Framework and General Research Questions
The present investigation explores the contributions of mega trails to nature conservation,
seeking to answer if they are a valid strategy to promote the conservation of extensive
landscapes. Three elements stand out in the relationship between mega trail and nature
conservation: trail users, local communities, and the natural environments (Figure 1-1). These
elements of highly interdependent and generate a variety of feedback that impact society and
ecosystems at a variety of scales, and that will be analyzed and discussed in the following
chapters.
Natural environments are the setting where the trails are implemented and provide several
direct and indirect benefits for users and residents, the so-called ecosystem services (Huynh et
al., 2022). This study focuses on cultural ecosystem services, represented by opportunities for
recreation and leisure, personal development, social relations, and aesthetic experiences (Huynh
et al., 2022). Users and, mainly, residents are also favored by provisioning services (water,
wood, etc.), regulating services (climate regulation, water purification), and supporting services
(soil formation, nutrient cycling, etc.) (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
24
Through recreational opportunities in natural environments, users can develop a sense of
place and support landscape conservation (Cerveny et al., 2020). Hikers also spend money on
products and services near the trail, generating income and economic opportunities in so-called
gateway communities, small towns near major tourist attractions (Stoker et al., 2021). These
communities, in turn, are at the same time beneficiaries of these economic activities and often
the creators of these routes since most of them originates from historical use by local people
(Moore & Shafer, 2001). The social exchange theory (Emerson, 1976) proposes that tourism's
positive and negative impacts influence residents' perception of this activity. According to the
stakeholder theory (Honey, 1999), economic incentives from tourism induce local people to
adopt pro-environmental behavior, conserving lands and supporting their conservation (Figure 1-
1).
Some of these subjects have already been evaluated for trails, but not in an integrated
way and never focusing on mega trails. Due to their scale, these trails have a particular dynamic,
promoting experiences ranging from a few hours to several months and reaching different
audiences (Fondren & Brinkman, 2022). The economic and social effects are also dispersed
across dozens of gateway communities, which on the one hand, mitigates known social problems
in these towns (McMahon, 1999; Stoker et al., 2021) and, on the other hand, limits their
economic benefits. It needs to be clarified to what extent experiences on the mega trails affect
the perception of the landscape by hikers and local communities and whether specific actions to
protect the trail corridor and the visitor experience throughout history have had significant
effects on landscape connectivity.
From this conceptual framework, in this study, I explore three general research questions
combining different approaches:
25
1. Do experiences on mega trails influence hikers' relationship with these environments and
landscapes (e.g., sense of place) and generate pro-environmental behaviors?
2. Do mega trails influence local communities’ economies, identities, and relationships with
natural environments?
3. Do mega trails, engagement, and processes around them affect the conservation of their
corridors and influence landscape connectivity?
1.5 Dissertation Structure
Given its multidimensional matter, nature conservation is influenced by physical,
ecological, and socioeconomical aspects (Cumming et al., 2015; Ditmer et al., 2022). This study
uses a mix of socioeconomic and ecological approaches, combining qualitative and quantitative
data from hikers and residents with GIS and historical data, to answer the general research
questions. This investigation addresses the three most renowned US National Scenic Trails (AT,
PCT, and CDT), known as “the Triple Crown of Hiking.” I drove through the three trails,
covering about 30,000 km and visiting dozens of trailheads and trail towns, and hiked about 300
km to get a general perception and evaluation of the trails, the landscapes, and the people related
to them. In six sections of each trail, I interviewed hikers (602 total), and in 10 towns I
interviewed local key actors, as well as trail managers from the US Forest Service and the
National Park Service and the non-profits that co-manage each of the trails (total 52). I also
visited the headquarters of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy (Harpers Ferry, WV) and the AT
Museum (Gardners, PA) to consult documents and staff and identify places where mobilization
and direct intervention to conserve the trail corridor occurred, which were visited as much as
possible.
Chapter 2 discusses how experiences on mega trails are related to the sense of place
(Williams & Stewart, 1998) and its spatial scale. Based on 602 on-site interviews with hikers, I
used structured questionnaires with open questions, five point scales heat maps to investigate
26
whether direct experiences in mega trails create a sense of place and place meaning (Manzo,
2005) for large landscapes, bringing landscapes into people’s perceptible realms (Gobster et al.,
2007). If so, mega trails could play a role in large landscape conservation. Going further, I
discuss whether this meaning can be transferred to similar areas and reach day visitors through a
brand effect (Swait & Erdem, 2007), extending the effects to a much wider audience than long-
distance hikers.
In Chapter 3, I continue to follow the path between experience and civic actions in favor
of nature conservation, exploring how the sense of place is related to several pro-environmental
behaviors (Steg & Vlek, 2009). Using the same survey, structural equation modeling (Nunnaly &
Bernstein, 1994) was used to test whether there is a direct relationship between these two
constructs or whether a connection to nature (Tam, 2013) is a partial or full mediator between
them and some of their subdimensions. Since pro-environmental behaviors include a wide range
of actions (Larson et al., 2015), the model assesses the relationships between sense of place and
connection to nature and different behavior sets, such as place-related behavior intentions and
actual daily behaviors. Together, chapters 2 and 3 seek to cover the path from mega trail
experience to pro-environmental behaviors and conservation support.
Chapter 4 focuses on the relationship between local communities and trails. Based on the
social exchange theory, I use semi-structured interviews with 47 local key actors (sensu Ap,
1992) to assess their perceptions of the importance of trails to the local economy and identity,
and eventual negative impacts. Using qualitative comparative analysis (Rihoux & Ragin, 2009), I
identify patterns and the factors that best explain the prevailing perception in each community.
The influence of participation in Trail Town programs (Camp, 2020), the measured economic
importance of tourism, and personal experiences with the trail on the actors' perceptions are
27
analyzed to see to what extent perceptions are influenced by objective or subjective factors. In
the discussion, I also explore some emerging themes related to the perception about hikers,
conflicts, and residents' self-esteem and compare the contexts of different trails and trail town
programs seeking to guide actions of management and engagement.
Chapter 5 discusses the role of mega trails as ecological corridors, based on a case study
on the Appalachian Trail. It evaluates to what extent civic actions of users and public managers
to conserve the trail corridor and conservationist concerns incorporated into trail management
positively affects connectivity. The chapter includes a review of the collection of magazines
published since 1939 by the Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC) to identify actions in favor of
trail and landscape conservation, relevant time frames, and incorporation of the conservationist
discourse by the ATC. Based on relevant time frames, such as the National Trail System Act
(1968), GIS analysis is used to compare the landscape resistance (R. Fletcher & Fortin, 2018)
along the corridor in the past with current times. Based on before-after-control-intervention
analysis, I assess whether the AT significantly influenced the scenario. Corridors with different
widths around the AT are compared to determine the extent of possible trail effects on the
landscape.
Finally, I conclude the dissertation by combining the key findings from the different
chapters. This chapter focuses on answering the general question about the contribution of mega
trails to nature conservation, discusses their potential and limitations, and identifies guidelines
for making mega trails worldwide more effective as conservation tools.
28
Figure 1-1. Conceptual framework showing the relationships between natural environments, trail
users, and local communities around mega trails.
29
CHAPTER 2
THE ROLE OF MEGA TRAILS IN CREATING MEANING AND SENSE OF PLACE TO
CONSERVE LARGE LANDSCAPES
Industrialization and urbanization over the last 200 years resulted in progressive
alienation from nature, and many authors associate this “human/nature hyperseparation” with the
environmental crisis we face (Bogert et al., 2022; Zylstra et al., 2014). Even with the projected
scenario of climate change (Shukla et al., 2019) and severe loss of biodiversity (Maxwell et al.,
2016), the efforts and resources globally committed to nature conservation are limited (Butchart
et al., 2010; McCarthy et al., 2012). Generating awareness and obtaining social support for
nature conservation is a valuable strategy to face this crisis (Marvier & Wong, 2012; J. R. Miller,
2005).
Although the process that leads a person to adopt pro-environmental behaviors is
complex, several authors highlight the development of a meaningful connection to natural areas -
a sense of place - as one of its critical elements (e.g., Vorkinn & Riese, 2001; Walker & Ryan,
2008). Williams & Stewart (1998) define sense of place as "a collection of meanings, beliefs,
symbols, values, and feelings that individuals or groups associate with a particular locality"
(p.19). Creating meaning for a locality can be an individual or collective process and be
influenced by childhood and youth experiences, residence, or use time, among other factors
(Altman & Low, 1992; Lewicka, 2011). Although the creation of meaning for a place is more
frequently based on direct experiences (Moore & Graefe, 1994; Proshansky & Fabian, 1987),
this process can also occur in the symbolic field, through storytelling, history, religion, and other
cultural linkages (Low, 1992).
Regarding nature conservation, it seems possible to use the symbolic dimension to
reinforce the sense of place and create meaning for lands (Manzo, 2005) intended to be
30
protected. Furthermore, this meaning can be transferred to similar areas, including sites one has
never visited (Williams et al., 1992). National Park, for instance, is a brand that conveys the idea
of a natural area with unspoiled landscapes and representative ecosystems, which provides
opportunities for public nature appreciation (NSW-NPWS, 2023). The designation of an area as
a national park instead of other protected area categories seems to result in higher visitation
(Reinius & Fredman, 2007; Weiler & Seidl, 2004), suggesting a symbolic meaning for this
nomenclature and an interest in visiting or protecting these areas regardless of a previous direct
experience.
If sense of place is an understandable concept at a site level, it is more difficult to be
perceived at a larger or landscape scale (Roe, 2012), which makes developing strategies to
promote conservation at this scale challenging (Cantrill & Senecah, 2001; Scarlett & McKinney,
2016). Gobster et al. (2007) use the term perceptible realm to highlight the people’s difficulty in
perceiving phenomena that occur at scales beyond their direct experience. However, people who
travel farther tend to develop a sense of belonging to larger territorial units (Gustafson, 2009).
Ardoin (2014) investigated the scale of place and found that around 20% of respondents
indicated that their place connections occurred at an ecoregional scale. Creating meaning for
large landscapes to be perceived as places to which one can be connected may be a way to
extend the perceptible realm.
Hiking is the simplest of natural outdoor activities, being relatively accessible in terms of
the skills and equipment needed (Mitten et al., 2016). It is practiced by millions of people
worldwide, and because of its low speed allows closer contact with the environment. Hikers may
spend an afternoon in the woods or many weeks on a long journey. Mega trails can provide both
experiences and have been developed worldwide for the past 100 years (Stender et al., 2018).
31
They are seen as a strategy to promote outdoor recreation opportunities, but also local
development and nature conservation (Cerveny et al., 2020; MacKaye, 1921). In the US, the
national scenic trails (NST) were recognized by Congress in 1968 (Elkinton et al., 2008).
By associating the ideas of developing sense of place for large landscapes, creating
brands that give meaning to them, and the role played by experiences in nature, we can
hypothesize that NSTs have the potential to generate meaning and sense of place for large
landscapes. To what extent are these mega trails able to generate place meaning and sense of
place? And at what scale? Which audiences are these trails able to influence? What are the
implications for nature conservation? This study investigates the sense of place and its spatial
scale among hikers on the three NSTs forming the triple crown of hiking in the US (Wilson &
Belote, 2022) and discusses their potential to promote conservation at large landscape scales.
2.1 Background and Hypotheses
The discussion about sense of place necessarily involves the concept of place itself.
(Cresswell, 2009) defines place as “a meaningful site that combines location, locale, and sense of
place” (p.1) or simply, place is any meaningful location (Cresswell, 2004). Tuan (1975) defines
place as “a center of meaning constructed by experience” (p.152). Ardoin (2006) points out that
sense of place is a construct whose definition can vary enormously among different fields. For
her, sense of place refers to the relationship people develop with places in their multiple spatial
and meaning dimensions, such as psychological, biophysical, sociocultural, political, and
economic. For Jorgensen & Stedman (2001), it is a construct formed by three dimensions: place
identity (cognition, beliefs, and perceptions), place attachment (affective and emotional
connection), and place dependence (behavioral advantage). They consider sense of place the
32
broadest term among the many concepts describing the relationship between people and spatial
settings.
In keeping with Tuan’s (1975) definition of place, many authors highlight the experience
as the principal mean of creating sense of place. Childhood experiences (Wilson, 1997) and
permanence in ancestral lands (Hay, 1998) are two ways of forging sense of place. Among
several other strategies, recreational experiences generate sense of place for natural
environments. Many authors reported positive relationships between recreational use time and
sense of place (e.g., Kil et al., 2010; Williams & Vaske, 2003). Furthermore, many studies
suggest this may be more likely with opportunities for solitude or recreating in less developed
areas (Kyle et al. 2004; Warzecha and Lime 2001; Wynveen et al. 2020). On the other hand, its
relationships with activity involvement, duration, and specialization can show contradictory
results and remain unclear (Budruk & Wilhelm Stanis, 2013; Farnum et al., 2005; Kyle et al.,
2003).
Millar & Millar (1996) argue that direct experiences generate more affective reactions,
while indirect experiences produce more cognitive reactions. Supporting this idea, when exposed
to pictures of personally meaningful places, volunteers showed neurological responses in the
amygdala, associated with emotion processing (Gatersleben et al., 2020). On the other hand,
Proshansky et al. (1983) argue that this multidimensional construct includes “a complex
cognitive structure which is characterized by a host of attitudes, values, thoughts, beliefs,
meanings and behavior tendencies that go well beyond just emotional attachments and belonging
to particular places” (p.62). Low (1992) suggests that sense of place can be created in the
symbolic field, such as the concept of a country. Most people do not physically experience a
33
whole country, moving only through restricted regions, but even so, most of them have a well-
developed concept of a nation (Low, 1992).
Success in creating meaning for extensive areas also begs the question of the
requirements of spatial scale for what can be called a place. Shamai (1991) argues that “the word
place is dimensionless; it can apply to any scale, from an individual home to any part of the
globe” (p.347). Place, therefore, can range from a small scale, like a room, to gigantic, like a
continent (Low & Altman, 1992). A single person can even have sense of place on different
spatial scales in a concentric structure that expands from local to global (Shamai, 1991).
Despite the potential conflation between place and space, methods to spatialize sense of
place have received limited attention. Tools to address its geographic dimensions (Dixon &
Durrheim, 2000) and integrate data into land use and conservation planning are needed (Brown
& Raymond, 2007). Williams & Roggenbuck (1989) developed a framework to explore the
landscape meaning but highlighted the difficulty of defining the appropriate spatial scale. Brown
& Raymond (2007) used a map-based place attachment approach to identify special places and
investigate landscape values. Black & Liljeblad (2006) mapped place attachment by asking
residents to locate special areas in maps and relating them to values mentioned in structured
interviews. Ardoin (2014) used maps at different scales and asked residents to show “their place”
to identify the extent of sense of place in three ecoregions. Despite efforts and advances,
representing spatially social constructs that relate people to nature is a relevant research issue
(Restall & Conrad, 2015).
Still in the symbolic field, Proshansky (1978) hypothesized that people can develop
bonds that go beyond a specific location to include a certain type of place, such as urban areas in
general. Williams et al. (1992) found that outdoor recreationists can develop sense of place for a
34
type of natural area, in their case wilderness areas, what they called wilderness attachment. Some
authors refer to this “generic sense of place” as sense of belonging, arguing that it is a better term
since it is not place-specific (Jones et al., 2000), also close to the concept of connection to nature
(Tam, 2013). Despite some controversy about terms, several studies reporting effects of
designation as national parks or world heritage sites on visitor numbers reinforce this idea
(Buckley, 2004; Weiler & Seidl, 2004). The influence of a name or brand in choosing a product
or destination can be called a brand effect (Swait & Erdem, 2007). Natural site brands have an
emotional component consisting of all the thoughts, feelings, associations, and experiences a
person had in places with a given brand, reinforcing the association between place brand and
sense of place (King et al., 2012). Indeed, Kyle et al. (2004) reported that highly place-attached
hikers indicated the Appalachian Trail as the “motivation to be there” more frequently than those
with a low attachment level. According to them, some hikers seemed to regard that trail as
“somewhat akin to a recognizable brand” (p. 74).
Based on the importance of experiences in nature and in the possibility of expanding the
sense of place to different scales or even transferring that meaning to other places through the
brand effect, we developed questions and tested hypotheses that explore the relationships
between experiences on NSTs, sense of place, and the spatial scale of sense of place:
• Considering the importance of direct experience, are the duration and length of a person’s
hike associated with that person’s sense of place and the spatial scale of that person’s
sense of place?
H1: As hike duration increases, the individuals’ sense of place and its spatial scale also
increase.
• Considering the hypothesized potential of mega trails to create meaning for extensive
landscapes and the trail brand effect, is the motivation for hiking on a trail “because of
the NST” associated with sense of place and its spatial scale?
H2: Hikers motivated by the NSTs present a stronger sense of place and on a broader
spatial scale than those in search of local attractions.
35
• Considering the reported relationship between opportunities for solitude and sense of
place, is the intensity of trail use associated with sense of place and its spatial scale?
H3: Hikers in moderately used trail sections present a stronger sense of place and on a
broader spatial scale than those in popular trail sections.
2.2 Methods
2.2.1 Study Areas
This study comprises a survey with hikers along the three most renowned NSTs in the
US, the triple crown of hiking (Wilson & Belote, 2022): the Appalachian Trail, the Pacific Crest
Trail, and the Continental Divide Trail (Figure 2-1).
The Appalachian Trail (AT) is a 3,524-km long trail that follows the Appalachian
Mountains in eastern US. Proposed in 1921 (MacKaye, 1921), wholly implemented in 1937, and
first thru-hiked in 1948 (NPS, 2015), the AT was the pioneer mega trail in the US, and was
recognized as an NST in 1968 (Elkinton et al., 2008). The trail crosses 14 densely populated US
States, which are home to more than 100 million people (WPR, 2023). The AT is legally
protected by a roughly 300 m-wide corridor and runs through a region subjected to intense
exploitation for centuries (McKinley et al., 2019) and continues to suffer from forest clearing in
recent decades (Potere et al., 2007). The trail crosses two national parks, eight national forests,
and other protected areas (NPS, 2015). The trail has more than 99% of its corridor in public
lands and is managed by the US National Park Service (NPS) in partnership with the
Appalachian Trail Conservancy and the US Forest Service (USFS). Annually, more than 1,000
people thru-hike the AT, and an estimated three million people visit some section of the trail
(ATC, 2023b).
The Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) is a 4,265-km long trail that extends across the Sierra
Nevada and Cascade mountain ranges, from the Mexican to Canadian international borders,
36
including three US states that are home to 50 million people (WPR, 2023). The PCT was first
proposed in the 1930s by Clinton Clarke (Elkinton et al., 2008) and, along with the AT, was
recognized in the National Trail System Act in 1968. It was fully implemented in 1993 (Wilson
& Belote, 2022). The trail runs through desert areas and mountains, including seven national
parks, three national monuments, 24 national forests, and 33 federal wilderness areas
(Goldenberg & Soule, 2014). It mostly crosses public lands with a relatively well-protected
corridor (Wilson & Belote, 2022). The USFS manages the trail with the PCT Association, the
NPS, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). About 800 people thru-hike the PCT
annually, with a record of 1,190 in 2018 (PCTA, 2023).
The Continental Divide Trail (CDT) is a 4,873-km long trail that runs through the Rocky
Mountain Range in the USA, between the international borders with Mexico and Canada,
crossing five sparsely populated US states that are home to 12 million people (WPR, 2023). The
CDT was designated as an NST in 1978 but is not yet fully implemented due to stretches along
highways (Wilson & Belote, 2022). As its name suggests, the CDT follows the geographic
continental divide, separating the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean watersheds. From the deserts of
New Mexico to the glaciers in Montana, the CDT crosses 27 wilderness areas and three national
parks in a well-conserved corridor (Wilson & Belote, 2022), which predominantly crosses public
lands. The USFS manages the trail in partnership with the CDT Coalition, the NPS, and BLM.
Just over 100 people successfully thru-hike the CDT annually, but this number is increasing
(CDTC, 2023b).
2.2.2 Participants and Data Collection
The sampling consisted of an on-trail intercept survey in 18 sections, six along each trail
(AT from July to August 2021; CDT and PCT from May to August 2022). Paired popular and
37
moderately used sections were spread across each trail’s southern, central, and northern portions,
with a sample of between 30 and 40 people in each section (Figure 2-1). Expert opinions were
used to select sections, and their popularity was gauged using the AllTrails app categories based
on data generated by its users. The first adult hiker from each group passing through the
interview point was approached for the survey, and only one person each group was interviewed.
The survey was conducted in-person by the first author only to ensure consistency in
survey administration. A tablet with Qualtrics offline survey tool was used to record the answers.
The questionnaire included open and close ended questions related to the hike duration, previous
experience in long-distance trails, motivation in choosing the trail, as well as heatmaps and
Likert scales used to assess the sense of place. The questionnaires were anonymous, but
demographic data were collected to support analysis and discussion.
2.2.3 Procedures and Measurements
2.2.3.1 Sense of place
The sense of place was measured using a 5-point Likert scale with items based on
Williams & Roggenbuck (1989) and Ardoin et al. (2012), with word adaptations for the trail
context. After a literature review to ensure content validity, 11 initial items were used in the 2021
survey (AT). The 2022 data (PCT and CDT) were used as a holdout sample to validate the item
selection. The internal consistency was tested using Cronbach's Alpha and corrected item-total
correlation. If the exclusion of items improved the Cronbach's Alpha or the item-total correlation
was < 0.40, the worst item was excluded until all met the criteria (Vaske, 2019). The AT data
with all items showed acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha = 0.83), but items 7 and
9 were excluded because of low correlations (Table 2-1). The final Cronbach's Alpha for the AT
sample was 0.89, and all the corrected item-total correlations fell within the acceptable standard,
38
ranging from r = 0.505 to 0.783. The PCT and CDT data confirmed the exclusion of items 7 and
9, and item 11 had an item-total correlation < 0.40 (r = 0.363), but its exclusion would not result
in a higher Cronbach's Alpha, having been maintained in the scale. The Cronbach's Alpha for the
entire dataset was 0.88, and all held items had corrected item-total correlation > 0.40 (Table 2-1).
The final Sense of Place score (SoP) used in analyses was the mean value of the nine items,
which could range from 1 to 5.
2.2.3.2 Sense of place spatial scale
The Qualtrics heatmaps tool was used to assess the spatial scale of sense of place. This
tool has been successfully used and has shown good engagement in communication (Chen-
Sankey et al., 2022; Gorham et al., 2016), psychology (Cain et al., 2019), and education (Rysavy
et al., 2018) studies, but as far as we know, its use to study sense of place is unprecedented.
Hikers were asked to choose up to 10 sites that were especially important by tapping the tablet
with a map showing a vast region around each NST (the Eastern or Western USA). The spatial
scale of sense of place was characterized by the Euclidean distance between the extreme points
chosen by each hiker equalized by the maximum possible distance on each trail, composing a
Sense of Place Spatial Scale index (SSP) from 0 to 1 (1 representing the entire trail length). A
previous question with a local-scale map was used to train respondents in using the map tool.
Only points inside a 50-km buffer around the trail were considered, discarding outliers.
Since it is a new approach, a second method was tested in the AT to either confirm the
findings or be an alternative. It was based on Cuba & Hummon (1993) approach to identify the
locus of place identity: dwelling, community, or region. Each interviewee was asked: “thinking
in your connection with these places, please tell me which of these places is more important for
you, ranking in order of importance: the local attraction, the local protected area, the outstanding
39
geographic feature of the region (e.g., a local mountain range), the state, and the NST. The
inverted position of the NST was used as an index of the spatial scale amplitude. Spearman's
correlation showed a significant relationship between the methods (rho = 0.389; p< 0.01). The
heatmap method was chosen because it is more visual, effectively spatializes the data, and
engaged respondents.
2.2.4 Data Analysis
We evaluated the relationship between both the Sense of Place Score and the Spatial
Scale of Sense of Place Index and each of three variables: the hike duration, hiker motivation,
and section popularity. Comparisons were performed with the entire sample, representing the
NST hikers’ population, and by trail, aiming to identify and discuss similarities and differences.
Subsample analyses were performed when relevant to explore specific points in depth.
The hike duration was divided into three categories: day, multi-day, and long-distance.
Day hikers were those who started and ended their hike on the same day. Multi-day hikers
include people hiking for several days without plans to complete the trail. Long-distance hikers
include those who plan to complete one or more NSTs – i.e., those who are thru-hiking an NST
or have thru-hiked another Triple Crown trail before and section-hikers, following the
classification of Fondren & Brinkman (2022). A set of questions was used to define whether the
respondent chose that trail section motivated by the NST. First, it was asked, “how do you refer
to this trail?” and spontaneous mentions of the NST name were recorded. Later, it was asked if
they had already referred to that section as part of the NST and how important the NST was in
the trail choice compared to the main local attraction, the local protected area, or the convenience
of location. As for the section popularity, the previous classification of use intensity defined in
the sampling design was used, separating popular and moderately used sections.
40
Analyses of variance (One-way ANOVA and t-tests) using SPSS 26.0 were performed to
test for differences between groups. Welch’s ANOVA test was used when equal variances could
not be assumed. Homogeneity of variances were verified using Levene’s test. Since differences
between means can be statistically significant but not necessarily relevant, especially for large
samples, the effect size was estimated using the Eta index for multiple comparisons and Cohen’s
d index for pairwise comparisons, also adjusted for unequal variances when necessary (Vaske,
2019). The effect sizes were classified following Cohen’s guidelines adapted by Vaske et al.
(2002), with minimal, typical, and substantial effect sizes (Table 2-3). Because the data had
unequal sample sizes, a bootstrapping method with 1,000 repetitions and bias-corrected and
accelerated (BCa) correction was used to estimate the standard errors and confidence intervals
(95%). Bonferroni test was used for pairwise comparisons, being replaced by Games-Howell test
when equal variances could not be assumed (Shingala & Rajyaguru, 2015).
2.3 Results
2.3.1 Profile of Respondents
On the AT, 226 hikers were interviewed: 141 day hikers, 49 multi-day hikers, and 36
long-distance hikers (Table 2-2). The response rate was not systematically recorded but was
around 80% in popular areas and greater than 90% in moderately used areas. The profile of
respondents was more male (58.0%) and white (85.8%) participants, with ages ranging from 19
to 91 years, with a predominance in the ranges of 18-30 years (30.9) and 31-45 years (29.3%).
Most (71.7%) had completed college and were employed full-time or had a guaranteed job after
the hiking (60.2%). Only three came from other countries; 99% (223) were US residents.
In the PCT, the sample includes 104 day hikers, 16 multi-day hikers 16, and 65 long-
distance hikers (Table 2-2). The response rate was 89% and respondents were predominantly
41
male (63.8%), white (80%), with ages ranging from 18 to 77 years old, with a predominance in
the range of 31-45 years old (32.4%). Most had completed college (80.2%) and were employed
full-time (57.8%). Most were US residents (163 or 88%) and 22 (12%) lived abroad.
In the CDT, 121 day hikers, 16 multi-day hikers, and 54 long-distance hikers were
interviewed (Table 2-2). The response rate was 91% and respondents were predominantly male
(60.7%), and white (87.4%), with ages ranging from 19 to 91 years, with a predominance in the
ranges of 18-30 years (30.9%) and 31-45 years (29.3%). The majority have completed college
(80.6%) and were employed full-time (55.5%). They were predominantly US residents (92%)
and 16 came from other countries (8%).
The overall mean of SoP was 4.17 out of 5. Regarding each trail, the highest average
SoP was at AT (4.28), followed by PCT (4.16) and CDT (4.05). The overall mean for SSP was
0.39 out of 1. The highest mean SSP was at PCT (0.47), followed by AT (0.37) and CDT (0.35).
2.3.2 Research Question 1: Hike Duration’s Relationship with Sense Of Place and its
Spatial Scale
The results showed a trend that the longer the hike, the stronger the sense of place,
confirming the first hypothesis (Figure 2-2). Considering all the hikers, Welch’s ANOVA
showed a significant difference in SoP between the categories of hike duration (Table 2-3).
However, the Eta index suggests a minimal effect size (Vaske et al. 2002), and the pairwise
comparisons using Games-Howell post-hoc test showed that only the difference between long-
distance and day hikers is significant. Multi-day hikers presented intermediate values of SoP that
was not significantly different from the shorter and longer hikers. When considering one trail at a
time, long-distance hikers for each trail presented higher SoP than shorter distance hikers.
However, AT hikers were the only sample where this difference was significant, with effect size
42
higher but still considered minimal. For AT hikers, the pairwise comparisons showed a
significant difference in SoP between long-distance and day hikers, with Cohen’s d suggesting a
typical effect size (Table 2-3). The difference was also significant between long-distance and
multi-day hikers (Cohen’s d suggesting minimal effect size) but not between day and multi-day
hikers. Despite showing the same trend of higher SoP for long-distance hikers, in the PCT and
CDT there were no significant differences between the hike duration categories (Table 2-3).
The ANOVA for SSP showed a significant difference according to the hike duration
(Table 2-3). The results also confirmed the hypothesis that the longer the hike, the broader the
sense of place spatial scale (Figure 2-2). The Eta suggests a typical effect size. Differences were
significant across all categories, but the effect size was substantial only for long-distance and day
hikers. In contrast, the effect size was typical for long-distance and multi-day hikers, and multi-
day and day hikers pairwise comparisons. Differences in sense of place spatial scale, and
adherence to the trail between the hike duration categories can be perceived in the heatmaps (see
example in Figure 2-3).
Regarding each trail, the AT shows the same pattern, with significant difference in SSP
for hike duration and effect size considered typical. The pairwise comparisons showed
significant differences between all categories of hikers with Cohen’s d suggesting a substantial
effect size for long-distance and day hikers, and typical for the other relationships. The PCT
showed the higher overall SSP mean with the highest mean for day hikers among all trails
(Figure 2-2) but without any significant difference between the hike duration categories. For the
CDT, the ANOVA showed significant difference in SSP and typical effect size, but the pairwise
comparison with Bonferroni post hoc test showed that only the difference between long-distance
and day hikers is significant and has substantial effect size (Table 2-3).
43
2.3.3 Research Question 2: Motivation Relationship with Sense of Place and its Spatial
Scale
When comparing the SoPs, the results confirmed the hypothesis that hikers motivated by
the NSTs present a stronger sense of place than those in search of local attractions (Figure 2-4).
The Welch’s t-test showed that NST-motivated hikers have significantly higher SoP than those
motivated by local attractions or other reasons (hereinafter referred as non-NST-motivated), but
the Cohen’s d suggests a minimal effect size (Table 2-4). Regarding each trail, the difference
was also significant in the AT and in the PCT, but the effect size was typical for AT and minimal
for PCT. In the CDT, there was no significant difference.
As for SSP, Welch’s t-test showed NST-motivated hikers’ sense of place on a broader
spatial scale than those non-NST-motivated, also confirming the hypothesis. Cohen’s d suggests
a typical effect size (Table 2-4). The result was similar for the AT, with typical effect size, and
for the CDT, in this case with a substantial effect size. There was no significant difference in the
PCT, but this result is likely due to the high SSP value for the non-NST-motivated participants,
the highest among all trails.
Considering only day hikers, the same result was found, with those NST-motivated hikers
presenting a higher SoP than those non-NST-motivated. Welch’s t-test showed significant
difference and the effect size was considered slightly below typical (Table 2-4). Among AT day
hikers, the same pattern was found, while in the PCT the same trend was found but the t-test
showed no significant difference between day hikers regarding motivation. In the CDT, the
motivated day hikers showed the highest SoP among all sub-groups (Figure 2-4). However, the
extremely small sample (n = 3) resulted in a non-significant difference.
44
With respect to the SSP, Welch’s t-test showed no significant difference between day
hikers motivated and non-motivated by NST. The same pattern was found for AT and PCT. The
exception was CDT, where the difference was strongly significant with substantial effect size
(Table 2-4).
2.3.4 Research Question 3: Section Popularity Relationship with Sense of Place and its
Spatial Scale
When SoP was compared between hikers interviewed in popular and moderately used
sections, the ANOVA showed no significant difference (Figure 2-5). Regarding each trail, hikers
in AT and PCT moderately used sections presented a slightly higher SoP than those in popular
sections, but none of the differences were significant. The result was reversed in the CDT, but
also not significant (Table 2-5). Regarding the spatial scale, hikers interviewed in moderately
used sections showed a broader sense of place, but Cohen’s d suggests a minimal effect size.
The same result was found for AT hikers, but not for PCT and CDT hikers, where the difference
was not significant (Table 2-5). In the PCT both categories presented a higher SSP than in the
other trails, but those interviewed in popular sections presented a SSP even higher than those in
moderately used sections.
2.4 Discussion
To our knowledge, this study represents the largest on-site sampling of hikers on mega
trails. The findings improve our understanding of the relationships between hiking experiences
and both sense of place and its spatial scale, which could have implications for nature
conservation. The sample size covered only a small portion of trail users. However, these
demographic data do not differ much from the profile of long-distance hikers reported for these
trails by previous studies for race, gender, age, and education, except for the employment
45
situation, where only thru-hikers presented a profile similar to that of other surveys with a more
significant number of unemployed not looking for work (Fondren & Brinkman, 2022; Halfway
Anywhere, 2023).
The overall mean of SoP among NST hikers can be considered high (4.17 on a scale of 1
to 5), which was expected since only people who sought activities in a natural environment were
sampled and the interviews were conducted on trails. Halpenny (2010) used a similar scale with
a national park visitors and found an average value of 3.6. Nevertheless, it is not possible to
compare these results directly since the scales used slightly different items and these values
should be used only as a reference. Furthermore, the sampling design and the format of questions
did not allow the use of a control group with non-hikers.
2.4.1 Hike Duration and Sense of Place
The analyses suggest that sense of place and its spatial scale are related to the hike
duration, confirming the first hypothesis that the longer the hike, the stronger the sense of place
and the broader its spatial scale. Although some differences were not statistically significant, all
trails showed the same trend, with long-distance hikers presenting a stronger sense of place. This
relationship seems intuitive, but studies on the level of involvement with an activity and sense of
place do not always show clear results (Farnum et al. 2005).
Kyle et al. (2003) found no relationship between place attachment and the hiking duration
in the AT using four categories (day, multi-day, section, and thru-hikers). However, their data
suggest that, if grouped, long-distance hikers (thru + section hikers) differ from short-distance
hikers (day + multi-day hikers), a result close to what we found. Fondren and Brinkman (2022)
suggest that section and thru-hikers on the AT and PCT form a single subculture, which they
46
group as long-distance hikers. This categorization, therefore, seems to make more sense to assess
the relationship between hike duration and their perceptions of environments.
The positive relationship found between hike duration (and, therefore, the length) and
spatial scale, corroborates studies associating mobility and distance traveled with the spatial
scale of place (Sager 2006; Gustafson 2009). Although some effect sizes were limited, taken
together, the results of sense of place and spatial scale analyses suggest that the experience of a
long-distance hike has the potential to create meaning for NSTs as places and aid in turning
extensive landscapes into meaningful places, a necessary step to develop sense of place
(Hashemnezhad et al., 2013). By acknowledging that one area in Maine is somehow part of the
same trail as an area in Georgia thousands of kilometers away, trail users can grasp the concepts
of magnitude and connectivity among areas might have been viewed as entirely separate entities.
The fact that these respondents are walking across this landscape, which takes months even if
completed continuously, speaks to the ability to capture a large scale in space, time, and
experience into meaning. As Gobster et al. (2007) argue, bringing these landscapes to people's
perceptible realm can help them understand ecological processes at large spatial scales. By
experiencing different portions of a trail, hikers can be conscious of how human activities alter
land use and create gaps between preserved areas. They can also perceive in loco how large
continuous natural areas present better environmental conditions (e.g., water and air) or harbor
animals not found in smaller and less connected areas. The perception of the importance of
connectivity in extensive landscapes is essential, for example, for conserving species that make
large terrestrial migrations (L. C. Gigliotti et al., 2022).
Several studies associated sense of place and support for conservation (e.g., Halpenny,
2010; Stedman, 2002; Walker & Ryan, 2008). Moreover, Ardoin (2014) found that people with
47
larger-scale place connections were more likely to take environmental action. She argues that
this difference is also related to the type of actions that are taken: “perceiving one’s place at a
larger-than-local scale may facilitate understanding of how an individual action may combine
with others to create broader change” (p.435). Based on these findings, our results suggest that
providing this opportunity for recreation and extensive contact with nature could contribute to
garnering support for large-scale conservation. By being protected as spaces for recreation and
contact with nature, mega trails can constitute corridors along extensive landscapes. Those trails
with a predominantly poleward orientation, as is the case of the Triple Crown, may constitute
corridors for species range shifts along the latitudinal gradient in response to climate change
(Carroll et al., 2018; Grelle et al., 2021; Hunter Jr. et al., 1988). Thus, this place connection and
eventual willingness to take action at a larger spatial scale developed by long-distance hikers
may be especially relevant in a climate change scenario, garnering support to protect the so-
called climate corridors (Nuñez et al., 2013).
2.4.2 Motivation and Brand Effect
The analyses confirmed the hypothesis that NST-motivated hikers show a stronger sense
of place and on a broader spatial scale than those motivated by local attractions or other reasons.
Considering the relationship between contact with the environment and sense of place, this result
was expected for long-distance hikers. However, this difference is also observed among day
hikers, which suggests that these mega trails could influence the sense of place even among those
who hike short sections and do not experience the trail as a whole.
Comparing the three trails, the AT seems to have a more substantial effect on motivation
than the others. The level of sense of place among hikers who are not motivated by NSTs is
similar for the three trails (Figure 2-3). However, among hikers motivated by NSTs, those
48
motivated by AT show higher SoP than those motivated by PCT and CDT. The AT is the oldest
and most consolidated trail of the Triple Crown, predating the PCT by 56 years, which leads to
greater publicity and notoriety. It is also closer to urban areas that are home to two-thirds of the
US population (Fondren & Brinkman, 2022). A larger regional population means more roads
cross the AT and more communities are nearby, leading to greater accessibility of people to the
trail and hikers to towns. Hikers and managers frequently mention that there is a “natural order”
to hike the Triple Crown (AT, PCT, then CDT) associated mainly with challenge, access, and
support (Fondren & Brinkman, 2022) but probably also with popularity. Indeed, 20% of those
interviewed in the CDT and PCT mentioned having already hiked in the AT. Among CDT thru-
hikers, 67% had already thru-hiked the AT, PCT, or both. Managers of the three trails
interviewed for a related study reinforced this image that the AT is “a more social trail,” while
PCT and CDT management are more focused on long-distance hikers. Moreover, the AT invests
in more intense signage and offers facilities, such as shelters, which provide access and reinforce
social bonding and popularity (Fondren & Brinkman, 2022).
Another element that reinforces this perception is the higher proportion of day hikers
motivated by the AT than by the other trails. In the AT, 48 (34%) day hikers were classified as
motivated by the trail, while in PCT, they were 14 (13%), and in CDT, only three (2.4%). The
greater accessibility and popularity, plus the managers' attention to a wider audience seems to
strengthen AT's image among the general public. The stronger sense of place among AT hikers
and the higher proportion of hikers motivated by it compared with the other trails corroborate
previous findings that highly attached hikers see the AT as a recognizable brand (Kyle et al.,
2004).
49
This trail brand is related to the place meaning discussed above but also encompasses the
symbolic field (Low, 1992). A trail with a strong and popular brand can be a gateway to long-
distance trails in general, and from this experience, the sense of place and interest in other NSTs
could be awakened. (Fondren & Brinkman, 2022), for instance, mention a hiker in the PCT who
said he had “caught the long-distance bug” hiking the AT. This more generic sense of place for a
certain type of place was speculated by Proshansky (1978) and described by Williams et al.
(1992) for wilderness areas. The increase in visits to protected areas redesignated as national
parks (Weiler & Seidl, 2004) is also evidence of how the brand effect influences the choice of
places to experience nature.
Furthermore, NSTs can also represent a brand that goes beyond long-distance hikers.
This brand effect reaches people who do not intend to thru-hike the trail but are fascinated by the
idea. During fieldwork, one resident that lives near the CDT said: “I could just go out my back
door and walk to Canada. Even if you never do that, the concept that it is right there gives this
feeling of freedom or just that the wilderness is right there.” That some people do exactly this
probably helps create and reinforce this perception.
With regard to nature conservation strategies, mega trails seem to influence the sense of
place of day hikers and even people who do not even use them. If they can contribute to a better
understanding of the importance of large-scale landscape connectivity, this finding suggests that
they can also help a broader audience understand the value of landscape-level conservation,
typically a challenge for conservation (Gobster et al., 2007). As such, these trails can positively
impact millions of people, not just a few thousand long-distance hikers. Even if thru-hikers on
these NSTs do not exceed 3,000 per year, a rough estimate of 3 to 4 million people visit at least
one point of the AT each year (NPS, 2015).
50
The small number of day hikers motivated by PCT and CDT, however, highlights the
importance of reinforcing the trail brands to create this place meaning on a broad spatial scale.
The SoP of day hikers motivated by the NST was higher than that of non-NST-motivated hikers
for both trails, but the small sample size made the differences not significant. Thru-hikers are
essential to give concreteness to the idea of the trail and to the identity of the trail itself (Cerveny
et al., 2022) but developing strategies to reach and engage day hikers is important to multiply the
benefits for conservation. These trails are supported by public resources, and the fact that they
serve many more people besides long-distance hikers can help to justify spending on them.
Analyzing the spatial scale of sense of place forces us to be careful with these statements.
NST-motivated hikers have a broader sense of place than non-NST-motivated, but this pattern is
unclear among day hikers. Despite a trend of day hikers motivated by the NST showing a
broader sense of place, the difference was only significant for the CDT, and the small number of
day hikers motivated by the CDT and PCT does not allow for more assertive conclusions.
Regarding all NST-motivated hikers, the spatial scale of sense of place is similar between
the trails, but non-NST-motivated hikers in PCT have a broader spatial scale than the others.
Exploring the national park brand's strength is out of this study's scope; however, during the
fieldwork, we noticed that many respondents spontaneously mentioned national parks when
choosing the sites that especially matter to them on the map. We can speculate that the broader
sense of place in PCT, even among day hikers, was influenced by having more national parks
closer to its Northern and Southern ends than the other trails. More studies exploring the sense of
place spatial scale trying to isolate other factors, such as national parks, are needed to better
understand this matter.
51
2.4.3 Section Popularity
The third tested hypothesis was not confirmed, as there was no significant difference in
sense of place between hikers interviewed in popular and moderately used sections. Scores on
the latter tended to be higher, but the difference was not significant for any group. In the CDT,
hikers in popular sections showed a stronger sense of place, but this difference was also not
significant. Regarding the spatial scale of sense of place, hikers in moderately used sections
showed significantly higher SSP than those in popular ones, but the effect size was minimal.
Among the trails, the difference was significant only for the AT, and there is no clear pattern for
PCT and CDT.
The non-significant differences contradict previous studies that reported higher levels of
sense of place among people who seek solitude and opportunities for introspection (e.g., Kil et
al., 2010; Kyle et al., 2004; Warzecha & Lime, 2001). Wynveen et al. (2020) analyzed protected
areas in Europe and USA and found a negative relationship between sense of place and
development of recreation zones. Kil et al. (2012) investigated place meanings among hikers in
the Florida NST and found that highly attached hikers preferred natural areas with little to no
evidence of human development. On the other hand, Williams and Stewart (1998) point out that
tourists can also have strong attachments to places, and different social groups can create
different meanings for the same place, with or without conflict between them. Thus, different
factors can motivate a sense of place among different people, such as place for introspection,
beauty, physical activities, self-confidence, or even social status. The classification of popularity
was based on the number of registered users in the Alltrails Pro app, and among the popular
sections are some notable and very crowded attractions, such as the Clingmans Dome (Great
Smoky Mountains NP, AT), Crater Lake (Crater Lake NP, PCT), and St. Mary Falls (Glacier
52
NP, CDT). If, even in these crowded sites, people showed a high SoP, it seems possible to
involve people and generate sense of place even in intensely visited attractions.
2.4.4 Limitations and Further Research
Because sense of place is a complex and multi-dimensional construct whose definition
varies according to authors, it is difficult to capture it in its various dimensions (Convery et al.,
2012). The lack of validated scales for different contexts is evidence of this difficulty. The
objective was not to develop a validated scale but rather to explore the relationships between
experiences on long-distance trails and sense of place developed by hikers. Here we slightly
modified questions from several studies to minimize this problem. Different social groups can
create different meanings for the same place (Williams and Roggenbuck 1989), and the scale
used cannot identify differences. Developing more detailed scales could allow a better
understanding of the phenomenon.
The high sense of place that participants reported was expected, but the small variation
limited the statistical power and effect size of comparisons among groups. As Vaske et al. (2002)
emphasized, standardized effect size indices are reliable references, but “a small effect size may
have more practical significance than a large effect size in one instance, but not in another”
(p.290). When dealing with a construct influenced by so many factors, it is natural that a single
construct does not have a substantial effect size. Furthermore, we cannot rule out the possible
effect of social desirability because of face-to-face surveys (Vaske, 2019).
The difficulty of sampling the great diversity of environments and contexts along the
three mega trails also resulted in some limitations. Although we tried to represent the diversity of
each trail, the time limitation and thru-hiking dynamics did not allow us to have equal sample
sizes in all sub-groups. Thru-hikers tend to follow the seasons, starting early in the south in order
53
to complete the trail in one summer. Some sections were visited before or after the thru-hikers’
high season, when the so-called bubble passes (Dolman & Marion, 2022); in others, the number
of multi-day hikers was small because they were not popular destinations for overnight hikes.
Unequal sample sizes forced us to deal with variance limitations and restricted the statistical
analysis options and/or reduced their power. The small sample size of some subgroups also
limited the combined analysis of different variables. Differences between the intermediate group
of hike duration (multi-day hikers) and the extremes were not significant in most analyses.
Multi-day hikers had smaller sample sizes, especially on PCT and CDT, which may not have
enough power to detect statistical significance, possibly representing a false negative (Type II
error).
Several non-US residents stated that they did not identify with terms and expressions
used in the scales, regardless of language. The survey has been pre-tested with US residents only.
If only US residents were considered, some analyses would show significant differences, such as
SoP by hike duration in the PCT. As mentioned, this study intends to propose something other
than a validated scale to assess sense of place among hikers. However, additional tests with non-
US residents would be interesting to assess whether it is a limitation of the scale generalizability
or whether non-residents develop a different relationship with the place even in intense
experiences like long-distance hikes.
2.5 Conclusions
Long-distance hikers have a stronger and broader sense of place, suggesting that mega
trails can enable extensive landscapes to become perceptible realms. This can help overcome one
of the challenges of large-scale conservation projects: the general public's understanding of
54
ecological processes on this scale. Designating NSTs in strategic regions can create large
meaningful places and help promote large-scale nature conservation.
Through the brand effect, mega trails also seem to have the potential to reach a wider
audience, going beyond long-distance hikers and raising the awareness of millions of people who
visit natural attractions about the importance of large-scale conservation. The relationship
between sense of place and NST-motivation and the strong sense of place found even among
people in popular sections reinforce this potential. Intensive outreach and signage in popular
sections and road crossings, among other initiatives, can increase the engagement of day hikers
and other visitors and strengthen trail brands. Associating side trails with NST brands could
spread these effects even further. On the other hand, long-distance hikers are essential to give
concreteness to the idea of mega trails. Trail management must consider the quality of
experience to promote sense of place and maintain their engagement. Balancing these two
apparently conflicting points seems to be strategic for the success of mega trails.
Considering the importance of trail brands in motivating hikers and their relationship to a
stronger sense of place, the US National Trail System and other national trail systems should
value each trail and its own brand. Creating trail systems planned in an integrated way but taking
into account each trail to reach specific audiences can be an effective strategy to help promote
the connection of large-scale landscapes and adapt to the effects of climate change with greater
support from society.
55
Figure 2-1. Map of the Triple Crown of Hiking (trails in red) showing the sections sampled:
popular sections (orange circles) and moderately used sections (green circles).
aBasemap from ESRI ArcGIS
56
Table 2-1. Internal Consistency of Sense of Place scale
Measurement item
2021 (ATa)
(n = 226) 2022 (PCTb + CDTc)
(n = 376)
All
Trails
(n = 602)
Initial
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlatio
n
Crombach
’s Alpha if
Item
Deleted
Final
Corrected
Item-
Total
Correlatio
n
Initial
Corrected
Item-
Total
Correlati
on
Crombach
’s Alpha if
Item
Deleted
Final
Corrected
Item-
Total
Correlati
on
Final
Corrected
Item-
Total
Correlatio
n
1- I feel like these
places are part of me .690 .800 .700 .656 .780 .687 .694
2- These places are
the best places for
what I like to do
.613 .811 .646 .666 .785 .700 .681
3- I identify strongly
with these places .731 .797 .740 .733 .773 .757 .753
4- I get more
satisfaction out of
being here than
anywhere else
.634 .804 .670 .504 .796 .528 .573
5- I am very attached
to these places .782 .787 .783 .666 .778 .655 .706
6- Coming or being
here says a lot about
who I am
.661 .803 .695 .608 .786 .646 .668
7- The things I do
here, I would enjoy
doing just as much
somewhere else*
-.027** .866** ** -.141 .857* ** **
8- Because of my
lifestyle, these places
are important to me
.502 .820 .526 .582 .793 .599 .574
9- Most of my
family/friends are, in
some way, connected
with this place
.308** .845** ** .328 .820* ** **
10- I identify with the
physical landscape of
these places
.498 .818 .513 .583 .789 .581 .559
11- I am interested in
the plants and
animals that live in
this place
.477 .819 .505 .343 .810 .363 .418
Crombach’s Alpha
.831 .887 .813 .872 .878
aAT = Appalachian Trail; bPCT = Pacific crest Trail; cCDT = Continental Divide Trail; n = sample size. * Item with
inverted scale score. ** Item excluded by not meeting the minimum thresholds
57
Table 2-2. Hikers’ demographic profiles by trail
Appalachian
Trail
Pacific Crest
Trail
Continental
Divide Trail
Hike duration
Day hikers
141 (62.4%)
104 (59%)
121 (66%)
Multi-day hikers
49 (21.7%)
16 (9%)
16 (8%)
Long-distance hikers
36 (15.9%)
65 (35%)
54 (28%)
Gender
Female
94 (41.6%)
75 (36.2%)
67 (39.3%)
Male
131 (58%)
116 (63.8%)
118 (60.7%)
Other/Prefer not to say
1 (0.4%)
0
0
Age Class
18-30 years
75 (33.2%)
48 (25.9%)
59 (30.9%)
31-45 years
71 (31.4%)
60 (32.4%)
56 (29.3%)
46-60 years
48 (21.2%)
48 (25.9%)
41 (21.5%)
> 60 years
28 (12.4%)
25 (13.5%)
30 (15.7%)
Race/Ethnicity
White/European American
194 (85.8%)
148 (80%)
170 (89%)
Asian
15 (6.6%)
20 (10.8%)
6 (3.1%)
Hispanic/Latino
8 (3.5%)
9 (4.9%)
8 (4.2%)
Black/African American
2 (0.9%)
4 (2.2%)
3 (1.6%)
Native American
1 (0.4%)
2 (1.1%)
2 (1.0%)
Native Hawaiian
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (0.5%)
Other/mixed
3 (1.3%)
3 (1.6%)
5 (2.6%)
Prefer not to say
3 (1.3%)
0
0
Higher Education Level
Graduate Degree or beyond
68 (30.1%)
71 (38.4%)
65 (34.0%)
College Complete
99 (43.6%)
80 (43.2%)
94 (49.2%)
Some College
30 (13.3%)
18 (9.7%)
17 (8.9%)
High School Complete
27 (11.9%)
14 (8%)
11 (5.8%)
Some High School
2 (0.9%)
0
1 (0.5%)
Employment status
Employed Full Time
137 (60.6%)
107 (57.8%)
106 (55.5%)
Employed Part Time
10 (4.3%)
8 (4.3%)
15 (7.9%)
Unemployed looking for work
6 (2.6%)
5 (2.7%)
1 (0.5%)
Unemployed not looking for work
18 (7.9%)
27 (14.6%)
31 (16.2%
Student
25 (10.9%)
10 (5.4%)
12 (6.3%)
Retired
19 (8.4%)
26 (14.1%)
21 (11.0%)
Disabled
2 (0.8%)
1 (0.5%)
0
58
Figure 2-2. Means of SoP and SSP by hike duration with 95% confidence intervals estimated
with BCa bootstrapping with 1,000 repetitions.
Figure 2-3. Heatmaps showing the “places that matters” for hikers surveyed in the Northern
Appalachian Trail sections: Clarendon Gorge (moderately used; circle) and Killington
Peak (popular; triangle). *Basemaps from ESRI ArcGIS.
59
Table 2-3. One-way ANOVA, pairwise comparisons, and effect sizes for hike duration
Significance (Eta
index)
a
Pairwise comparisons Significance (Cohen’s d)b
F
Day-Multi
Day-Long
Multi-Long
Sense of Place Score
All trails 4.151
0.017*
(0.11)
0.697 0.012* (0.251) 0.431
AT 9.446
< 0.001*
(0.21)
0.385 < 0.001* (0.612) 0.009* (0.469)
PCT 2.950 0.063
CDT 0.025 0.975
Sense of Place Spatial Scale Index
All trails
31.596
< 0.001* (0.31)
0.009* (0.366)
< 0.001* (0.753)
0.015* (0.387)
AT
20.337
< 0.001*
0.006 (0.520)
< 0.001* (1.14)
0.015 (0.623)
PCT 1.956 .144
CDT
14.787
< 0.001* (0.37)
0.526
< 0.001* (0.888)
0.198
* Significant at 95% level. a Effect size: Eta index > 0.10 = minimal relationship, typical > 0.243, substantial >
0.371. b Cohen’s d > 0.2 = minimal relationship, typical > 0.5, and substantial > 0.8. (Vaske et al. 2002)
Figure 2-4. Means of SoP and SSP graphs by motivation with 95% confidence intervals
estimated with BCa bootstrapping with 1,000 repetitions.
60
Table 2-4. T-tests for motivation
All hikers
Only day hikers
F
Significance
(p-level)
Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
F
Significance
Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
Sense of Place Score
All trails
18.316
< 0.001*
0.340
11.613
0.001*
0.390
AT
15.760
< 0.001*
0.531
6.334
0.013*
0.397
PCT
4.337
0.039*
0.298
0.261
0.610
CDT
.005
0.945
2.396
0.124
Sense of Place Spatial Scale Index
All trails
37.888
< 0.001*
0.521
1.388
0.242
AT
17.047
< 0.001*
0.547
1.836
0.179
PCT
2.275
0.133
0.004
0.951
CDT
29.622
< 0.001*
0.870
8.741
0.004*
1.728
Effect size: Cohen’s d > 0.2 minimal relationship, typical > 0.5, and substantial > 0.8. (Vaske et al. 2002)
* Significant at 95% level
Figure 2-5. Means of SoP and SSP graphs by section popularity with 95% confidence intervals
estimated with BCa bootstrapping with 1,000 repetitions.
Table 2-5: T-tests for section popularity
Sense of Place Score
Sense of Place Spatial Scale Index
F
Significance
(p-level)
F
Significance
(p-level)
Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
All trails
0.719
0.397
7.089
.008*
0.217
AT
1.443
0.231
8.689
.004*
0.397
PCT
0.050
0.823
.050
.823
CDT
0.422
0.517
2.557
.111
Effect size: Cohen’s d > 0.2 minimal relationship, typical > 0.5, and substantial > 0.8. (Vaske et al. 2002). *
Significant at 95% level
61
CHAPTER 3
CAN SENSE OF PLACE PROMOTE PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS?
Since its origins, the environmental movement has been strongly influenced by
individuals who experienced the outdoors and were strongly committed to natural places. In the
US, seminal environmentalists like Henry Thoreau and John Muir are known for detailed
observations at Walden Pond and tramping through the Sierras (Brulle, 1996; Manning, 1984).
Many iconic natural areas worldwide were legally protected after campaigns led by outdoor
recreationists (Ehringhaus, 2012; Viveiros de Castro, 2018). People who develop a strong feeling
about natural places, often through recreational opportunities, tend to show more responsible
environmental behavior (Theodori et al., 1998; Vaske & Kobrin, 2001), greater willingness to
financially support conservation (Russell & Russell, 2010; Zaradic et al., 2009), and more
frequent socially and politically actions against environmental impacts (Horwitz, 1996; Matsuba
& Pratt, 2013).
One factor frequently used to explain pro environmental behavior (PEB) is developing a
sense of place for natural sites or landscapes (Vaske & Kobrin, 2001). Sense of place (SoP) is a
multi-dimensional construct that can be defined as "a collection of meanings, beliefs, symbols,
values, and feelings that individuals or groups associate with a particular locality" (Williams &
Stewart, 1998, p. 19). Several studies relate activities in nature to SoP (e.g., Beery & Jönsson,
2017; Kil et al., 2010; Williams et al., 1992) and SoP to pro-environmental behaviors (e.g.,
Vorkinn & Riese, 2001; Walker & Ryan, 2008). However, some authors point out that PEB is
related to one specific dimension of SoP, place identity (Halpenny, 2010; Vaske & Kobrin,
2001). Place identity involves feelings, values, and beliefs related to the environment (Jorgensen
& Stedman, 2001), approaching the broader concept of connection to nature, defined as a self-
perceived relationship of interconnection between the self and the natural world, which reflects a
62
sensation of kinship and an affective individual experience (Olivos et al., 2011). Hence, SoP
would be a “necessary but not sufficient” condition to generate PEB (Wakefield et al., 2001, p.
175), which would depend on a bond not only with a specific place but on an emotional affinity
toward nature as a whole (Kals et al., 1999).
Understanding how the relationship with nature is associated with geographically bound
spaces and the extent to which these constructs predict pro-environmental behaviors is useful for
environmental management and conservation planning (Brehm et al., 2013; Larson et al., 2015;
Restall & Conrad, 2015). This chapter uses a structural equation model to explore the
relationship between sense of place and pro-environmental behaviors, with connection to nature
as a possible mediator. Determining if these constructs are related could make it possible to
design new recreation and interpretation opportunities in natural areas to increase the potential
impact on visitors and their support of conservation.
3.1 Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Formulation
3.1.1 Sense of Place
The definition of sense of place can vary enormously among fields of knowledge and
even among authors in the same field, including different dimensions of the relationship between
people and places (Ardoin, 2006). Jorgensen & Stedman (2001) define it as a construct formed
by three dimensions: place identity (cognition, beliefs, and perceptions), place attachment
(affective and emotional connection), and place dependence (behavioral advantage). Other
authors use place attachment as a more general concept, in a similar way to many definitions of
sense of place (e.g., Halpenny, 2010; Low & Altman., 1992) However, Giuliani (2003) states
that place attachment originated in attachment theory, which focuses on interpersonal
relationships and “has an extremely restricted meaning compared with the extremely broad
63
concept of place attachment” (p.160). Ardoin (2006) considers place identity and dependence to
be parts of a superior psychological dimension of sense of place and explores other dimensions,
such as biophysical, sociocultural, political, and economic conceptions of place. As Jorgensen &
Stedman (2001, p. 233) pointed out, “there are a plethora of concepts describing the relationship
between people and spatial settings, but sense of place is perhaps the most general.”
The multidimensionality of sense of place makes measuring this construct challenging (Convery
et al., 2012). Some anthropologists argue that sense of place is essentially qualitative and cannot
be treated as a dataset to be sampled, tabulated, and manipulated like quantitative data (e.g.,
Geertz, 1996). Other authors warn about problems related to the subjectivity of the proposed
questions (Graham et al., 2009) or for the difficulty of identifying different elements and
avoiding conceptual overlaps (Lewicka, 2005). Despite some controversies, measuring sense of
place is helpful in comparing how different groups relate to the environment and for
understanding the construct (Williams & Vaske, 2003).
The use of scales to assess sense of place has increased in recent decades. However, the
complexity of the construct, the different dimensions emphasized in each study, and the need to
adapt the words to specific contexts meant that there are no standardized, widely used, and
validated scales. Several other measures have already been proposed (see Jorgensen & Stedman,
2001, for a review), but most scales derive from Williams & Roggenbuck‘s (1989) scale (e.g.,
Ardoin et al., 2012; Halpenny, 2010; Kyle et al., 2004).
3.1.2 Pro-Environmental Behaviors
Steg & Vlek (2009, p.309) described pro-environmental behavior as “behavior that harms
the environment as little as possible, or even benefit the environment.” Although defining
environmentally appropriate behaviors seems straightforward, there is no agreement on what this
64
behavior should be called. Competing suggestions include: environmentally significant behaviors
(Stern, 2000), responsible environmental behaviors (Vaske & Kobrin, 2001), environmentally
responsible behaviors (Thøgersen, 2006), environmentally conscious behavior (Lee & Holden,
1999), and conservation behaviors (Gosling & Williams, 2010; Monroe, 2003). Pro-
environmental behavior (PEB) is the most general and widespread term. It, however, has several
components, and a scale may or may not measure individual or collective behaviors, intention or
result, direct or indirect impacts, or local to global scale (Larson et al., 2015).
Most measures developed to assess PEB focus on individual behaviors in the private
sphere, which are more easily quantified (e.g., Gatersleben et al., 2002; Markle, 2013). However,
individual actions represent a small fraction of global environmental impacts (Bogert et al.,
2022). Engagement in collective actions that lead to changes in governments or large
corporations’ policies tends to be more relevant and deserve greater attention (Steg & Vlek,
2009; Stern, 2000). Alisat & Riemer (2015) developed the Environmental Action Scale, focusing
on engagement in civic actions with collective impact on system-level changes. Larson et al.
(2015) developed a scale encompassing the diversity of PEB, divided into four categories:
conservation lifestyle behaviors (e.g., household actions in the private sphere); social
environmentalism (e.g., peer interactions and group membership); environmental citizenship
(e.g., civic engagement in the policy arena); and land stewardship (e.g., support for wildlife and
habitat conservation).
Such diversity of contexts makes it difficult to develop a scale that fully cover PEB, and
there is a lack of consistency among behavior measures (Markle, 2013). Even dealing with only
one PEB category, translating scales to other environments (e.g., urban to rural), or cultures can
be challenging, compromising their generalizability. Another problem is that behaviors may be
65
conducted daily, rarely, or only once, making frequency valuable to assess, but challenging to
consider on the same scale (Larson et al., 2015).
Concerning nature conservation, what is often evaluated is the willingness to protect a
given environment against eventual threats. In this case, questions that focus on the frequency of
behavior adoption do not reflect the issue well. Using pro-environment behavioral intentions
(Halpenny, 2010) or willingness to take action (Floress et al., 2017; L. M. Gigliotti, 1994) are
alternatives in these cases since the Theory of Planned Behavior supports the idea that the
intention to perform a behavior is the most important determinant of behavior (Ajzen, 1985).
3.1.3 Connection to Nature
As a possible mediator between SoP and PEB we evaluated the connection to
nature (CN) construct. It represents a straightforward and intuitive idea related to the human-
nature relationship and the importance each person gives to nature. Nevertheless, the multiple
processes (e.g., Beery et al., 2020; Wolsko & Lindberg, 2013) and components (e.g., Kals et al.,
1999; Schultz, 2002) involved in this relationship make its discussion complex. Very different
terms, such as emotional affinity toward nature (Kals et al., 1999), environmental identity
(Clayton, 2003), love and care for nature (Perkins, 2010) or slight variations, such as
connectedness with nature (Schultz, 2002; Zylstra et al., 2014), connectedness to nature (F. S.
Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Restall & Conrad, 2015) and connectivity with nature (Dutcher et al.,
2007) are used with different definitions. However, all these terms refer to similar feelings
(connection, affinity, inclusion) and always relating the same subject (people) and object
(nature). Salazar et al. (2021) suggest that connection to nature can be used to encompass all
these related terms.
66
These many terms were used to name scales that emphasize one or another dimension of
the phenomenon, based on different principles or approaches, using visual or Likert scales, and
focusing on different audiences (Salazar et al., 2021). Some scales are unidimensional and assess
affective (Kals et al., 1999; F. S. Mayer & Frantz, 2004) or cognitive aspects (Schultz, 2002).
Others are multidimensional and encompass the two aspects mentioned and others, such as the
experiential (Clayton, 2003; Nisbet et al., 2009). However, Tam (2013) analyzed seven of the
most frequently used measures and concluded that they could be considered “markers of a
common construct.” Here, we adopt the term connection to nature broadly, encompassing
affective and cognitive aspects of the people-nature relationship.
3.1.4 Conceptual Model and Hypotheses
Several studies have empirically demonstrated relationships between sense of place and
PEB (e.g., Buta et al., 2014; Wakefield et al., 2001; Walker & Ryan, 2008). Since SoP, as well as
CN, can be viewed as environmental attitudes (Cheng & Monroe, 2012; Jorgensen & Stedman,
2001), models to explain their relationship with pro-environmental behaviors are based on
theories of environmental psychology. Fazio & Zanna (1978) found that attitudes are a good
predictor of behavior, what is also true to PEB (Kil et al., 2014). The ABC model (Affective-
Behavioral-Cognitive) suggests that behavior is one of the components of attitude, along with
affective and cognitive elements (Breckler, 1984). Stern et al. (1999) associated personal values
(i.e., biocentrism, altruism, and egoism) and beliefs related to the New Environmental Paradigm
(Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978) with the Norm-Activation theory (Schwartz, 1973) to explain
support for environmentalism. Their Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Environmentalism (VBN)
postulates that there is a causal chain between the elements that give it its name. It bears to note
67
that the words values and beliefs are part of many definitions of sense of place (e.g., Williams &
Stewart, 1998).
Vaske & Kobrin (2001) proposed and tested a model relating recreational activities to
pro-environmental behavior with two dimensions of sense of place as mediators. They found
place identity as a full mediator between experiences and PEB. This prominence of the identity
dimension in the relation SoP-PEB draws attention to the concept of self-identity, which
underlies both the concepts of place identity (Proshansky et al., 1983) and connection to nature
(Schultz & Tabanico, 2007), perhaps through the construct of Environmental Identity (Clayton,
2003). Agnew (1987) refers to SoP as a “subjective territorial identity” (p.28). Several studies
that show place identity as the dimension of SoP more related to PEB (e.g., Halpenny, 2010;
Stedman, 2002; Vaske & Kobrin, 2001) suggest that connection to nature can be a mediator
between sense of place and pro-environmental behavior.
Regarding different dimensions of PEB, Halpenny (2010) tested different models relating
identity and dependence to place-specific PEB intentions and everyday PEB intentions. She
found a more robust relationship of SoP with place-specific PEB intentions than with everyday
PEB intentions, and the first predicting the latter. The bond to a particular site would affect PEB
unrelated to that specific site, representing a spill-over effect (Halpenny, 2010).
Studies exploring SoP, CN, and PEB together are relatively rare. Gosling & Williams
(2010) proposed a model exploring in parallel the relationships between SoP and PEB, and CN
and PEB, but did not test how the three constructs are related in the same model. Here, we
explore different dimensions of SoP and PEB, how they are related, and if CN is a mediator
between these constructs. Our conceptual model (Figure 3-1) accounts for up to three dimensions
of the sense of place construct: attachment, dependence, and identity (Ardoin et al., 2012;
68
Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001). The model accounts for up to three dimensions of the pro-
environmental behaviors construct, adapted from Larson et al. (2015): conservation lifestyle,
neighborhood stewardship, and willingness to protect the trail landscape. Connection to nature
is treated as unidimensional in the model, since there are many validated scales that make it
possible to explore relationships from this assumption (Tam, 2013). Based on the literature and
regarding the relationships between the constructs, we developed hypotheses to explore the
relationships between these constructs and some of their dimensions:
• The relationship between sense of place and pro-environmental behavior is direct and
significant (H1)
• The relationship between sense of place and pro-environmental behavior in indirect,
mediated by CN. In this case, CN can be a partial (H2) or a full mediator (H3; Figure 1).
• Place identity is a mediator between place dependence and PEB (H4).
• Place-based PEB dimension (willingness to protect the trail landscape) is a partial (H5) or
full (H6) mediator between SoP and CN and daily behaviors.
3.2 Methods
3.2.1 Study Areas
The survey was carried out on two renowned US national scenic trails between the
international borders with Mexico and Canada. The Continental Divide Trail (CDT) is a 4,873-
km long trail that runs through the Rocky Mountain Range, separating watersheds to the Atlantic
and Pacific oceans. The CDT crosses a well-conserved corridor (Wilson & Belote, 2022),
predominantly in public areas, including 27 wilderness areas and three renowned national parks
– Yellowstone, Rocky Mountain, and Glacier. The Pacific Crest Trail is a 4,265-km long trail
that extends across the Sierra Nevada and Cascade mountain ranges. It crosses mostly public
lands with a relatively well-protected corridor (Wilson & Belote, 2022), including seven national
69
parks, three national monuments, 24 national forests, and 33 federal wilderness areas
(Goldenberg & Soule, 2014). Some famous attractions are Yosemite, Crater Lake, and Mount
Rainier national parks. Both trails are managed by the US Forest Service in partnership with non-
profits CDT Coalition and PCT Association), the US National Park Service, and the Bureau of
Land Management.
3.2.2 Data Collection
This study is based on surveys with 376 hikers (191 in CDT and 185 in PCT), between
May and August 2022. A pilot study including the sense of place construct was completed on the
Appalachian Trail (AT; n=226; July-August 2021). On each trail, the sample consisted of an on-
trail intercept survey in six trail sections, with paired popular and moderately used sections and
samples of between 30 and 40 people in each. Expert opinions were used to select sections, and
popularity followed the AllTrails app categories based on data generated by its users. The first
adult hiker from each group passing through the interview point was approached, and no more
than one person from the same group was interviewed. The survey was conducted using the
Qualtrics offline survey tool in a tablet. All interviews were conducted in-person by only the first
author to ensure greater consistency. The application was only in English, and additional
explanations were provided in Spanish in case of difficulty with the language. The questionnaires
were anonymous and included questions related to previous experiences, motivation, hiking
characteristics, and some demographic data, as well as Likert scales associated with sense of
place, connection to nature, and pro-environmental behaviors.
70
3.2.3 Procedures and Constructs Measurement
The constructs (SoP, CN, and PEB) were evaluated using five-point scales developed and
tested by other authors or items tailored to this context. All scales were anchored by 1 indicating
an extreme negative response (e.g., ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘not willing at all’) and 5 indicating an
extreme positive response (e.g., ‘strongly agree’ or ‘definitely would’). Six of the 376 interviews
were discarded due to incomplete answers. Identical responses for all items by the same
respondent (Standard deviation < 0.25) were considered unengaged responses (Collier, 2020),
but no case was excluded by this criterion. Four missing values (0.037% of the total sample)
were replaced based on the median of the variable. The sample size was greater than 10 times the
number of observed variables (29), considered appropriate for structural equation modeling
(Nunnaly & Bernstein, 1994). The normality of the data was assessed following the thresholds
proposed by Kline (2011) for skewness (> -3 and < +3) and kurtosis (> -10 and < +10). The
internal consistency was examined for each construct through Cronbach's alpha reliability
coefficients, and items with a corrected item-total correlation < 0.4 were not included in the
analyses (Vaske, 2019).
Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFA) were performed in SPSS to examine scale items and
identify poorly fitting items using the maximum likelihood estimation method with Promax
rotation. Assumptions of sampling adequacy and sphericity were examined using the Kaiser–
Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s tests. The minimum variance explained accepted was >50%,
and the variables with the lowest factor loading were excluded from the model until the variance
reached the minimum threshold. The number of factors that best fit the data was defined with
parallel analyses (Fabrigar & Wegener, 2011) using an engine developed by Vivek et al. (2017).
71
3.2.3.1 Sense of place scale
The sense of place construct was assessed through 11 questions based on Williams &
Roggenbuck (1989) and Ardoin et al. (2012) with word adaptations for the context of trails. The
Sense of Place Scale (SoP) was tested initially in a survey with 226 hikers along the Appalachian
Trail. The data from CDT and PCT survey were used to validate the item selection. No items
were excluded by skewness and kurtosis criteria, but two items were excluded due to low item-
total correlations (Table 3-1). An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was carried out with nine
remaining items to find the model that best fits the data. Three models were hypothesized:
4. One-factor model: all nine items represent a single, homogeneous SoP construct measure.
5. Two-factor model: the nine items divide into two factors related to place identity and
dependence as proposed by Ardoin et al. (2012) for psychological dimensions.
6. Three-factor model: the nine items divide into three factors associated with place
attachment, place dependence, and place identity, following the Jorgensen & Stedman
(2001) model.
The EFA with parallel analysis showed the one-factor model as the best fit to the data,
with a second factor having only a marginal effect. However, this one-factor model had a poor fit
to the data, explaining only 47.45% of the variance, below the minimum threshold. After
excluding the item with the lowest factor loading, the variance explained was 50.10%. Then, a
second EFA was run using the data from this study (CDT and PCT) using the remaining eight
items. The one-factor model was confirmed, but the variance explained was slightly below the
minimum threshold (49.06%). After excluding the item with the lowest factor loading, the
variance explained was 51.28% with all the items above the recommended thresholds for
Confirmatory Factor Analysis - extraction values > 0.40 individual factor loading > 0.5, and
mean factor loading > 0.7 (Collier, 2020). The final SoP scale, therefore, has seven items (Table
72
3-1). As the SoP scale was unidimensional, it was not possible to test the hypothesis of place
identity as a mediator between place dependence and the other constructs (H4).
3.2.3.2 Pro-environmental behavior and intentions scales
To assess pro-environmental behavior and intentions in this context, 15 questions derived
from three PEB scales (Alisat & Riemer, 2015; Larson et al., 2015; Markle, 2013; Table 3-2).
Nine questions focused on the intention to protect the trail's landscape and were stated as "If
something threatened to change the landscape or environment of this place, such as permanent
clear cuts for commercial purposes, how willing would you be to take each of the following
actions?", being one not willing at all' and five ‘definitely would’. The willingness to protect the
trail landscape dimension brings together some questions related to social environmentalism and
environmental citizenship categories proposed by Larson et al. (2015) with a place-based
approach related to the location of the interview. The other six questions involved everyday self-
reported behaviors outside the trails and were stated as “Thinking about your everyday actions,
please tell me how frequently you actually adopt these behaviors”, being one ‘never’, and five
‘always’. An Exploratory Factor Analysis was performed using only the CDT data (n=188).
Then, data from PCT (n=182) was used as a hold-out sample to validate the model after item
selection and factor identification.
As with the sense of place construct, concerning the pro-environmental behavior
construct, three models were hypothesized:
1. One-factor model: represented by a single, homogeneous pro-environmental behavior
construct, joining all the PEB measures.
2. Two-factor model: the PEB items would be divided into two factors related to
willingness to protect the trail landscape and daily behaviors.
3. Three-factor model: the PEB items would be divided into three factors also related to
willingness to protect the trail landscape and daily behaviors, but with the latter group
73
being divided into conservation lifestyle and neighborhood stewardship behaviors,
following Larson et al. (2015).
The EFA with CDT data was performed and no items were excluded by skewness and
kurtosis criteria, but four items were excluded due to low factor loadings (Table 3-2). The model
indicated three factors, clearly dividing the items related to the willingness to protect the trail
landscape (WPT) and subdividing the everyday behaviors into two factors. the sub-group of
everyday behaviors was separated into two groups, which we called lifestyle behavior and
neighborhood stewardship, adapted from Larson et al. (2015; Table 3-2). We adapted the name
of land stewardship to neighborhood stewardship to clarify that this behavior refers to the
respondent's area of residence and to avoid confusion with the willingness to protect the trail
landscape dimension. The internal consistency was confirmed (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.821), and
the KMO (0.807) and Bartlett’s tests (p<0.001) showed the data adequacy for factor analysis.
The total variance explained was 50.09%, slightly above the minimum threshold. In the second
analysis, with the PCT data, the same pattern emerged, dividing the same three factors identified
for the CDT (Table 3-2). The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.820, the KMO was slightly higher than
that of the CDT (0.811), and Bartlett’s tests (p<0.001) also confirmed the sample adequacy for
factor analysis. The total variance explained was also slightly above the threshold (51.61%).
3.2.3.3 Connection to nature scale
Connection to nature was assessed using the Connectedness with Nature Scale proposed
by Mayer & Frantz (2004) in the 7-item reduced version proposed and tested by Pasca et al.
(2017). Mayer & Frantz (2004) claim that their scale is affective and experiential, which is
contested by other authors, who claim that the scale measures beliefs about people’s connection
to nature and not proper emotional connections (Perrin & Benassi, 2009). Pasca et al. (2017)
74
treat the Connectedness with Nature Scale as a subjective cognitive scale. This scale was chosen
because it is unidimensional, a necessary condition for CFA, and does not contain statements
associated with activities in nature or behaviors. Scales that contain statements with these
characteristics, such as the Love and Care for Nature Scale (LCN; Perkins, 2010), could create a
bias and compromise the validity of the factor analysis when associated with sense of place or
pro-environmental behavior scales. Using data from this study, there was no skewness and
kurtosis issues, and the internal consistency was confirmed (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.899). An EFA
was performed and KMO (0.913) and Bartlett’s tests (p<0.001) showed the sampling adequacy
of the data for factor analysis. The unidimensionality was also confirmed and only one factor
was extracted, which explained 56.99% of the variance. No items were excluded based on factor
loadings.
3.2.4 Data Analysis
After selecting items and validating each scale separately, another EFA was performed
with the variables of all constructs to identify possible cross-loadings, check how the variables
grouped into factors, and generate a clear pattern matrix for the next steps. The same EFA cut-off
values from the previous analyzes were used. The Harman’s single factor test was used to check
if a common method bias influenced the result (Collier, 2020).
Subsequently, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis was performed in AMOS 26.0 to estimate
a comprehensive full measurement model with the pre-specified constructs. The goodness of fit
was examined using the Relative Chi-square test (χ2/dF must be between 1 and 3), Comparative
Fit Indices (CFI acceptable > 0.90), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA
acceptable <0.08), and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR acceptable < 0.08),
following thresholds suggested by Collier (2020). Composite Reliability (C.R. must be > 0.70)
75
was used to ensure reliability, Average Variance Extracted (AVE must be > 0.50) to assess
convergent validity, and Maximum Shared variances (MSV) compared to AVE to discriminant
validity, following the thresholds proposed by Hair et al. (2010).
Finally, we built a full structural model to examine the relationships between constructs
and test our hypotheses about the relationship between sense of place and pro-environmental
behaviors and the role of connection to nature as a mediator. Since the pro-environmental
behavior was divided into three factors, we also tested the hypotheses with Willingness to
Protect the Trail Landscape – WPT as a possible partial (H5) or full (H6) mediator between
connection to nature and the daily behaviors (Conservation Lifestyle Behavior and
Neighborhood Stewardship Behaviors), based on Halpenny (2010). Because the thresholds
proposed by many authors are reasonable rules of thumb but not absolute limits (Kline, 2011),
when only one assumption was not fulfilled by a narrow margin for any variable, two models
were built, removing the recommended variables, or keeping them trying to capture the
maximum complexity of the respective construct. Bootstraps with 5,000 samples with 95%
confidence intervals were performed to test the mediation hypotheses and their significance, and
changes in Akaike Information Criterion (AIC; Kline, 2011) was used to identify the most
parsimonious model.
3.3 Results
On the CDT, the response rate was 91% (191/210). Day hikers represented 66% of the
sample, multi-day/section hikers 10%, and thru-hikers 24%. The profile of respondents was
predominantly male (60.7%), and white (87.4%), with ages ranging from 19 to 91 years: a
predominance in the ranges of 18-30 years (30.9%) and 31-45 years (29.3%). The majority have
completed college (80.6%) and were employed full-time (55.5%). On the PCT, the response rate
76
was 89% (185/208). Day hikers comprised 59% of the sample, multi-day/section hikers 14%,
and thru-hikers 27%. The profile of respondents was predominantly male (63.8%), white
(78.9%), with ages ranging from 18 to 77 years old, with a predominance in the range of 31-45
years old (32.4%), followed by 18-30 years old and 46- 60 (both with 25.9%). Most have
completed college (80.2%) and were employed full-time (57.8%).
The mean SoP for the whole population was 4.12 (S.D. = 0.78) and the mean CN was
4.31 (S.D. = 0.79). Regarding pro-environmental behaviors, the mean for willingness to protect
the trail landscape was 4.19 (S.D. = 0.80), the mean for conservation lifestyle was 3.55 (S.D. =
0.99), and 3.18 (S.D. = 1.17) for neighborhood stewardship (Table 3-3).
3.3.1 Factor Analyses
The EFA with all items identified five factors, confirming the separation of variables: -
Sense of Place, Connectedness with Nature, and within Pro-Environmental Behaviors -
willingness to protect the trail landscape, conservation lifestyle, and neighborhood stewardship.
These five factors explain 53.74% of the variance. Regarding internal consistency, only the
neighborhood stewardship construct showed a low Cronbach's alpha (0.641; Table 3-4). The
KMO (0.911) and Bartlett's tests (p<0.001) showed the sample adequacy for factor analysis, and
the minimum limits for extraction values and factor loadings were achieved (Table 3-4), as well
as the goodness of fit test (chi-square/dF = 1.83; p<0.001). Harman’s single-factor test showed
no common method bias in this study, as indicated by the low variance explained (33.42%) by
one factor after unrotated factor analysis.
In the CFA, the model fit was excellent for χ2/dF (2.137), SRMR (0.055), RMSEA
(0.056), and acceptable for CFI (0.929) according to Collier (2020) criteria. Construct reliability
was demonstrated by C.R. values greater than 0.70, except for neighborhood stewardship (NS;
77
0.65). Convergent validity was established by AVE > 0.50, except for willingness to protect the
trail landscape (WPT; 0.455) and again NS (0.479). Considering that the AVE values were
slightly below the threshold and that the discriminant validity confirmed the separation between
the constructs, with maximum shared variance much lower than the square root of AVE, two
models were built, one maintaining all items and another excluding recommended items until all
established criteria were met (Table 3-4). In the second model, after excluding the neighborhood
stewardship construct and three items of willingness to protect the trail landscape (WPT_4,
WPT _5, and WPT _8), all remaining constructs met the criteria, and the fit measures remained
practically the same (χ2/dF = 2.317; SRMR = 0.055; RMSEA = 0.060; CFI = 0.939). After the
exclusion of the three items, the C.R. for WPT was reduced from 0.83 to 0.75, and Cronbach's
alpha decreased from 0.819 to 0.751, but both remained above the minimum acceptable
threshold (Table3- 4).
3.3.2 Full Structural Model
The results of SEM indicated that both models (the first keeping all variables, and a
second excluding those that did not meet the criteria) had a good fit, as the overall fit measures
showed values above the established minimum thresholds (Table 3-5). The two models built
showed the same results in terms of statistical significance with small variation in estimates.
Sense of place (SoP) has significant direct effects on connection to nature (CN) but not
on any pro-environmental behavior. CN showed significant direct effects on willingness to
protect the trail landscape (WPT) and conservation lifestyle (CL) but not on neighborhood
stewardship (NS). WPT, in turn, showed significant direct effects on CL and NS. The indirect
effects of SoP on all pro-environmental behavior with CN as a mediator were significant (Table
78
3-6), with bootstrap analysis showing p < 0.001 for all cases. The two models built confirmed the
hypothesis of CN as a full mediator between the SoP and all PEBs (H3; Figure 3-2). The indirect
effects of CN on CL and NS with WPT as a mediator were also significant. In this case, both
models confirmed the hypotheses of WPT as a partial mediator between CN and CL (H4), and as
a full mediator between CN and NS (H5; Figure 3-2). Finally, the AIC model selection showed
the model with interactions between willingness to protect the trail landscape and the daily
behaviors as more robust than the one without these relationships: in the first model with all
variables, AIC = 752.530 with interactions between WPT and CL/NS and AIC = 769,470
without these interactions. In the second model excluding variables AIC = 512.023 with the
WPT-CL interaction and AIC = 521.199 without this interaction.
3.4 Discussion
3.4.1 Constructs, Dimensions, and Scales
Respondent profiles were very similar on both trails, suggesting that CDT and PCT
hikers can be considered a single population. Although the CDT is less developed and passes
through more remote areas, the sampling also included popular attractions along this trail, such
as St. Mary’s Falls (Glacier NP, MT), which may have balanced the sampling and contributed to
its profile being closer to the PCT.
Regarding the SoP, two items were eliminated from the scale due to low correlation, and
another two in the EFA to meet the established minimum criteria of factor loading and explained
variance. The final seven-item scale was one-dimensional. These remaining seven itens were
classified by Ardoin et al. (2012) to be in the psychological (6) and biophysical (1) dimensions
of SoP, and the six psychological items were divided in place identity (4) and place dependence
(2) subdimensions (Ardoin 2009). Nevertheless, these classifications are debatable, as one item
79
(SoP4 in this study) was classified in place identity by Ardoin (2009) and place dependence by
Vaske & Kobrin (2001). Controversies about sense of place dimensions make this discussion
more complex.
Concerning CN, the EFA confirmed the unidimensionality of the reduced version and
maintained all seven items tested by Pasca et al. (2017). The CN Scale has been heavily tested,
and this result suggests this scale has been more developed than the scales developed for other
constructs addressed in this study.
The PEB split into different dimensions, as expected. The willingness to take action items
were grouped into one dimension, which we called willingness to protect the trail landscape.
The daily behaviors were divided into two, associated with conservation lifestyle and
neighborhood stewardship. All items were grouped as expected, except for “I try to eat local
food as much as possible,” which was grouped with neighborhood stewardship. As a
consumption behavior it is commonly related to conservation lifestyle (Larson et al., 2015), but
when prioritizing local producers, it also makes sense to relate it to neighborhood care.
Prioritizing local food not only saves transport energy and reduces food waste but also influences
land use and, therefore, the local landscape.
The overall means were relatively high for all scales, with highest means for CN (4.29/5),
closely followed by WPT (4.19/5) and SoP (4.12/5). Means for daily behaviors were lower (CL
= 3.55/5; NS = 2.93/5), suggesting that they are less related to SoP and CN, as confirmed by the
full structural model. The high overall means were somewhat expected because the interviews
were conducted on trails, and only people seeking activities in natural environments were
interviewed. However, further research comparing different audiences with standardized scales
would allow a better assessment of the reliability and generalizability of these findings.
80
3.4.2 Relationships Between Sense of Place, Connection to Nature, and Pro-Environmental
Behaviors
The model suggests that sense of place is directly related to connection to nature but not
to pro-environmental behaviors. As a full mediator, connection to nature appears to be an
essential step in linking these constructs. Even the clearly place-related PEB, such as the items of
willingness to protect the trail landscape, did not show a direct relationship with SoP, but were
mediated by CN. Outdoor recreationists can develop SoP motivated by reasons unrelated to
nature, such as practicing recreational activities, developing skills, or ensuring health (Anderson
& Fulton, 2008; Kyle et al., 2004), but we can speculate that only when this SoP is associated
with CN, would it influence PEBs. Scannell & Gifford (2010) divided sense of place in civic and
natural dimensions and found only the natural dimension influencing PEB. Wakefield et al.
(2001) studied civic action against pollution threats in an urban industrial neighborhood and
found sense of place as a “necessary but not sufficient” condition to generate pro-environmental
behavior. Their respondents engaged in civic action showed sense of place, but not everyone
who reported sense of place engaged in civic action in an urban setting.
At first glance, our result seems to contradict some authors that found a direct
relationship between SoP and PEB (Halpenny, 2010; Vaske & Kobrin, 2001). However, these
studies did not assess the possibility of this relationship being mediated by a third factor, such as
connection to nature. If we excluded CN from our model, the direct effects of SoP on all pro-
environment intentions and behaviors would be significant, and the previously cited studies
would be corroborated. On the other hand, both explored subdimensions of sense of place:
identity and dependence, which was not possible in our study because our scale turned out to be
81
one-dimensional. They found place identity as a full mediator between place dependence and
PEB. Place identity and connection to nature have common roots (Clayton, 2003; Proshansky et
al., 1983) and discussing the importance of place identity, Halpenny (2010) speculated that
“individuals may transfer the importance they assign to the place they love and value to the more
abstract concept of the environment, increasing the possibility of their engagement in
environmentally-responsible behaviors as a result” (p.417). Our model confirms this statement
and represents an improvement over previous models by incorporating a new construct and
identifying connection to nature as a full mediator between SoP and PEB.
Regarding the relationship between CN and PEBs, we found direct effects on willingness
to protect the trail landscape and conservation lifestyle but not on neighborhood stewardship.
WPT has direct effects on the two other PEBs, representing a partial mediator between CN and
CL and a full mediator between CN and NS. Alisat & Riemer (2015) found that CN seems to
relate more strongly to activist behaviors than to personal practices, which can be influenced by
other factors such as personal health or monetary incentives. Our model corroborates this finding
by presenting behavior intentions associated with activism (WPT) as a mediator between CN and
personal practices (CL and NS). The model also reinforces findings by Halpenny (2010), who
studied national park visitors and found park-specific behavioral intentions as a possible
mediator between place identity and general pro-environment intentions. We cannot rule out the
influence of the interview environment on the emphasis given to place-based pro-environmental
behaviors. Hikers could be more aware of the trail's context or just be thinking about problems
and actions closer to their reality at the moment when responding. However, these seem to
influence behavior in other environments and contexts positively. In this case, hikers who
become aware of the importance of landscape conservation during a journey on a mega trail
82
would project part of these concerns into their everyday life, adopting pro-environmental
behaviors after the experience. The existence of this spillover effect in pro-environmental
behaviors is controversial (Thøgersen, 1999). However, the most parsimonious model we found
suggests it, with willingness to protect the trail landscape positively influencing daily behaviors.
3.4.3 Implications for Conservation
Our results suggest that developing sense of place alone is not enough to generate pro-
environmental behaviors and these behaviors are only adopted by people who also present a
strong connection to nature. On the other hand, the importance of hikers developing a
relationship with the trail's landscape is evident in the role of place-based behavior intentions as
a mediator between CN and daily PEBs. The awareness of the importance of protecting the trail's
landscape seems to encourage hikers to adopt PEBs also in their daily lives away from the trails.
As Zylstra et al. (2014) pointed out, the knowledge about people’s relationship with
natural environments from fields such as ecopsychology and outdoor learning “rarely find their
way into mainstream conservation.” (p.134). Therefore, identifying which aspects relate
experiences and sense of place to connection to nature and pro-environmental behaviors, and
encouraging activities that generate greater involvement with the environment is strategic to
promote these behaviors among outdoor recreationists. By being an appreciative and relatively
slow activity (Nord et al., 1998; Thapa & Graefe, 2003), hiking allows greater involvement with
the environment. It is accessible in terms of the skills, equipment, and facilities needed (Mitten et
al., 2016) and practiced by millions of people worldwide, offering hiking opportunities seems to
be a valuable strategy to engage people in pro-environmental behaviors.
3.4.4 Limitations and Future Directions
83
The objective of this study is exploring the relationships between sense of place and pro-
environmental behaviors and not to develop validated scales. However, the lack of standardized
scales for SoP and PEB made their operationalization difficult. It was necessary to test new
scales adapted from other studies, and some items were excluded for failing to meet the
minimum criteria for analysis. The unidimensionality determined by the EFA limited the
hypothesis test on sense of place subdimensions. In addition, PEB was divided into three factors,
with few items in two of them, limiting its validity and making the analysis difficult. Another
difficulty is adapting the items to different profiles of respondents. Some residents of dense
urban areas, for example, questioned items such as “I take steps to improve habitat for wildlife
near my home.” The development of standardized scales and the inclusion of items that fit
different contexts would be of great value for further research.
The model fit evaluation in SEM is also complex, and many authors question the
commonly used thresholds (e.g., Kline, 2011). The limits for recommended fit measures are not
absolute and are considered rules of thumb (Collier, 2020). Defining which threshold should
prevail when several fit measures are close to the considered thresholds is challenging. The
minimum value for Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient is also debatable. It is usually
considered acceptable above 0.65 in human dimensions research, but some authors accept >
0.60, while others suggest a minimum of up to 0.80 (Vaske, 2019). To minimize these
limitations, we ran two full structural models varying the thresholds for including items. A model
with more variables tends to represent these constructs' complexity better and improve content
validity (Collier, 2020). On the other hand, the result can be compromised, for example, by low
discriminant validity.
84
Another factor that must be considered is the effect of social desirability, especially for
pro-environmental behaviors. Although behavior intentions are considered a good predictor of
behavior (Ajzen, 1985), some authors reported low correlations between self-reported and
observed behavior (e.g., Corral-Verdugo, 1997). Social desirability bias is a limitation of any
survey, especially those with in-person interviews (Vaske, 2019).
Finally, the generalizability of this model must be evaluated. Hiking is probably the least
specialized outdoor activity (Mitten et al., 2016), theoretically favoring generalizability.
However, SoP for hikers seems to be more associated with place identity (Kyle et al., 2003),
while for other activities with more specific requirements, such as hunting, place dependence
seems more relevant (Anderson & Fulton, 2008). Thus, the SoP-CN-PEB relationship can be
different for place-dependent recreationists and further research testing our model for other
outdoor activities could answer about the generalizability of these relationships between sense of
place, connection to nature, and pro-environmental behaviors.
3.5 Conclusions
The direct relationship between sense of place and connection to nature suggests that
experiences in natural environments may help forge this connection to nature in general.
However, sense of place is not sufficient to explain pro-environmental behaviors, and connection
to nature seems to be a fundamental step in the process from nature experiences to engaging
people in conservation. If connection to nature is essential to generate willingness to take action,
the intention to engage civically to protect the trails and their landscape also seems important for
connection to nature results in pro-environmental behaviors in the hikers' off-trail everyday life.
The relationship between sense of place and pro-environmental behavior, through connection to
85
nature, in this study suggests that hiking should be encouraged and can be a valuable strategy to
promote engagement in conservation.
86
Figure 3-1. Conceptual model and hypotheses (Hx) on the relationships between sense of place
and pro-environmental behavior (dark gray arrows), including their subdimensions
(dashed light gray arrows) and connection to nature as possible mediators.
87
Table 3-1. EFA results with Sense of Place items factor loadings and total variance explained
AT
(n= 226)
CDT + PCT
(n=376)
Factor loadings
Factor loadings
Sense of Place items
Round 1
Round 2
Round 1
Round 2
SoP_1
I feel like this place are part of me
.760
.761
.761
.764
SoP _2
This place are the best place for what I like to do
.692
.693
.733
.711
SoP _3
I identify strongly with this place
.822
.838
.846
.851
SoP _4
I get more satisfaction out of being here than
anywhere else
.723
.718
.583**
***
SoP _5
I am very attached to this place
.860
.865
.720
.711
SoP _6
Coming or being here says a lot about who I am
.706
.688
.666
.661
SoP _7
The things I do here, I would enjoy doing just as
much somewhere else
*
***
***
***
SoP _8
Because of my lifestyle, this place is important to me
.507
.488
.618
.633
SoP _9
Most of my family/friends are, in some way,
connected with this place
*
***
***
***
SoP _10
I identify with the physical landscape of this place
.527
.521
.640
.657
SoP _11
I am interested in the plants and animals that live in
this place
.491**
***
***
***
Total Variance explained:
47.45%
50.10%
49.06%
51.28%
AT: Appalachian Trail; CDT: Continental Divide Trail; PCT: Pacific Crest Trail. * Item not included in EFA
because of low correlations; **Lowest factor loading item excluded because of total variance explained <50%; Item
excluded in previous rounds.
88
Table 3-2. Pro-Environmental Behavior items tested and EFA results for CDT and PCT
CDT (n= 188)
PCT (n=182)
Factor loadings
(% Variance explained)
Factor loadings
(% Variance explained)
1
(27.1%)
2
(15.5%)
3
(7.5%)
1
(33.6%)
2
(12.8%)
3
(5.3%)
Willingness to Protect the Trail Landscape - WPT
WPT_1
Talk to family/friends/community about it
.583
.687
WPT _2
Use online tools (e.g. post on internet/social
media) to gather attention
Excluded Not included
WPT _3
Sign a petition
.800
.759
WPT _4
Write to authorities (e.g. congress people)
.697
.780
WPT _5
Attend a protest/rally
.509
.633
WPT _6
Take this issue in account when voting
.652
.734
WPT _7
Stop consuming products from companies that
threaten the landscape
Excluded Not included
WPT _8
Donate money to ensure the protection of the
land
.438 .622
WPT _9
Volunteer to protect or keep this place in good
conditions
Excluded Not included
Conservation Lifestyle Behavior - CL
CL_1
I try to adapt my diet to reduce my impact on
nature
.532 .422
CL _2
I try to reduce my energy consumption
.749
.796
CL _3
I try to reduce my carbon footprint.
.948
.873
Neighborhood Stewardship Behaviors- NS
NS_1
I try to eat local food as much as possible
Excluded
Not included
NS_2
I take steps to improve habitat for wildlife
near my home
.776 .652
NS_3
I do volunteer work to care for a natural area
near my home
.709 .607
Total Variance
explained: 50.1%
Total Variance
explained: 51.6%
Table 3-3. Mean values of hikers' responses for each construct
Constructs/dimensions
Mean
(out of 5)
Standard
deviation
Sense of Place
4.12
0.78
Connection to Nature
4.31
0.79
Pro-environmental behaviors dimensions
Willingness to Protect the Trail Landscape
4.19
0.80
Conservation Lifestyle
3.55
0.99
Neighborhood Stewardship
3.18
1.17
89
Table 3-4. Confirmatory factor and reliability analysis
Construct
Measurement item
Stand. Factor
loading
t-value
Crombach’s
alpha
AVE
MSV
Sense of Place (C.R.= .88)
0.876
0.514
0.236
SoP_1
I feel like these places are part of me
0.772
*
SoP_2
These places are the best places for
what I like to do 0.705 13.686
SoP_3
I identify strongly with these places
0.838
16.624
SoP_5
I am very attached to these places
0.701
13.611
SoP_6
Coming or being here says a lot about
who I am 0.671 12.948
SoP_8
Because of my lifestyle, these places
are important to me 0.651 12.507
SoP_10
I identify with the physical landscape
of these places 0.662 12.755
Reduced Connectedness with Nature Scale
(C.R.= .90)
0.899 0.570 0.289
CN_1
I think of the natural world as a
community to which I belong 0.698 *
CN_2
When I think of my life, I imagine
myself to be part of a larger cyclical
process of living
0.799 14.249
CN_3
I often feel a kinship with animals and
plants 0.729 13.066
CN_4
I feel as though I belong to the Earth
as equally as it belongs to me 0.735 13.179
CN_5
I often feel part of the web of life
0.802
14.303
CN_6
I feel that all inhabitants of Earth,
human, and nonhuman, share a
common “life force”
0.712 12.784
CN_7
Like a tree can be part of a forest, I
feel embedded within the broader
natural world
0.803 14.316
Willingness to Protect the Trail Landscape
(C.R.= .83; 0.75**)
0.819
(0.751)**
0.455
(0.502)**
0.289
WPT_1
Talk to family/friends/community
about it 0.667 *
WPT _3
Sign a petition
0.717
11.598
WPT _4
Write to authorities (e.g. congress
people) 0.731 11.775
WPT _5
Attend a protest/rally
0.620
10.285
WPT _6
Take this issue in account when
voting 0.676 11.060
90
WPT _8
Donate money to ensure the
protection of the land 0.626 10.370
Conservation Lifestyle Behavior (C.R.= .80)
0.774
0.574
0.176
CL_1
I try to adapt my diet to reduce my
impact on nature (e.g. reducing meat
consumption or being vegetarian)
0.593 *
CL _2
I try to reduce my energy
consumption (e.g. using bikes or
public transport, turning off air
conditioning)
0.739 10.751
CL _3
I try to reduce my carbon footprint.
0.907
10.982
Neighborhood Stewardship Behavior
(C.R.= .65 ***)
0.641*** 0.479*** 0.135
NS_2
I take steps to improve habitat for
wildlife near my home 0.744 *
NS_3
I do volunteer work to care for a
natural area near my home 0.635 6.514
Table 3-4. Continued
Model Fit Statistics: χ2 = 566.301 (380.023**), df = 265 (164**); CFI = 0.93 (0.94**), RMSEA = 0.056 0(.060**)
C.R. = Composite reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted; MSV = Maximum Shared variance
* Items constrained for identification; ** Results after excluded WPT _4, WPT _5, WPT _8, and NS Construct; ***
Excluded if AVE > 0.5 minimum threshold or the Crombach’s alpha > 0.65 are adopted.
91
Table 3-5. Direct effects in structural model tests
Relationships
Standardized
Estimates
Composite
Reliability
p-values
Sense of Place – Connection to Nature
0.527 (0.527)
8.415 (8.424)
< 0.001 (< 0.001)
Sense of Place – Will. to Protect Trail
0.044 (0.01)
0.717 (0.152)
0.473 (0.879)
Sense of Place – Conservation Lifestyle
-0.023 (-0.024)
-0.359 (-0.360)
0.720 (0.719)
Sense of Place – Neighborhood Stewardship
0.137 (*)
1.752 (*)
0.080 (*)
Connection to Nature – Will. to Protect Trail
0.606 (0.631)
7.749 (7.801)
< 0.001 (< 0.001)
Connection to Nature - Conservation Lifestyle
0.291 (0.2926)
3.411 (3.227)
< 0.001 (0.001)
Connection to Nature - Neighborhood Stewardship
0.161 (*)
1.653 (*)
< 0.102 (*)
Will. to Protect Trail - Conservation Lifestyle
0.300 (0.284)
3.715 (3.232)
< 0.001 (0.001)
Will. to Protect Trail - Neighborhood Stewardship
0.259 (**)
2.758 (*)
0.006 (*)
Values in parentheses correspond to the second structural model after excluding variables that did not meet the
criteria. Model Fit Statistics: χ2/dF = 2.1979, SRMR = 0.063, RMSEA = 0.057, CFI = 0.925 (χ2/dF = 2.317; SRMR
= 0.058; RMSEA = 0.060; CFI = 0.939). * Neighborhood Stewardship was excluded in the second structural model.
Figure 3-2. Full structural models associating the constructs (ellipses), including the variables
contributing to each construct (rectangles) and residual errors (circles). In light grey
constructs and variables excluded in the second structural model (values in
parentheses correspond to the second structural model after excluding variables that
did not meet the criteria). * Significant values at p<0.01 level in bold.
92
Table 3-6. Test for Mediation using Bootstrap Analysis
Direct Effects
Indirect Effects
Relationships
Standardized
estimates
p-value
Standardized
estimates
Confidence interval
(Lower – upper)
p-
values
Conclusion
Sense of place – pro-environmental behaviors (CN as a mediator)
Sense of Place
Willingness to Protect
the Trail
1: 0.044
2: 0.019
0.547
0.844
0.320
0.332
0.225
0.226
0.429
0.462
< 0.001
< 0.001
Full
mediation
Sense of Place
Conservation Lifestyle
1: - 0.023
2: - 0.016
0.709
0.803
0.262
0.253
0.167
0.153
0.377
0.365
< 0.001
< 0.001
Full
mediation
Sense of Place
Neighborhood
Stewardship
1: 0.316 0.130
0.179 0.088 0.291 < 0.001 Full
mediation
Connection to nature – daily behaviors (WPT as a mediator)
Connection to Nature
Conservation Lifestyle
1: 0.291
2: 0.290
< 0.001
< 0.001
0.182
0.179
0.074 - 0.312
0.060 – 0.326
0.002
0.006
Partial
mediation
Connection to Nature
Neighborhood
Stewardship
1: 0.161 0.140
0.157 0.043 – 0.302 0.007 Full
mediation
1: Full structural model with all variables; 2: Full structural model after excluding variables that did not meet the
criteria. Indirect effects tested with Bootstrap sample (5,000) with replacement (95% Confidence Interval).
93
CHAPTER 4
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PERCEPTIONS ON THE ROLE OF MEGA TRAILS IN
GATEWAY COMMUNITIES’ ECONOMY AND IDENTITY
Since the pioneering proposal to implement the Appalachian Trail (AT) a century ago,
long-distance hiking trails have promoted local economic development through outdoor
recreation (Cerveny et al., 2022; Foresta, 1987). In the visionary article in which he presents the
idea of the AT, Mackaye (1921) highlights its potential as an alternative for leisure and contact
with nature for urban workers, while generating a series of economic opportunities that would
enable small rural communities along the trail to thrive. By combining outdoor activities in a
conserved landscape with efforts to meet the needs of hikers and residents, Mackaye seemed to
anticipate the concept of sustainable tourism, which is proposed to be economically viable,
environmentally appropriate, and socially acceptable (McCool, 2016).
Tourism is often perceived to be an alternative for regions suffering economic decline,
where agriculture and other primary sectors are less competitive (Harris et al., 1998; Li et al.,
2019; A. Mayer, 2021). However, negative consequences of intensifying tourism have been
noted in gateway communities, defined as small rural towns near major public lands or notable
natural attractions (Stoker et al., 2021), such as higher costs of living, real estate appreciation,
and gentrification (McMahon, 1999; Stoker et al., 2021). The concerns with identifying and
controlling unplanned negative effects of tourism and the resistance they can cause in local
communities date back many decades (Butler, 1975).
Unlike the logic of large tourist clusters, which concentrate facilities and their impacts in
a few communities (Cunha & Cunha, 2005), mega trails disperse their users over vast areas,
diluting the positive and negative effects of tourism over thousands of kilometers. While many
gateway communities concentrate the impact of major tourist attractions and grow until the
94
quality of the experience is compromised, facing a boom and collapse lifecycle associated with a
tourism destination (Butler, 1980; Monterrubio Cordero, 2008), each mega trail spreads these
effects in dozens of gateway communities. Instead of large tourism facilities, mega trails create
many small-scale business opportunities, which avoid boom and tends to be more sustainable. At
the same time, these communities are the main source for resupplying hikers, without which
there is no long-distance hiking, but they also serve other visitors attracted to the trail (see
Chapter 2).
Estimating the total economic impact of a mega trail is challenging since its length and
multiple access points make it difficult to even estimate the total number of users (Pollock et al.,
2007; Zarnoch et al., 2011). Estimates of the economic impact of long-distance trails range from
just over $1.5 million per year in two counties (Bowker et al., 2007) to over $120 million for a
trail crossing 12 towns (GAPC, 2021). Even the lowest estimated values can represent a
significant output for small communities, eventually offsetting impacts seen as negative by
residents. While many tourist destinations invest in growth and massification and seek to
generate significant economic benefits to offset negative impacts, minimizing impacts, even if
economic benefits are limited, seems to result in a positive balance and is more in line with the
principles of sustainable tourism. The Social Exchange Theory (Emerson, 1976), widely used in
tourism research (Ap, 1992), predicts that a balance between positive and negative impacts
influences residents' perception of tourism (Frauman & Banks, 2012; Harrill, 2004).
In recent years, Trail Town programs were implemented to enhance and highlight the
benefits of trails, reinforce links, and raise support for the trail and its conservation (Camp,
2020). Being a trail town can forge a new community identity, which “refers to the feeling of
‘we’ of individual residents that connect them to each other” (Stewart et al., 2004, p. 316). These
95
authors argue that the environment can be part of this connection and “become emblematic of
stories residents tell about themselves to explain their values and life contexts,” with the
potential to create and reaffirm community identities (Stewart et al., 2004, p. 316). This process
seems particularly intense in towns that had their identity related to an economically collapsed
activity (Phillips, 1988). Aiming to engage communities, enhance sustainable economic
development, and support regional conservation planning (Camp, 2020; CDTC, 2023a), Trail
Town programs reinforce the principles of sustainable tourism. However, few studies assess the
extent to which mega trails and trail towns programs influence economic development,
stewardship, and community identity (Cerveny et al., 2022).
Having the support and involvement of local communities is considered relevant to the success of
a tourism destination (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Koo, 2018; Yuksel et al., 1999). If residents’ perception
of the social impacts of natural areas results in local support for their conservation (Jones et al., 2020;
McGinlay et al., 2023), knowing how local communities perceive the trails and what factors influence this
perception is essential to evaluate these trails as conservation tools. It should be understood to assist
communities and trail managers to best plan for how trails and communities can partner together to
achieve a variety of socioeconomic and conservation outcomes.
In this study, we interviewed key actors in ten gateway communities along the three most
renowned US national scenic trails (NST) to explore factors influencing their perceptions of the
trail. We used qualitative comparative analysis to assess the designation as an official trail town,
the actual economic impact of tourism, and respondents' personal experiences hiking the trail as
factors that potentially explain their perceptions about the importance of trails in the local
economy and community identity and eventual negative impacts in their communities. We
discuss factors that influence perceptions and their implications for management and
conservation of these trails from the perspective of sustainable tourism principles.
96
4.1 Methods
4.1.1 Exploratory Research and Hypotheses Development
This study had a preliminary exploratory phase developed along the Appalachian Trail
between July and August 2021. In a grounded theory approach, we sought to understand the
relationship between gateway communities and the trail, the perceptions of key actors (sensu Ap,
1992) on the importance of the trail in the economy and local identity, and if trail town (TT)
programs are effective in generating awareness and engagement.
Six towns along the trail were studied: three AT Communities Program participants
(Damascus, VA; Harpers Ferry, WV; and Manchester, VT) and three closely matched towns
with similar economic and demographic characteristics (Glade Spring, VA; Brunswick, MD; and
Wallingford, VT). During the visits, aspects such as the visibility and use of the trail's brand and
the number of services associated with the trail and tourism were observed. In each town, key
actors were identified and contacted, such as town officials, representatives of the chamber of
commerce, local business owners, and Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC) staff members or
volunteers. Informal conversations and unstructured interviews served to identify relevant topics
and generate research questions and hypotheses. To allow new topics to emerge in conversations,
we defined guiding questions and moved from there to other topics mentioned by interviewees
(Miles & Huberman, 1994).
From the literature review, preliminary interviews, and field observations, the following
hypotheses were developed to guide research examining key actors’ perceptions of mega trails’
role in the economy and identity of each gateway community:
1. The perception of the trail as important to the local economy and community identity is
greater, and the perceived negative impacts are lower, in towns engaged in trail town
programs.
97
2. The perception of the trail as important to the local economy and community identity is
greater, and the perceived negative impacts are lower in towns where the tourism and
outdoor activities are more relevant to the local economy.
3. Key actors with personal experiences hiking the trail perceive it as more important and
the negative impacts as low important than other key actors.
4.1.2 Study Areas
The second stage of the study involved a cross-case study approach in gateway
communities along the three NSTs known as the Triple Crown of Hiking in the US (Wilson &
Belote, 2022) to test the hypotheses developed and explore residents' perceptions. According to
Borman et al. (2012), the comparison of different sites or cases allows one to establish “the range
of generality of a finding or explanation and, at the same time, pin down the conditions under
which that finding will occur” (p. 123). As in the preliminary phase, cities were chosen in pairs
along the three trails studied in order to control geographic and demographic characteristics. Five
towns involved in the official trail town programs of each trail were selected, paired with other
nearby cities with similar conditions but that are not part of the programs (Figure 1).
The Appalachian Trail (AT) is a 3,524-km long trail that follows the Appalachian
Mountains along the US Eastern Coast, crossing 14 states from Georgia to Maine. Proposed in
1921 (MacKaye, 1921) and first thru-hiked in 1948, the AT was the pioneer mega trail in the US
(NPS, 2015). Annually, more than 1,000 people thru-hike the AT, and an estimated three million
people visit some section of the trail (ATC, 2023b). The AT Communities Program launched in
2010 was the first in an NST (Camp, 2020). Today, there are 51 towns officially in the program
run by the Appalachian Trail Conservancy. In November 2022, two towns were visited.
Damascus, in Virginia, was revisited as it is considered an iconic trail town. It has 788
inhabitants (US Census Bureau, 2023), sits at the crossroads of seven trails, calls itself the Trail
Town USA (Damico, 2005), and has been promoting this brand for a long time (Garvey, 1978).
98
During preliminary fieldwork, we identified a different town that was a better match for
Damascus due to the size and proximity of the AT and visited it in the second stage. Hampton is
an unincorporated community in Tennessee with a population of 2,030 (US Census Bureau,
2023). The town is adjacent to Watauga Lake and less than 2 km from the AT, but the tourism-
related businesses focus on fishing and water activities.
The Continental Divide Trail (CDT) is a 4,873-km long trail between the international
borders with Mexico and Canada. It runs through the Rocky Mountain Range, separating the
Atlantic and Pacific oceans basins. The CDT crosses a well-conserved corridor (Wilson &
Belote, 2022), predominantly in public lands and protected areas, including three renowned
national parks – Yellowstone, Rocky Mountain, and Glacier. Just over 100 people successfully
thru-hike the CDT annually, but this number is increasing (CDTC, 2023b). Since 2014, the CDT
Coalition has developed the CDT Gateway Communities Program (CDT-GCP; Camp, 2020)
with 20 officially recognized towns (CDTC, 2023). This study included four towns visited
between May and August 2022, two in New Mexico (NM) and two in Colorado (CO). Silver
City (NM) has 9,704 inhabitants (US Census Bureau, 2023), and as the name suggests, it
originated in silver mining. Today tourism is one of its main economic activities and 97% of the
thru hikers resupplied there in 2021 (Halfway Anywhere, 2023). The trail crosses downtown
Silver City, which was the first CDT Gateway Community, certified in 2014. Lordsburg (NM) is
a city of about 2,335 people (US Census Bureau, 2023) located on the edge of the I-10 highway.
The city is not part of the TT program but is the southernmost city of the trail and is used as a
base before starting the trail. The town is visited a second time during the hike since the CDT
crosses downtown (Halfway Anywhere, 2023). The CDT traverses mountain areas for long
stretches without approaching any towns. Hikers often hitchhike on roads that cross the trail to
99
resupply in not-so-close towns. Salida (CO) is a certified TT with 5,666 inhabitants (US Census
Bureau, 2023) 30 km from the trail by road (Table 1), with good tourist infrastructure; 86% of
thru-hikers resupplied there in 2021 (Halfway Anywhere, 2023). Buena Vista (CO) is 35 km
from the trail by road (Table 1) and has a population of 2,855 (US Census Bureau, 2023).
Because it closely follows Salida, only 9% of thru-hikers resupplied there in 2021 (Halfway
Anywhere, 2023).
The Pacific Crest Trail is a 4,265-km long trail that extends across the Sierra Nevada and
Cascade mountain ranges from Mexico to Canada. It crosses mostly public lands and protected
areas, including seven national parks and 24 national forests (Goldenberg & Soule, 2014). Over
4,000 people attempt to thru-hike the PCT annually, but only about 20% complete the trail
(PCTA, 2023) due to injuries, poor planning or section closures by fire or snow (Halfway
Anywhere, 2023). Two towns in the central portion (Mount Shasta and McCloud) and two in the
southernmost portion of the trail (Bishop and Mammoth Lakes), all in California, were visited
between June and July 2022. The PCT Association started its TT program in 2018, and only
Mount Shasta is an official TT to date (PCTA, 2023). The city has 3,223 inhabitants (US Census
Bureau, 2023) and is 15 km from the trail by road (Table 1). Other activities attract outdoor
recreationists, such as climbing Mount Shasta. McCloud is a small historical logging town of 945
people (US Census Bureau, 2023) 16 km off the trail by road (Table 1). Local tourism prioritizes
the historic district and other outdoor activities, with only some thru-hikers resupplying there
(Halfway Anywhere, 2023). Mammoth Lakes has a population of 7,191 (US Census Bureau,
2023) and is a renowned winter destination, attracting skiers. The city is 10 km from the trail by
road (Table 1). Mammoth started the process of joining the TT program, but this was interrupted
due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Bishop has 6,573 inhabitants, including West Bishop (US
100
Census Bureau, 2023). It is the city farthest from the trail in this study, 43 km by road (Table 1),
but 79% of thru-hikers in 2021 resupplied there due to the long stretch without cities to the south
(Halfway Anywhere, 2023).
4.1.3 Interviews, Processing and Data Analysis
In each gateway community, four to seven key actors were interviewed in a purposive
sampling, including public managers, chamber of commerce directors, NGO managers, and
owner or manager of businesses used by hikers, such as lodging, restaurants, grocery shops and
outdoor gear shops. Business owners were contacted at their establishments, while public
managers were previously contacted or sought out directly.
The interviews employed a semi-structured, open-ended format and were designed to
provide insights into how people think about complex issues (Yuksel et al., 1999) and allow
previously unidentified issues to emerge (Bernard, 2011). Most interviews were conducted by
the first author in English and in person, except for two respondents who were unavailable
during the site visit and were willing to speak later online. An adaptation of the pre-structured
case method was used to collect data in several towns with multiple respondents in a limited time
and ensure comparability (Miles, 1990). This method minimizes data overload, facilitates data
processing and cross-case analyses, and is useful when research questions are clear and aim for
hypothesis testing (Miles, 1990). In the transcription, statements were kept as in the original, and
only repetitions and unnecessary filler words were removed for clarity.
Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA; Rihoux & Ragin, 2009) was used to identify
conditions associated with perceptions about the economic importance of NSTs, their influence
on local identity, and the magnitude of negative impacts. The QCA is a case-oriented analysis
ideal for working with small samples and may be used to corroborate or falsify hypotheses by
101
defining conditions (independent variables) that should yield a particular outcome (dependent
variables) (Rihoux & Ragin, 2009). The ten gateway communities were the cases, and the
proportion of responses from actors in each town was used to define the predominant perception
in each town. Individuals’ perceptions do not just reflect how they are personally achieved but
are socially defined (Smith et al., 2013). Thus, the prevailing perceptions, especially from the
actor involved in decision-making processes, could represent a community perception (Smith et
al., 2013; Wyman & Stein, 2010).
The QCA was run in TOSMANA software (Cronqvist, 2019) using contradictions
between same outcomes with different conditions, and logical remainders and Boolean
minimization to fill information gaps and identify necessary and sufficient conditions to explain
outcomes. (Rihoux & Ragin, 2009). A condition is considered necessary if the outcome never
occurs in the absence of the condition. It is considered sufficient if the outcome always occurs
when the condition is present, but could also occur when the condition is absent (Rihoux &
Ragin, 2009). Consistency and coverage were calculated to assess the proportion of conditions
and outcomes covered by each result (Qin et al., 2017).
The outcomes, or dependent variables, were the proportion of key actors who considered
the trail important to the local economy and to community identity, and those who perceived
important negative impacts of the trail on the community. The open responses were rated for
standardizing the data into the same metric to make them comparable (Miles & Huberman,
1994). Explicit mentions of dimensions in the responses, such as high, low, or only seasonally,
were considered, and other statements were interpreted by the researcher. The answers about the
importance of the trail in the local economy and identity and about perceived negative impacts of
the trail were rated as unimportant, important, or unclear. The proportion of 'important' answers
102
was used to define the prevalent perception for each town, using dichotomous categories. The
Tosmana software threshold-setter tool, which uses distance cluster analysis to define the
thresholds that best fit the data (Vink & Van Vliet, 2009), was used to define the thresholds
between categories.
The conditions, or independent variables, tested were designation as a trail town, the
measured relevance of tourism in the local economy, and the proportion of respondents with
hiking experience in the trail. The designation as a TT variable considered only officially
designated towns by the non-profits that manage the programs AT Communities, CDT Gateway
Communities and PCT Towns. The economic relevance of tourism was measured using the
Location Quotient (LQ) indicator as a proxy. The LQ is a regional economic indicator that
measures a region’s industry specialization relative to a larger geographic unit. In this study, LQ
was defined as the tourism sector's share in total employment for each town divided by the
tourism weight on total employment for the state. An LQ > 1.0 means that the city has a greater
share of tourism employment than the state, while LQ < 1.0 means a lower concentration (M. M.
Miller et al., 1991). LQ of 1.0 was used as the threshold between negative and positive
conditions. The personal experiences variable was based on any mention of personal hiking
experience in the trail during interviews, regardless the duration.
An in-depth analysis of each case, crossing actors’ responses with local history and
contexts helped to understand the critical factors that can explain different outcomes in a
multiple-case study approach (Greene & David, 1984). The perceptions of each key actor were
also evaluated, as an analysis at different levels of organization can be helpful to assess the
generalizability of a finding from the identification of commonalities and differences within each
case and across cases (Abbott, 1992). Statements from the interviews were selected to represent
103
the prevailing perception in each community, exemplifying perceptions and supporting
discussion.
4.2 Results
Fifty-four people were interviewed. This included 11 public officials, 32 business
owners/managers, and 11 NGO managers. Gender was evenly split, with 27 females, and 27
males. Their ages ranged from 27 to 72 years and experience in the job or position ranged from
less than 1 to 31 years. The proportion of respondents with personal experiences in the trail
ranged from 25% in Hampton (AT) to 100% in Silver City (CDT) and Bishop (PCT). The total
response rate was 88.5%, and the few actors who refused the interview justified the difficulty in
stopping their activities, especially in hotels and restaurants. In some cases, the interview was
scheduled for another moment.
All respondents said they value having the NST close to their community. However,
perceptions of the importance of the trail to the local economy varied widely, with few (20%) of
respondents considering the trail important to the local economy in Lordsburg (CDT) and all
(100%) in Silver City and Salida (CDT). Regarding the influence of the NST on local identity,
the proportion of respondents who considered it significant ranged from none (0%) in Lordsburg
and Hampton (AT) to all 100% in Silver City, Salida, and Damascus (AT; Table 2).
Regarding the perception of the economic importance of the trail, towns with similar
conditions had similar outcomes, with no contradictions. Four towns had a positive outcome,
regarding the trail as important for the local economy (Table 3). The QCA indicates no
relationship between the actual importance of tourism in the local economy, based on LQ, and
the key actors' perception of this outcome. All cases with a positive outcome have a high
proportion of respondents with personal hiking experiences in the trail. However, not all cases
104
with most actors with personal hiking experiences have a positive outcome. Therefore, this
condition is necessary but not sufficient to explain the positive perception of the economic
importance of trails. All trail towns had a high proportion of important responses. In contrast, all
towns that do not participate in these programs had a low proportion of important responses
(Table 3). Therefore, this condition is necessary and sufficient to explain the positive outcome,
and the analysis showed that participation in TT programs alone explains the positive outcome
(Table 4).
Respecting the influence on local identity, there was also no contradiction, and four cities
had a positive outcome (Table 3). However, the result shows two solutions to explain the
positive outcomes. The first includes participation in the TT program and having tourism as an
important economic activity (LQ > 1), represented by Silver City, Salida, and Damascus. If we
consider only the CDT and the AT, being a certified TT is a necessary and sufficient condition,
but the same does not apply to the PCT. The second solution does not include participation in the
TT program but a high frequency of respondents with previous hiking experience and low
relevance of tourism in the local economy (LQ < 1), represented only by Bishop (Table 4). As
with perceptions about the economy, all cases with a high proportion of respondents perceiving
the NST as important for local identity had a high proportion of respondents with previous
personal experiences in NSTs, but not all cases with this condition had a positive outcome.
Therefore, a high proportion of respondents with personal experiences is a necessary condition
but not sufficient to explain the outcome. Once again, there is no relationship between the
importance of tourism in the local economy, based on LQ, and the key actors' perception of this
outcome.
105
When asked about the negative impacts of the trail on the community, the vast majority
answered that they do not perceive negative impacts or if they do, those impacts are limited. In 5
towns, no respondent considered the impacts important; in another 4, up to 25% of the actors
mentioned negative impacts, and only in Bishop a high proportion (75%) of actors considered
the impacts significant (Table 1). Thus, no condition clearly explains the outcomes, and results
only list Bishop's conditions as necessary but not sufficient to explain the perception of negative
impacts (Table 4).
4.3 Discussion and Conclusions
4.3.1 Influence of Trail Town Programs on Perceptions
The QCA showed participation in trail town programs as the condition that best explains
positive perceptions about trails. These programs typically require towns to be hiker friendly,
create advisory committees, promote events, and recognize the trail in land-use plans and other
planning tools (Bristow et al., 2022). In exchange, the towns receive support in plans and actions
for sustainable development and tourism promotion, among other advantages (CDTC, 2023a).
The four gateway communities where actors perceive the trail as important to the economy are
those certified as trail towns. Regarding the influence of NSTs on local identity, this result is
repeated for the TTs of AT (Damascus) and CDT (Silver City and Salida) but not for PCT, where
the only TT (Mount Shasta) does not perceive the trail as important, but Bishop does.
Regarding local identity, the result is related to TT programs only in the trails where they
are more consolidated. The AT Communities Program started in 2010 and is the oldest among
the NSTs (Camp, 2020). CDT is the newest trail yet to be fully implemented (Wilson & Belote,
2022), but since 2013, it has invested in the CDT Gateway Communities program as a priority
and its results (CDTC, 2023a). The two official CDT TTs included in the study had 100% of
106
actors perceiving it as important for both the economy and identity. The same occurs for AT,
where Damascus, the only AT community studied, scored 83% and 100%, respectively. These
three TTs had the highest outcomes of the entire study. On the other hand, the Pacific Crest Trail
Towns program has barely started, with only one city designated a trail town. Its implementation
was interrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic and has not yet been resumed (J. Tripp, personal
communication, 2023) and shows no influence on the outcomes.
Apart from participation in TT programs covering 100% of positive outcomes for the
economy and 75% for identity, the Mammoth Lakes case reinforces the finding of this condition
as an explanation for the actors' perceptions. Mammoth was preparing to be recognized as a trail
town just before the pandemic in 2020 but did not conclude the process. This intermediate
position coincides with the distance cluster analysis, which indicated the thresholds between
negative and positive outcomes very close to Mammoth’s values.
The relationship between being a TT and positive outcomes is clear, but it is not possible
to know whether the perception is influenced by participation in the trail town programs or if the
interest in the trail, based on proximity and the experiences of community leaders, generated the
positive perception and prompted interest in becoming a trail town. These two factors are likely
related, and there is positive feedback between them. The initiative to join the programs is
necessarily the result of some previous level of identification with the trail (Koo, 2018). A
survey in several AT communities also found that most respondents perceive the program as
economically beneficial for TT (Bristow et al., 2022). Damascus identity clearly predates the
existence of any program (Garvey, 1978; Phillips, 1988). Still, Silver City appears to be
developing its identity out of program-related initiatives, such as trail days. The PCT's
contradictory results, in turn, suggest that the lack of a structured program is related to a lower
107
perception of the trail as an important driver in the local economy and identity. Community
involvement is considered essential for TT programs' success, and results can take a few years
(Koo, 2018). Thus, the lack of support resulting from the interruption of the PCT program may
have influenced the Mount Shasta outcome. On the other hand, the positive outcome for Bishop
suggests that the community has the potential to be an official trail town and evidences that the
community identity can come before the official trail town designation.
Looking deeper into the cases of positive outcomes, using the trail brand and holding
events related to the trails seem to influence the perception of local actors about their importance
(quotes in Table 2) and help to forge a community identity (Stewart et al., 2004). Once
considered a logging town and later having an industrial identity, Damascus faced an economic
decay after the closure of a dye plant and a railroad (Phillips, 1988). This led the town to reinvent
itself, creating a new identity based on the AT. The town identifies itself as the Trail Town USA
and has invested for decades in using the AT brand (Garvey, 1978). Since 1987, Damascus has
hosted the Appalachian Trail Days festival each May (Jenner, 1987). Although the Virginia
Creeper National Recreation Trail (VCT), a rail-to-trail recognized in 1987, attracts more users
and has a greater economic impact (Bowker et al., 2007), it is the AT brand that is everywhere,
on sidewalks, street names, and the visitor center (Figure 2). A restaurant owner highlighted
VCT as the biggest source of income, but when asked why she had the AT sign carved in wood
on her wall, she replied: “The AT is more of a staple. It’s been here for forever. The VCT is a
relatively newer thing.” The trail festival’s name shows the AT as the most used brand to attract
visitors and strengthen the local identity. Most actors spontaneously mentioned the term trail
town when asked about the influence of AT on local identity, including the business owner:
108
“Sure, of course, trail town”; and the city clerk: “We’re Trail Town USA for a reason. And the
Appalachian Trail was a big part of that.”
Silver City also features the CDT in its visitor center (Figure 2) and, since 2015,
promotes the Trail Days Festival annually, which reinforces the connection and helps to
publicize the CDT and other outdoor activities. This initiative was mentioned, among others, by
an NGO manager: “We are a gateway community, we have the trail days, and more people are
taking pride in that.”
In the PCT, the trail logo is used in signage but rarely appears in gateway communities.
In Mammoth Lakes, for example, a welcome sign shows brands of several local institutions but
does not mention the PCT (Figure 2). It runs farther from towns on much of the route and
isolated resupply points that welcome hikers are quite common (Figure 2). This may limit
contact with hikers and reduce the trail's influence on towns. The only city that hosts a festival is
Cascade Locks, Oregon. PCT crosses the town, which also has plenty of trail signage (Figure 2).
But this is not an official TT and was not included in this study. Mount Shasta, in contrast,
despite being the only certified PCT Trail Town, is not crossed by the trail and rarely uses its
brand. Although the trail is perceived as important for the economy, climbing Mount Shasta is
seen as more relevant to the local identity (quotes in Table 1). The PCT is seen as one of several
attractions, as in the words of a restaurant manager: “I don’t always hear a lot of people talking
about it. But there are also so many more miles of trails that aren’t the PCT around here, too.
It’s a big hiking community for sure.”
The relationship between being a TT and positive outcomes is clear, but it is not possible
to know whether the perception is influenced by participation in the trail town programs or if the
interest in the trail, based on proximity and the experiences of community leaders, generated the
109
positive perception and prompted interest in becoming a trail town. These two factors are likely
related, and there is positive feedback between them. The initiative to join the programs is
necessarily the result of some previous level of identification with the trail (Koo, 2018). A
survey in several AT communities also found that most respondents perceive the program as
economically beneficial for TT (Bristow et al., 2022). Damascus identity clearly predates the
existence of any program (Garvey, 1978; Phillips, 1988). Still, Silver City appears to be
developing its identity out of program-related initiatives, such as trail days. The PCT's
contradictory results, in turn, suggest that the lack of a structured program is related to a lower
perception of the trail as an important driver in the local economy and identity. Community
involvement is considered essential for TT programs' success, and results can take a few years
(Koo, 2018). Thus, the lack of support resulting from the interruption of the PCT program may
have influenced the Mount Shasta outcome. On the other hand, the positive outcome for Bishop
suggests that the community has the potential to be an official trail town and evidences that the
community identity can come before the official trail town designation.
4.3.2 Influence of the Economic Importance of Tourism on Perceptions
The QCA results suggest no relationship between the actual relevance of tourism in the
local economy and the perception of the interviewed actors. The conditions and outcomes
coincide in five communities, while the results are contradictory in the other five. However, this
may be due to the use of LQ as an indicator. It compares the relative weight of employment in
specific industries, which can be particularly suitable for tourism in rural areas (M. M. Miller et
al., 1991; Yang & Smith, 2023) given the absence of better data (for example, industry revenues
or number of tourists). However, LQ is a relative measure and has two limitations. First, a lower
value may not imply an absolute lower relevance of tourism but simply that the region has
110
another industry that hires a large number of people (Court et al., 2023). Second, tourism can be
important due to other activities unrelated to the trail (for example, the ski resorts in Mammoth).
The four towns where LQ indicates that accommodations, restaurants, and recreation are
important to the local economy and the trail is not perceived as important have other tourist
activities in the spotlight. Mammoth has tourism as its leading economic activity, with 36% of
total employment (IMPLAN, 2022). Nontheless, this is a renowned ski destination, and the
number of jobs in the sector compared to other TTs suggests that PCT represents only a small
part of the economic impact of tourism (around 1,300 jobs, while the second largest is Salida,
with 246; IMPLAN, 2022). McCloud has only 40 jobs in the sector, but it represents 27% of the
total jobs in this small town (IMPLAN, 2022). However, this local tourism is more related to
historical attractions (Table 2), and there is no record of thru-hikers resupplying there in 2021
(Halfway Anywhere, 2023).
In Lordsburg, all jobs in the sector are related to accommodation and restaurants and
none to recreation services. The town has no other renowned natural attractions and does not
attract other hikers, which limits the economic effects of the trail to the few CDT thru-hikers
(CDTC, 2023b). Lordsburg is located along the I-10 highway, suggesting that the jobs in
accommodation and food services are more related to highway users than recreationists. In
Buena Vista, outdoor activities are important, and the city has several outdoor gear stores,
restaurants, and hostels, but only 9.2% of CDT thru-hikers used the city for resupply in 2021
(Halfwayanywhere, 2023). Although mega trails have the potential to attract other types of
visitors, such as day-hikers, in the CDT this effect is still limited (see Chapter 2), and many
respondents attribute the trail effects to thru-hikers (quotes in table 2)
111
On the other hand, the LQ shows tourism as unimportant to Mount Shasta. However,
most respondents (80%) consider the trail significant for the local economy, such as a restaurant
chef: “There’s a lot of people stopping off to resupply here. So, I would say it probably has a
significant benefit.” It should be noted that the US Census is done on a sample basis, and when
this sample process is applied to small towns generates a significant margin of error (US Census
Bureau, 2021). So, despite the city having several hostels and outdoor gear stores, the US Census
estimated the number of jobs in the sector to be 0 ± 13.
Despite the limitation of LQ, this apparent lack of pattern may indicate that the dominant
perception in each city is the result of a combination of different factors. If we use the
relationship between tourism services and the local population (accommodations and outdoor
gear stores/1,000 residents) as an indicator, other cities, such as Damascus, stand out. Silver City
is among the highest if we consider the proportion of thru-hikers that use the city for resupply
(Halfway Anywhere, 2023). The difficulty of identifying a single economic indicator that
explains local actors’ perception reinforces the findings of other authors on the complex
relationship between economic development, tourism, and perceptions by residents, involving
changes in expectations over time and the balance between positive and negative socioeconomic
impacts (Frauman & Banks, 2011; Johnson et al., 1994). The QCA results showing that
participation in TT programs is a necessary and sufficient condition to explain the positive
outcomes may indicate that communities where the trail is economically important perceive this
in practice and tend to join the programs.
4.3.3 Influence of Previous Experiences on Perception
All towns with positive outcomes for economic and identity perceptions had most
respondents with previous hiking experience in the trail. According to our results, a high
112
proportion of respondents with previous experience is necessary to perceive the trail as
important. However, this condition is not sufficient since there are cases with negative outcomes.
Among the trails with this positive condition, Silver City, Salida, and Damascus consider the
trail important for both economy and identity. In contrast, Mount Shasta considers it important
only for the economy, Bishop only for identity, and Buena Vista for neither. Only in Bishop does
a high proportion of respondents consider the trail's negative impacts on the community as
important.
Previous studies did not find a difference in the perception of outdoor recreationists and
non-recreationists about tourism negative impacts (Perdue et al., 1987) or community benefits
(Smith & Moore, 2011). Jurowski et al. (1997) argue that residents who practice outdoor
activities may have a positive perception of tourism because improvements in facilities favor
them. On the other hand, they observe, from a certain level of tourism development local
recreationists can react negatively to tourism due to competition for space and loss of quality of
experience. The QCA results corroborate the first statement of Jurowski et al. (1997), and we can
speculate that NSTs do not generate such a large demand that they negatively interfere with the
experience of local hikers, prevailing a positive perception.
Frequent users tend to value trails and perceive their benefits (Fondren & Brinkman,
2022; Hill et al., 2009). The owner of an outdoor gear store said: “I never hiked the entire trail.
But I’ve hiked a lot of different sections, and it’s a very important resource for me, both
personally from my own recreation as well as professionally.” For some, the experience on the
trail can create new business opportunities. A hostel owner from Damascus reported: “I thru-
hiked in 2019 and really missed the trail. During the pandemic, I came down here to do some
113
hiking. There was a sign in this house, and I thought it would make a great bed and breakfast, so
I bought it, and that’s what it is.”
While the other conditions, such as participation in TT programs, are related to town
attributes, this condition is more related to individual experiences. Dumez (2015) argues that, in
qualitative analysis, “every case is made of cases” (p.51), and combining different levels of
organization helps assess the generalizability of a finding and helps determine how respondents’
personal experiences affect outcomes in each town (Abbott, 1992).
4.3.4 Perceptions About Negative Impacts
Unlike the other outcomes, only one town (Bishop) had a high proportion of actors (75%)
who considered the negative impacts of the trail as important. Being also the only non-TT who
perceives the trail as important in local identity, Bishop seems to be an outlier among the case
studies. This town is the furthest from the trail among the case studies. However, at the same
time, it is used by almost 80% of hikers to resupply (Halfway Anywhere, 2023), and the factors
that generated such different responses from the other cities would deserve further research.
A single actor, an NGO manager in Silver City, mentioned a socioeconomic conflict: “I
have heard that ranchers are not happy about having hikers walk through their property,
whether that’s trash or invasion of their private property. They’re concerned about that. Even
though majority of hikers are not throwing trash. In general, our community is very receptive to
hikers.” No other respondents mentioned social or economic impacts, such as those recorded in
gateway communities of national parks and other public lands (Stoker et al., 2021). Most (83%
of valid responses) denied perceiving negative effects or reaffirmed that their perceptions are all
positive (quotes in Table 2).
114
Besides the above finding, the few actors who mentioned negative impacts (17% of valid
responses) referred mainly to garbage or other inappropriate behavior by hikers more related to
the trail itself than the community, such as not burying toilet paper (quotes in Table 2). For
example, an outdoor gear shop manager in Bishop has a positive view of the trail but worries
about hiker behavior: "It's really great how popular PCT has become in the last couple years.
Because of that, there's a lot of people that don't know how to behave and not leave a big impact.
I think it's important to educate people on how to recreate responsibly in the backcountry and
our backyard."
The low perception of negative impacts combined with other positive impressions aligns
with the Social Exchange Theory (Emerson, 1976). Residents’ support for tourism development
relates to their perception of gains and losses (Jurowski et al., 1997). As stated by Frauman &
Banks (2012), usually, “tourism development brings economic benefits in exchange for social
and environmental impacts” (p. 14). If the impacts are small, even limited economic benefits
may be enough to generate a positive perception. In fact, when asked about their impression of
how the local population sees hikers, 71% of key actors gave positive answers and only one (3%)
negative, while 26% gave neutral responses.
A theme that emerged from several interviews was the perception of the hygiene
practices of long-distance hikers. Seven interviewees from six different cities on the three trails
directly or indirectly compared thru-hikers to homeless persons, and another six mentioned their
bad smell, sometimes with very strong words. The lack of showers on the trail is a known issue
(Fondren & Brinkman, 2022). However, frequent references suggest this issue may negatively
affect residents' perception of hikers and the trail.
115
4.3.5 Limitations and Further Research
The initial use of predetermined questions was necessary for data handling and
comparative analysis, but it may also direct respondents’ statements (Yuksel et al., 1999). This
problem was minimized by using more open-ended questions about general topics such as
impacts, views on hikers, and a final question like “Is there anything else you would like to add
on this subject?” but respondents did not often introduce new topics.
The QCA analysis has a deterministic approach that can make it challenging to interpret
the results by not considering the influence of outliers (Lieberson, 1992). The relationship
between conditions and outcomes may not be explicit in these cases. Furthermore, the difficulty
of finding a single indicator that represents the economy's complexity and fits the requirements
for QCA has already been discussed. The economy's influence on the actors' perceptions
deserves further in-depth research. New studies using the same approach could benefit from
previously established information to be collected in the field to characterize the local
economies. Better data, such as sectorial employment, could help to understand what happens in
these towns. Increasing the number of respondents per community and including pre-established
scales can also be a way to reduce subjectivity and possible bias and facilitate comparison
between cases.
The small sample size also increases the possibility of coincidental conditions creating
noise in the analysis and suggesting false relationships between conditions and outcomes,
equivalent to multicollinearity and spurious relationships in quantitative analysis. It may be that
the apparent relationship between hiking experiences with positive outcomes, for example, is just
an effect of the coincidence with participation in TT programs since both were considered
necessary, but the latter showed more consistent relationships with the outcomes. It is worth
116
noting that any mention of any hiking experience was considered, even if the respondent was not
a frequent hiker. Further investigation with a larger sample that includes a larger number of non-
hikers would help determine how respondents' personal hiking experience affects the outcomes.
Despite its limitations, the QCA proved to be an adequate method to identify patterns
across cases that are too small for quantitative statistical analysis but too large for a non-
systematized analysis. As a case-centered method, the QCA should be seen as a preliminary step
for identifying commonalities and relevant conditions that explain the outcomes, guiding the
research toward an in-depth analysis of each case. It facilitates the identification of possible
common factors or peculiarities that explain different outcomes based on similar conditions.
Our findings should be seen as a portrait of the perceptions of the key actors who were
interviewed and their communities. The small number of respondents in each community may
lack representativeness, with some views underrepresented. A few actors refused the interview.
However, acceptance can mean interest in trails and generate some response bias, in addition to a
possible social desirability effect because of face-to-face interviews (Vaske, 2019). The fact that
some communities have a higher proportion of respondents who use trails also can bias the
results. On the other hand, a high number of trail users suggests greater local involvement since
this was not a criterion for selecting respondents. Despite the limitations of time and means, the
systematic comparison of 10 gateway communities along three national scenic trails throughout
the US can serve as a basis for further research on gateway communities, especially trail towns.
Beyond the perceptions, studies on the concrete effects of these programs on the economy and
quality of life of communities are also essential to assess their effectiveness.
117
4.3.6 Outcomes and Implications for Trail Planning and Management
Our results show that the positive perceptions of economic benefits may not be based on
reality, suggesting that these perceptions are based more on subjective than objective factors.
Some communities that economically depend on tourism perceive the trail as less important than
communities where tourism generates a lower percentage of income and jobs. The confused
perceptions in these gateway communities about the economic impact of NSTs deserves
attention from trail and community decision-makers. Assessing and disseminating figures on the
economic impact and other benefits of NSTs in gateway communities where their brands are less
established should help build greater local support for managing and conserving the trail and its
landscapes.
Regarding local community identity, Smith et al. (2011) found it as the best predictor for
a set of many desirable natural resource management outcomes, such as ecological, behavioral,
and social solidarity outcomes. If in some towns studied the trails are part of the community
identity with conservation gains, even in towns where NSTs are not yet considered important,
several actors mentioned the interest of outsiders as a positive aspect, such as a coffee shop
owner in Lordsburg: “I never was told growing up in this town that it was such a unique thing.
To hear other people from literally all around the world that are arriving here and just know this
area is beautiful. Like we’re here to do this trail. It’s exciting.” A Mammoth’s public official
said: “It gives the local community access to a world-class recreation experience,” while an
outdoor gear shop owner in Damascus said: “People take pride in that the whole world is coming
to their town by foot.” These statements suggest that working on the interest of hikers worldwide
in the region’s nature can raise residents’ self-esteem and engage then in its protection.
118
Regarding the negative impacts mentioned, the hygiene issue seems to be an opportunity
for improvement. Several TTs offer free showers. Providing these facilities in strategic locations,
publicizing them, and encouraging hikers to use them on arrival can result in a better impression
on the part of residents, as an outdoor gear shop owner of Mammoth Lakes suggested: “Most of
them realize they need to clean up before they go out to get food.”
The strong relationship between the participation of communities in trail town programs
and the positive perception of the importance of the trail in the economy and identity in these
communities suggests that these programs work to build, or at least strengthen, these perceptions.
Cuba & Hummon (1993) pointed out that social participation is essential for community identity,
and Stewart et al. (2004) concluded that this identity empowers local communities to influence
decision-making processes about landscape changes. Schottanes (2021) argues that AT
Communities is more a 'paper program' related to branding and recognition than to actually
favoring local communities and businesses, and the initiative benefits the hikers more than the
communities. However, our findings suggest that even if they are not effective in generating
direct benefits, by engaging the local community and influencing their perceptions, these
programs can generate positive feedback, encouraging investments that attract more hikers and,
ultimately, result in real improvements for the communities. Investing in TT programs seems to
be a useful strategy to garner support, which can generate a virtuous cycle for the community
identity and economy.
Finally, if the economic importance of the trails is not perceived by many actors, negative
impacts are even less so. According to the Social Exchange Theory (Emerson, 1976), this
positive balance justifies a general positive perception of the trails and hikers. This finding
reinforces the idea that mega trails spread the economic benefits and negative impacts among
119
many gateway communities, keeping tourist activity on a limited scale and representing an
alternative to large tourist clusters. By involving the local community, promoting conservation
actions, and not registering reports of significant negative socioeconomic impacts, the NSTs
gateway communities seem to be a favorable context for sustainable tourism.
120
Figure 4-1. Map of the Triple Crown of Hiking (trails in red) showing the communities studied:
designated trail towns popular sections (green circles) and non-trail town (orange
circles). aBasemap from ESRI ArcGIS.
Table 4-1. Trail towns and their geographic and demographic contexts
Trail
Town (State)
Population
(2020)
Distance from the
trail - km (min.)
Resupply (%)
Interviews
AT
Damascus*
788
0 (0)
High
6 (2 Pub, 4 Bus)
Hampton
2030
2 (3)
Limited
4 (4 Bus)
CDT
Silver City*
9704
0 (0)
97.1
5 (2 Pub, 2
NGO, 1 Bus)
Lordsburg
2335
0 (0)
97.7
5 (1 Pub, 1
NGO, 3 Bus)
Buena Vista
2855
30 (30)
9.2
4 (1 Pub, 2
NGO, 1 Bus)
Salida*
5666
35 (30)
85.9
5 (1 NGO, 4
Bus)
PCT
Bishop
6573
43 (180)
78.6
4 (1 Pub, 3 Bus)
Mammoth Lakes
7191
10 (20)
86.6
5 (1 Pub, 4 Bus)
Mt. Shasta*
3223
15 (10)
62.8
5 (1 Pub, 1
NGO, 3 Bus)
McCloud
945
16 (20)
0
4 (1 NGO, 3
Bus)
Population from The US Census 2020; Distance data calculated using ArcGIS for distance and Google Maps for
driving time (plus estimated side trail hiking time, if necessary); AT resupply data are qualitative from interviews,
and CDT and PCT data are quantitative from 2021/2022 surveys on the halfwayanywhere.com website; Number of
121
interviewees by town (Pub = Public manager; NGO = NGO manager; Bus = Business owner/manager).
*Official Trail Town
Table 4-2. Conditions, outcomes, and thresholds for each town.
Conditions
Outcomes (perceptions)
Trail
Town
Trail Town
program
Personal
experiences
(%)
Tourism
economy
(LQ)
Economic
importance
(%)
Local Identity
(%)
Negative
impacts (%)
CDT
Silver City
Yes (1)
100 (1)
1.59 (1)
100 (1)
100 (1)
20 (0)
Lordsburg
No (0)
0 (0)
1.33 (1)
40 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Buena Vista
No (0)
75 (1)
2.25 (1)
50 (0)
33 (0)
0 (0)
Salida
Yes (1)
75 (1)
2.52 (1)
100 (1)
100 (1)
0 (0)
PCT
Bishop
No (0)
100 (1)
0.17 (0)
50 (0)
75 (1)
75 (1)
Mammoth Lakes
No (0)*
40 (0)
5.34 (1)
60 (0)
50 (0)
25 (0)
Mount Shasta
Yes (1)
60 (1)
0.00 (0)
80 (1)
20 (0)
25 (0)
McCloud
No (0)
50 (0)
4.02 (1)
25 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
AT
Damascus
Yes (1)1
83 (1)
2.05 (1)
83 (1)
100 (1)
0 (0)
Hampton
No (0)
25 (0)
0 (0)
25 (0)
0 (0)
25 (0)
Threshold
51
1
62.5
50
37.5
Percentages for Personal experiences and the Outcomes refer to the proportion of valid responses that were
positive/important. In parentheses the binary values used in QCA: (0) = No/Low for conditions and unimportant for
outcomes; (1) = Yes/High for conditions and important for outcomes. * The process of recognizing Mammoth Lakes
as a Trail Town was interrupted at the beginning due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Table 4-3. Truth Table grouping towns with similar conditions and outcomes
Cases
Conditions
Outcomes (perceptions)
Towns
Trail
Town
Personal
Experiences
Tourism
Economy
Economic
importance
Local
identity
Negative
impacts
Hampton
0
0
0
0
0
0
Lordsburg, Mammoth, McCloud
0
0
1
0
0
0
Bishop
0
1
0
0
1
1
B_Vista
0
1
1
0
0
0
M. Shasta
1
1
0
1
0
0
Silver City, Salida, Damascus
1
1
1
1
1
0
(0) = No/Low for conditions and unimportant for outcomes; (1) = Yes/High for conditions and important for
outcomes.
122
Table 4-4. QCA results for positive outcomes after Boolean minimization and remainders.
QCA configurations
Consistencya
Coverageb
Significant importance on local economy (Perc_Econ = 1)
Trail Town {1}
Silver City, Salida, Damascus + M. Shasta,
1.00
1.00
Significant influence on local identity (Perc_Iden = 1)
1. Trail Town {1}* Economy {1}
Silver City, Salida, Damascus
1.00
0.75
2. Trail Town {0}* Personal Experience {1}* Economy {0}
Bishop
1.00
0.25
Significant negative impacts (Perc_Iden = 1)
Trail Town {0}* Personal Experience {1} * Economy {0}
Bishop
1.00
1.00
* = AND; a Consistency measures the proportion of cases with a given combination of conditions that display a
specific outcome; b Coverage reflects the proportion of total cases with a specific outcome covered by a given set of
conditions.
123
Table 4-5. Illustrative quotes of predominant perceptions in each town.
Trail Town
Perceptions of Economic importance of
the trail
Perceptions of influence on local identity Perceptions on negative impacts
Continental Divide Trail
Silver
City
I (100%): “It's a boost for our local
economy, when we have hikers coming
through. They're spending dollars at our
restaurants and our local businesses”
(NGO manager)
I (100%): “We're the first ever gateway
community for the CDT. So, I would say that
I feel lucky, that sort of city has decided to
make that part of its identity.” (Outdoor shop
owner)
U (20%): "We really don't have a lot of
issues with the hikers, they generally are
really good about cleaning up after
themselves and being respectful." (Resupply
point owner)
Lordsbur
g
U (40%): “The CDT is part of our
economy for a couple of months.”
(Restaurant owner)
U (0%): “I don't think it has yet, but it might
in the future.” City Clerk
U (0%): "I know some of the ranchers feel
there are impacts, but to me not. Sometimes
they are not responsible for the land."
(Restaurant owner)
Buena
Vista
U (50%): "We see so many hikers come
through this area, that it's hard to know
if it was the CDT that brought him in, or
if it was one of our local trails or one of
the 14,000’s. It must have some impact"
(Chamber of Commerce)
U (33%): "With our shops, our culture, this
is a very obviously outdoorsy town. It's tough
because the CDT doesn't define our town,
but it brings people to our town."
(Recreation Projects Manager)
U (0%): "I think any effect is on the positive
side and not on the negative side." (Trail
board chair)
Salida
I (100%): "It's probably not an
exaggeration to say we see every thru-
hiker that comes on the trail, because
Salida is a very important resupply point.
It's a great resource, both economically,
and socially, for our community."
(Outdoor gear shop owner)
I (100%): “I think the trail itself is sort of
almost a mythical kind of thing. Like, that'd
be cool to go do the whole CDT but it's,
whatever, 3000 miles. But I can go do a little
bit. And Salida... check it out in this cool
town, and I think it's part of our identity, for
sure.” (Bar owner)
U (0%): “No, in fact, because it's not as
close as some other places, like in New
Mexico, where their trail is like, boom,
you're right there in town. Ours is a little
more remote.” (Chamber of Commerce)
P
acific Crest
Trail
Bishop
U (50%): "I think, to a very small degree,
there's, some economic benefit
associated with thru hikers."
(City development planner)
I (75%): "We like being a trail town. I think
we just like the influx of visitors because it
just brings it fun energy to the community."
(Outdoor gear shop owner)
I (75%): "There's a lot of people who read
that book with Reese Witherspoon, and they
thought: Oh, I'm gonna go do that. But they
have no outdoor experience. They don't
understand that they can't bury their toilet
paper, they're leaving their waste too close
124
to the waters, and things like that."
(Outdoor shop manager)
Mammoth
Lakes
U (60%): "The economic impact is not
huge. I think we make a lot of money out
of it but compared with ski and skiing
people coming up with RVs. They have
much more impact." (NGO manager)
U (50%): "Increasingly. I would say 10
years ago, the answer is no. I think that
identity is emerging." (Outdoor Gear shop
manager)
U (25%): “No impact that I've seen.”
(Outdoor gear shop owner)
Mount
Shasta
I (80%): "There's absolutely benefits to
having the trail connected to the
community in a couple of different ways.
I think one of them is economically".
(State Economist)
U (20%): “The identity of Mt. Shasta is kind
of weird. They're more into the mountain
than the PCT. It's just part of their area.”
(Lodge manager)
U (25%): "Most PCT hikers are pretty cool.
I think they're not leaving trash and stuff."
(Outdoor gear shop owner)
McCloud
U (25%): "Most of the hikers get
supplied at Mount Shasta" (Outdoor gear
shop owner)
U (0%): "We're a historical logging town."
(Brewery owner)
U (0%): “Oh, absolutely not. I mean, PCT
has always been a very positive impact for
Siskiyou County, Shasta County,
everybody.” (Brewery owner)
A
ppalachian Trail
Damasc
us
I (100%): “It is definitely important. I
don't know the percentage of like the
tourism dollars that come in because of
the hikers, but it is a pretty big deal.”
(Town clerk)
I (100%): “Damascus considers itself the
Trail Town USA. And that's one of the big
contributors to that. For sure it is part of our
identity. Yeah.” (Outdoor gear owner)
U (0%): “I really hadn't seen any impact.
Most hikers that come through it are really
great people. You've got a few that you can
tell that are kind of on their trail just to
party a little bit. But most of them are
nature lovers and just that they're great
guys.” (Restaurant manager)
Hampton
U (25%): “Not really important. It
helps.”
(Restaurant owner)
U (0%): “Not so much the local identity, we
would be identified more. There's a lot of
people from around here to probably never
hike” (Grocery shop owner)
U (25%): The only negative thing that I can
think of is the increase of trash. And I don't
think it's just hikers. It's overall on just the
use of the trail. (Hostel owner)
Table 4-5. Continued
I: most actors in the town perceived the trail as important; U: most actors in the town perceived the trail as unimportant.
In parenthesis the % of valid responses that were positive.
125
Figure 4-2. Trail brands in gateway communities – A: The At brand on sidewalks and walls in
Damascus; B: Damascus Visitor center; C: AT Community sign; D: AT brand in wall
art; E/F: AT brand in local business; G: Mural in Silver City Visitor Center; H: CDT
Gateway Community sign; I: CDT in a highway sign; J: Mammoth sign not
mentioning PCT; K: Hiker friendly business along the PCT (Kennedy Meadows,
CA); L: PCT sign in Cascade Locks (OR). Photos by E.B. Viveiros de Castro.
126
CHAPTER 5
DOES THE APPALACHIAN TRAIL CONTRIBUTE TO LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY?
Habitat loss and fragmentation are major causes of wildlife population decline, local
extinctions, and a global threat to biodiversity (Fletcher et al., 2018; Haddad et al., 2015;
Newbold et al., 2015). Conserving large landscapes involves planning land use, identifying and
protecting areas of particular interest for conservation, and ensuring connectivity between them
(Hebblewhite et al., 2022; Heller & Zavaleta, 2009). Protected areas can be established with
different levels of land use restrictions, which can alter deforestation rates (Andam et al., 2008;
Vuohelainen et al., 2012). However, this protection depends on studies that support its
designation, demonstrate its relevance, and foster political support (Cumming, 2016).
Landscape connectivity can be promoted through several interventions, such as
increasing matrix permeability or maintaining stepping stones (Baum et al., 2004), but habitat
corridors have been the primary option in landscapes dominated by human uses and are
considered a valuable conservation tool (Beier, 2019; Gilbert-Norton et al., 2010). Corridors can
be defined as “a linear habitat, embedded in a dissimilar matrix, that connects two or more larger
blocks of habitat and that is proposed for conservation on the grounds that it will enhance or
maintain the viability of specific wildlife populations in the habitat blocks” (Beier & Noss, 1998,
p.1242). The structural characteristics of corridors that influence effectiveness involve aspects
such as minimum width (Beier, 2019), the extent of conflict with human activities (Ford et al.,
2020), and minimum conditions that motivate animals to enter and use the corridor (Beier &
Loe, 1992). When dealing with large-scale corridors, planning needs to consider environmental
gradients (Rouget et al., 2006) and not only the ability of species to move through them but also
the capacity to enhance populations for a longer time, sometimes for many generations (Beier &
Loe, 1992).
127
The more extensive the area for conservation, the more challenging the action can be.
Some of the challenges to implementing corridors and other conservation actions in large
landscapes are the complexity of political and institutional arrangements, the difficulty of
monitoring, and lack of support due to society's limited understanding of large-scale ecological
processes (Heller & Zavaleta, 2009; Redford et al., 2015; Sandbrook et al., 2023). One of the
several initiatives to protect large landscapes and maintain corridors are mega trails, which are
thousands of kilometers-long and cross large landscapes (Timothy & Boyd, 2015). Trail
advocates argue that mega trails are an alternative to attract allies among recreationists, local
communities, and the tourism industry (ATC, 2023a; Cerveny et al., 2020). Trails promote
experiences and contact with nature, generate income for local communities, and demonstrate
how large natural areas are or should be connected, bringing large landscapes to the perceptible
realm of people and society (Gobster et al., 2007; see also Chapter 2) and generating civic action
for their corridor protection (Cerveny et al., 2022).
The Appalachian Trail (AT), the first mega trail proposed and structured for recreational
use in the world, was conceived as a regional planning tool (MacKaye, 1921) and has a long
history of mobilizing advocates for the protection of its corridor (Mittlefehldt, 2010). Its
poleward orientation acts as a potential climate corridor, which may allow species range shifts in
response to climate change (AT Landscape Climate Advisory Group, 2022; Carroll et al., 2018;
Hunter Jr. et al., 1988; Lawler et al., 2013). The AT is co-managed by the National Park Service
(NPS), the US Forest Service (USFS) and the non-profit Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC),
created in 1925 as the Appalachian Trail Conference to implement and protect the AT (King et
al., 2000). Many authors highlight the importance of experiences in nature to generate
environmental action (e.g., Chawla, 1999; Dresner et al., 2015), and there are several examples
128
of civic action to protect the AT landscape, such as campaigns against impacting infrastructure
(ATC, 1964b, 2006; Bernstein, 2010; Igelman, 2017a; Koerber, 1966) or for protected areas
designation (Coffey, 1975; Cover, 1958; Shaffer, 2016; Strong, 1966).
Assessing the effectiveness of large-scale conservation initiatives is challenging, and
there is a lack of understanding of whether these initiatives affect conservation outcomes
(Wauchope et al., 2021). These assessments are essential to guide decision making, directing
conservation funds, and tackling rapid biodiversity loss (Ferraro & Pattanayak, 2006; Schleicher
et al., 2020). However, few studies have used consistent methods to evaluate the effectiveness of
large-landscape conservation initiatives (Hebblewhite et al., 2022).
Regarding the effects of trails on conservation, most studies focus on local scale and
negative impacts, such as soil compaction, trail widening, or avoidance by animals (Erb et al.,
2012; Longshore et al., 2013; Marion et al., 2016), while studies on the positive effects focus on
awareness, behavior change, and economic impacts (Godtman Kling et al., 2017). Recently,
some studies have evaluated the ecological integrity (McKinley et al., 2019) and connectivity
along mega trails (Wilson & Belote, 2022), but they do not use methods, such as using
longitudinal data assessing changes over time or comparisons to control areas (Schleicher et al.,
2020; Wauchope et al., 2021), which allow assessing the effect of the trails themselves and
whether they influence eventual positive outcomes or if these trails were only implemented in
well-preserved sites.
In this study, we used a quasi-experimental approach (Butsic et al., 2017; Schleicher et
al., 2020) to compare the temporal changes in connectivity along the Appalachian Trail corridor
in comparison to control areas in the same region. Differences between observed trail conditions
and counterfactual conditions in time and space have been used to make causal inferences and
129
assess the effectiveness of large-scale conservation initiatives in situations where designing an
experiment under controlled conditions would be infeasible (Butsic et al., 2017; Ferraro &
Pressey, 2015; Hebblewhite et al., 2022). Here, we review historical documents from the ATC
collecting examples of actions in favor of protecting the trail corridor and evaluate the evolution
of the ATC conservation discourse around the trail. The objective is to assess whether the AT is
a conservation tool that results in greater land protection and increases landscape connectivity,
answering these specific research questions:
• Have legal protection and civic actions in favor of the AT resulted in greater protected
area coverage along the AT corridor?
• Is connectivity along the AT corridor greater than would be expected in the absence of
the trail? If so, to what extent does the trail influence connectivity?
5.1 Methods
5.1.1 Study Area
The Appalachian Trail is a 3,524-km long trail following the Appalachian Mountains on
the Eastern US, from Springer Mountain (Georgia) to Mount Katahdin (Maine). It has a
predominant north-south orientation with a range of 16 degrees latitude. The elevation ranges
from 0 m close to Hudson River (New York) to 2,024 m in Clingmans Dome (North Carolina).
Vegetation is dominated by mixed, broadleaf, and coniferous forests, with patches of meadows
in the north and in southern mountains (Zhao et al., 2013). The Atlantic Region was the first
colonized by Europeans in the country and has been subjected to intense exploitation for
centuries (McKinley et al., 2019). The Appalachian Mountains are among the areas facing the
highest speeds of change due to climate and land use change in the U.S. (Ordonez et al, 2014).
Today, the 14 US States crossed by the AT have areas of dense human population and host more
than 100 million people (WPR, 2023).
130
The Appalachian Trail was chosen as a case study due to its 100-years history, the
intensity of human land use in the region, the landscape perspective adopted in trail management,
and documentation available about civic actions. The Appalachian region can be delimited by
different criteria, considering geographical features, political borders, or ecoregions (AT
Landscape Climate Advisory Group, 2022; Bailey, 1998; TNC, 2023). To define the study area,
we used an objective criterion, considering a buffer of 100km around the whole trail, only
including lands in the U.S.
5.1.2 Research on the ATC Magazine Collection
To reconstitute the history of protection measures and civic action around the AT and
identify relevant temporal landmarks, we performed a bibliographic review and researched the
collection of the official ATC magazines, Appalachian Trailway News (ATN), and AT Journeys.
ATN was edited between 1939 and 2005, producing three to five issues yearly. Since the AT
Conference's name changed to AT Conservancy (2005), the official ATC magazine is AT
Journeys, with 3 to 4 issues annually.
There is an almost complete ATN collection at ATC Headquarters in Harpers Ferry, but
it is not digitized. Over 300 issues since 1939 were reviewed looking for mentions of protected
areas, trail corridors, land acquisition, trail relocation, landscape or wildlife conservation, threats
to the trail, and infrastructure projects. All news and articles related to these themes were
digitized and read in full. The use of newspapers and magazines in environmental historical
research provides a day-to-day record from the past and allows an understanding of how each
topic was treated at the time (Keeley & Syphard, 2021; Tosh, 2013). One criticism for using
newspapers and magazines as sources in historical research is that it can induce bias and
131
concerns of validity (Earl et al., 2004; Franzosi, 1987). However, in this case, the publication is
by the ATC itself, and possible biases are of interest to illustrate the ATC perspective on
conservation issues at each instant and how this vision has evolved over time, which was our
goal.
5.1.3 Landscape Analyses
To assess the contribution of the AT to landscape connectivity and conservation, we used
a quasi-experimental approach combining temporal comparisons (before-and-after) and spatial
comparisons (trail area vs. control areas, or trail area vs. the study region as a whole) (Ferraro &
Pressey, 2015; Hebblewhite et al., 2022). This quasi-experimental approach is considered a
suitable alternative to evaluate the impact of conservation measures and make causal inferences
when it is impossible to control conditions experimentally (Butsic et al., 2017; Larsen et al.,
2019; Schleicher et al., 2020). The NTS Act (1968), which gave the trail a legal conservation
status, was used as the threshold to define the before and after scenarios.
5.1.3.1 Legal Protection of the AT Corridor
To evaluate if and how the trail has influenced the designation of protected areas and
other forms of land protection along the corridor, we compared the trends of land protection
observed for the study region as a whole with those of the trail corridor, using a before-after-
time-series comparative approach (Hebblewhite et al., 2022). We performed the comparative
analysis using three different corridor widths: a corridor 300m wide (150 m buffer of the trail),
based on the legal width established for AT protection (Startzell, 1989); 2 km wide (1 km buffer
of the trail), considering Beier’s rule of thumb for minimum effective corridor width (Beier,
2019); and 10 km wide (5 km buffer of the trail), having effective corridor widths found by Ford
132
et al. (2020) for different species and land use conditions as a reference (Figure 1). For each
corridor width, we compared the cumulative protected area coverage trend in the 50 years before
and after the NTS Act (1918-1968 and 1968-2018).
Protected area coverages were obtained from the PADUS 3.0 database (USGS, 2023),
complemented by the AT database (NPS, 2023a) and the National Conservation Easement
Database (NCED, 2023) to fill information gaps. These databases use the GAP status from the
National Inventory of Protected Areas, which classifies each area accordingly with restrictions
on land cover changes and management goals (Prior-Magee et al., 1998). This classification does
not correspond to the categories internationally recognized by the IUCN (Dudley et al., 2010) but
has a roughly corresponding ranking. However, it considers specific US legal instruments not
covered by the IUCN but significant in the study context, such as conservation easements. These
easements are voluntary legal agreements that permanently limit the uses of private land to
protect conservation values, have varying degrees of restriction, and can be classified between
GAP 1 and 3, depending on the agreed conditions (Chapman et al., 2023). We sought
information from the NPS to classify as many land parcels as possible whose degree of
protection was considered unknown (GAP 4) in the PADUS database. In case of doubt, the less
restrictive category was used. Information gaps on dates of establishment were filled in, when
possible, from an internet search. The protected areas coverage by GAP Status was characterized
for each corridor width, and only land parcels with a known designation date were included in
the analysis. The NTS Act (1968) was used as the threshold for before versus after scenarios.
5.1.3.2 Landscape Connectivity
To assess the influence of the AT on landscape connectivity, we built resistance maps
(Keeley et al., 2016) for two different moments in time to compare the temporal variation in
133
connectivity. We then compared the connectivity along the trail corridor with control points in
the same overall region, using a before-after-control-intervention contrast (BACI), or difference-
in-difference, approach (Butsic et al., 2017; Schleicher et al., 2020; Wauchope et al., 2021).
Resistance Maps
Resistance maps describe the potential that different areas act as barriers to the movement
of any target subject (Zeller et al., 2012). We built a resistance map combining land use, distance
from roads and land protection layers to compose a map as a proxy for the needs of multiple
animal species (Belote et al., 2016). This naturalness approach is considered suitable for large-
scale connectivity analysis (Beier et al., 2008; Krosby et al., 2015) and is supported by the fact
that animals tend to move more as more conserved is the environment (Tucker et al., 2018).
Several indices have been developed to evaluate naturalness using different terms, such as
wildness (Aplet et al., 2000), human footprint (Sanderson et al., 2002), or ecological integrity
(Theobald, 2013). However, these indices are not available for the 1960s and 1970s, and it was
necessary to create a new resistance map from the available data.
Following the human footprint approach (Sanderson et al., 2002; Woolmer et al., 2008),
we combined databases available and standardized for the 1970s and recent years to compose
resistance maps with a resolution of 60m. The NWALT 1974–2012 (Falcone, 2015) combined
data from the National Land Cover Database (Homer et al., 2012) with data from agriculture
censuses, mining and forestry activities, and housing density to create a land use database for
different years. This land-use map covers much of the information that comprises the human
footprint. We use rankings that relate land use, habitat suitability, and resistance (Brown &
Vivas, 2005; Falcone, 2015; Theobald, 2013, 2014) as references to produce a raster layer with
134
the costs of potential movement for each land use, ranging from 0 to 12 points (Table 1). The
1974 land use map was used as the before scenario, and the 2012 map as the after scenario.
Although roads are included in the major transportation land use class, their influence
goes beyond the area of direct intervention, generating effects at different distances depending on
the species or the effect evaluated (Benítez-López et al., 2010; Forman & Deblinger, 2000). Most
naturalness indices use distance from roads as a separate variable from land use (Aplet et al.,
2000; Sanderson et al., 2002; Woolmer et al., 2008). We extracted the roads identified in the land
use map and added a raster layer with costs of potential movement related to the distance of each
mapped road, considering a more intense effect in the first meters and the 300m limit for the
road-effect zone proposed by Forman & Deblinger (2000). Distances from 0 to 60m were valued
at 3, decreasing to 60-180m (2), 180-300m (1), and > 300m (0) (Table 1).
The NWALT 1974–2012 (Falcone, 2015) considered the legal protection in land use
maps, but only areas with highly restricted use: GAP 1 lands were considered as the low-use-
conservation class, but lands classified as GAP 2, 3, and 4 were not considered (Prior-Magee et
al., 1998). The level of protection is associated not only to land use changes but also to species
richness and abundance (Gray et al., 2016), and frequency of human and vehicles presence,
which affects the behavior and presence of many species (Whittington et al., 2022). Therefore,
the PAD-US GAP Status was used as a separate layer in the resistance maps. GAP Status 1 to 4
were valued ranging from 0 to 3 and no GAP areas were valued as 4 to establish the distance
costs (Table 1).
The three layers (land use, protected areas, and road distances) were then summed for
each raster cell, with the maximum possible resistance cost being 19 points. Considering that the
135
distance covered also represents a cost and that there is no 0 cost for movement, 1 point was
added to all cells, with a final scale varying from 1 to 20 (Table 1).
To assess the sensitivity of the results to the resistance map, we reran the analyses
varying the movement cost in several ways. First, we only considered land use (ranging from 1
to 13) to remove the effect of protected areas. Second, we only considered major classes of land
use (conservation, low use, water, production, semi-developed, and developed, ranging from 1 to
6) to minimize possible problems in the ranking of land uses. Third, we consider the effects of
the absolute values of resistance by determining the effect of squaring with the original
resistance values (ranging from 1 to 400).
Changes in Movement Resistance Along the AT Through Time
To assess the trend in connectivity along the trail over time, we compared the AT with a
least-cost path - LCP (Meegan & Maehr, 2002), used as a control trail in a BACI approach
(Butsic et al., 2017). Using the resistance maps created, we estimated the cumulative costs of the
AT path in before and after scenarios and calculated the difference between them. We modeled
the LCP between the Appalachian Trail termini for the before scenario as a control trail, using
the most preserved path and theoretically most suitable for wildlife movements as a reference in
a conservative approach, then estimated the cumulative costs of this path in before and after
scenarios. The comparison between the variation in cumulative costs between the AT path
(observed) and the LCP (control) was used to assess whether the connectivity trend along the
path was better or worse than in the control trail and to understand whether the path has a
positive effect on connectivity. To avoid the effect of the legal protection of the AT on the
results, we modeled a second LCP based on the resistance map built only with the land use raster
layer. The same BACI procedure was repeated for this second LCP.
136
Extension of Trail Influence on Connectivity
To assess how far the Appalachian Trail's effect on connectivity extends, we compared
the average resistance of sample areas along the trail with those of random sample areas in the
study region. We added this matching method to the BACI approach to reduce the effect of
possible confounding factors (Schleicher et al., 2020). We used 100 pairs of matched points to
allow statistical significance tests. To compose these pairs, we sorted 100 random points (distant
at least 10 km from each other) along the AT and 100 control points in the study region (distant
at least 5km from the trail).
To match AT and control points with similar conditions as much as possible, we
identified environmental variables related to current land use. We built a correlation matrix using
values for each variable at 10,000 points randomly sampled in the study region. Values for each
variable were obtained from rasters of current and past land use (NWALT 1974–2012),
elevation, slopes, and aspects (from the Elevation Derivatives for National Applications
EDNA/USGS) and precipitation (from the Air, Water, and Aquatic Environments research
program AWAE/USFS). We adopted a conservative threshold of r > 0.25 to select variables
related to current land use. Past land use (r = 0.805, p < 0.001), elevation (r = -0.328, p < 0.001),
and slope (r =- 0.269, p < 0.001) were selected. Aspect explained only a small amount of
variation (r = 0.040, p < 0.001), and precipitation was not significant (r = 0.002, p = 0.852), and
both were not considered in the analysis. The total variation for each geographic variable was
divided into ten bins: elevation (0-2,000m, 200m each bin) and slope (0-30%, 3% each bin) and
each control point was sorted in the same land use and same elevation and slope bins of the
paired AT point.
137
For each point along the AT and each control point, buffers were drawn with diameters
related to the corridor widths considered in the first analysis (300m, 2km, and 10 km). Then we
used the buffers to clip the resistance maps, and the average resistance value was calculated for
each buffer in before and after scenarios (Figure 2). To answer whether connectivity along AT
corridors of different widths varied differently from control areas, the variation in the average
resistance values were compared between buffers with the same diameters around the AT points
and paired points, using paired T-tests with 95 % confidence intervals. To answer whether the
effect of AT varies significantly with distance, we used analysis of variance (ANOVA)
comparing the average resistance values for the three buffer diameters, both for the AT and the
control points.
5.4 Results
5.4.1 A Brief History of the Appalachian Trail Corridor
Based on the bibliographical review and consultation with the ATN collection, we
reconstituted the most significant facts of the management of the corridor and land protection
along the AT. Proposed in 1921 (MacKaye, 1921), the AT was considered fully implemented in
1937, and in 1938, the Appalachian Trailway Agreement, signed between the ATC, NPS, and
USFS, gave official status to the AT (Mittlefehldt, 2013). The agreement established a lane of
200 feet on each trailside free of clear-cutting for timber production and one mile free of
paralleling motor routes in federal lands (Koerber, 1967). The oldest record of trail corridor
reforestation efforts is from abandoned pasturelands in New York in 1942 (Neisel, 1942). The
main focus at that time was to protect the trail itself and a pleasant natural aspect for hikers, but
ATC protests against road developments and ski resorts (ATC, 1945a; Schlapfer, 1971) already
influenced landscape conservation.
138
In 1958, an article in the magazine of the Appalachian Trailway News (ATN) advocated
the entire Appalachian Mountain to be included within forest preserves and declaring it a
national wilderness area. The author lists arguments that include “natural beauty, noncommercial
recreation, conservation of forests and water tables, fire control, and scientific study and
experiments related to natural life” as well as “essential genuine offsets to the oppressive aspects
of this man-made environment.” (Cover, 1958, p.37). In 1964, the ATC created a Conservation
Committee, focused on conserving the trail corridor, which “also includes conservation projects
and problems not directly involving the trail” (ATC, 1964a, p.41). Also in 1964, the US
Congress approved the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, which allocated resources for
purchase, easements, and agreements with landowners to ensure land conservation (Murray,
1965).
Initiatives for legally protecting the AT by the US Congress began in the 1940s (ATC,
1945b; Murray, 1965) and resulted in the National Trail System (NTS) Act of 1968 (Murray,
1968). In 1967, ATC began collaborating with The Nature Conservancy (TNC), which was
already active in the region (Boardman, 1961), to acquire land and easements to protect the trail
(Foster, 1968; Tabor Jr., 1970). The NTS Act maintained the 60 m (200 ft) strip of protection on
each side of the trail, with a limit of 16 ha/km for land acquisition through condemnation
(Murray, 1968). This limit was increased by a 1978 amendment to around 80 ha/km, enabling the
acquisition of a 300m wide corridor (Startzell, 1989).
In 1978, about 60% of the AT corridor was in public lands (Mittlefeldt, 2013). The
Federal Land Acquisition Program, led by the NPS, was intensified to protect the entire trail by
1985, and 90 million USD was assigned to this task (ATC, 1983). It is worth mentioning that
these initiatives faced resistance from private landowners, who often supported the trail’s
139
existence but questioned the excessive width of the corridor (K. Anderson, 2006). Mediation by
the ATC and engagement of hikers hired by the program and local volunteers provided close and
empathic contacts, minimizing conflicts and resistance against government actions during land
acquisition (Mittlefehldt, 2013). There were also hikers arguing in favor of open landscapes and
rural views, claiming that a forest corridor would compromise spectacular panoramic views and
turn the AT into a “monotonous green tunnel” (Farmer, 1985, p.18; Garvey, 1985). As
Mittlefehldt (2010) highlights, the 1981 Management Plan for the Appalachian Trail postulated
that “agricultural use of corridor lands that conserved pastoral scenery was not only compatible
but desirable” (p.654). Despite some resistance, in 1989, 160 km remained to be protected, and
in 2001, the trail corridor was virtually fully protected, with only many a few short sections in
towns and private lands without easements (totaling 0.7% of the trail) remaining unprotected
(ATC, 2001b).
Progress in consolidating the narrow trail corridor opened new horizons and broadened
the perspective to incorporate scenic views and the trail landscape (Shaffer, 2016). The first
resolution favoring a wider Appalachian Greenway occurred at the 20th ATC meeting in 1975.
The proposal included establishing “a narrow wilderness-type corridor along the spine of the
Appalachian Trail with a much wider countryside zone on either side” (ATC, 1975, p.40). In
1989, an article in ATN dealt with viewsheds and landscape protection, including land and
easements acquisition, but also negotiations with local governments for “land use plans, zoning,
and limited development initiatives” to “protect the landscape and a sense of community”
(Hoppes, 1989, p.10).
Attention to issues related to connectivity and wildlife corridors in the AT (Woodside,
2001) followed the scientific debate on the subject, which gained momentum in the 1990s (Beier
140
& Noss, 1998). This transition was made explicit in the change of name of the AT Conference to
AT Conservancy, in 2005, with prioritization declared for corridor and land conservation
(Mittlefehldt, 2013). Since 2000, the AT Mega Transect has engaged researchers and citizen
scientists to monitor environmental conditions along the entire trail (Mittlefehldt, 2013),
including endangered and invasive species, water and air quality, and landscapes (Dufour &
Crisfield, 2008). In 2015, NPS and ATC launched the Appalachian Landscape Partnership with
the mission of “connecting the wild, scenic, and cultural wonders of the Appalachian Trail and its
surrounding landscape” (NPS & ATC, 2022, p.5). The ATC Strategic Plan 2023-2026 mentions
among its objectives “conserve the biodiversity and functional connectivity of natural resource
ecosystems in the A.T. landscape” and “increase awareness about the A.T. landscape’s critical
function in advancing climate resiliency in the Appalachians” (ATC, 2023, p.1).
5.4.2 Protected Areas Coverage Along the AT Corridor
Regarding the protected area coverage, the 300m wide corridor has 95% of its area
protected. The 5% of the corridor that is not protected is found mainly in towns crossed by the
trail, where rights-of-way easements cover corridors a few tens of meters wide, or in private
lands adjacent to the AT. Around 48% of the corridor is protected in GAP 1 and 2 areas, which
include wilderness areas, national parks, and many state parks and private reserves, and 46% in
GAP 3, which includes most national forest lands and part of private reserves and conservation
easements. Regarding the 2 km corridor, 75% of its area is protected (about 35% in GAP 1 and
2), while in the 10 km corridor the proportion of protected areas is lower (54%, with about 23%
in GAP 1 and 2 areas).
Considering only protected areas with identified establishment dates, the coverage in the
300m corridor was 9.9% in 1918, rose to 38.4% in 1968, and then to 89.5% in 2018 (Table 3).
141
The coverage of the highly protected areas (GAP 1 and 2) grew from 2.8% in 1918, to 17.9% in
1968, and 47.8% in 2018. Land protection also grew in the 2km and 10km corridors, but to a
lesser extent (Table 2; Figure 3). Public agencies or conservation organizations own most land.
When we consider the entire study area, protected areas grew from 2.0% in 1918, to 17.0% in
2018 (Figure 3).
The protected area coverage grew across the 300m corridor at an average of 5.7 km2/year
from 1918 to 1968 and at a rate of 17.8 km2/year between 1968 and 2018 (Table 2). In the 2 km
corridor, the protected area coverage grew from 31.6 km2/year (1918-1968) to 84.8 km2/year
(1968-2018). The pace also increased in the 10 km corridor, from 111.2 km2/year in 1918-1968
to 255.1 km2/year in 1968-2018. Across the whole study area, protected area growth was 516
km2/year between 1918-1968 and 1,511 km2/year between 1968-2018.
5.4.3 Temporal Changes in Resistance to Movement Along the AT
The least-cost path (LCP) modeled was similar to the AT route in the northern and
southern portions but differed greatly in the central portion between Virginia and Massachusetts
(Figure 4). The AT follows the Blue Ridge and crosses lower areas between Pennsylvania and
New York to reach the Green Mountains in Vermont. The LCP follows the Allegheny and
Catskill Mountains further west until it crosses the Hudson River valley and resumes a route very
close to the AT in Vermont (Figure 4). The total length of the LCP was 1,984 km, 42% shorter
than the AT (3,416 km). According to the resistance map built, the cumulative cost of the LCP
was 43.3% lower than the AT cost in the before scenario and 23.0% lower in the after scenario.
The AT cumulative cost was reduced by 26.5% between before and after scenarios when
considering the resistance maps, while the distance cost of LCP was practically stable between
the studied scenarios (-0.2%; Table 3). If considering the least-cost path modeled on the
142
resistance map with only land uses (costs ranging from 1 to 13; Table 1), both AT and LCP had
an increase in the cumulative cost, but the increase in AT was much smaller than that of LCP
(11.7% and 51.3%, respectively; Table 3). The cumulative cost of the LCP was 50.9% lower
than the AT in the before scenario and 33.5% lower in the after, showing a much smaller
worsening in connectivity along the AT than along the LCP used for comparison.
5.4.4 Extension of Trail Influence on Connectivity
Regarding the distance at which the trail influence can be detected, in the 300m-diameter
buffers around 100 AT random points, the average resistance varied negatively by 24.5%
between the before and after scenarios, showing improved conditions for connectivity. The
300m-diameter control areas had a positive variation of 8.8%, showing worse conditions for
potential connectivity with a significant difference between the AT corridor and control areas (p
< 0.001). The result was similar for the 2km and 10km diameter buffers. However, the variations
were smaller for the AT corridors compared to the 300m diameter, with 13.0% and 1.9%
reduction in the average resistance, respectively. In control areas, the variation between the
different diameters was smaller and positive, with an increase of 10.8% for 2 km and 9.2% for
10km, meaning a worst connectivity in the after scenario. All differences in variations between
AT buffers and paired buffers were significant (p < 0.001; Table 4).
Referring to the variation in the influence of the trail on the corridors, ANOVA showed
significant differences in the effect of the AT between the different widths (F = 22.36, p <
0.001), with pairwise analyses showing a significantly greater effect at 300m and gradually
decreasing with increasing distance (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). In the control areas, there
was no significant difference between buffers of 300m, 2km and 5km diameters (F = 0.12, p =
0.89).
143
The sensitivity analyses using modified resistance maps showed consistent results to
above, highlighting low sensitivity of results to map changes. When considering only land use,
there was a slight worsening in connectivity in the AT 300m corridor (7.6%), while in the control
areas the average resistance increased by 58.8%. As in the first resistance map, the scenario for
the 2km and 10km corridors was progressively worse compared to the 300m, with the average
resistance growing 12.3% and 17.0%, respectively. The variation in control areas over time was
slightly smaller for the different buffers, not showing a clear pattern, with an increase of 50.4%
for 2km and 38.8% for 10km. Regarding all the resistance maps tested, the differences in
temporal variation between the AT points and the paired points were significant for all modified
maps and all buffer widths (p < 0.001), except for the 10km corridor in the map considering only
six land use classes (p = 0.189).
5.5 Discussion
The results suggest that the closer to the AT, the greater the growth of potential
connectivity and protected area coverage after the NTS Act and the legal protection of the trail
corridor. The increase in protected area coverage is greater in areas closer to the trail (300m wide
corridor). Likewise, the 300m wide corridor has the lowest resistance to potential movements,
followed by the 2km and 10km corridors, suggesting that the AT positively influences
connectivity.
5.5.1 Influence of the Appalachian Trail in Protected Area Designation
The changes in protected areas coverage indicates the degree of prioritization of a region
and the perspective of future conservation (Andam et al., 2008). Although low-use areas adjacent
to developed areas tend to have their land use changed over time (Falcone, 2015), within a public
144
protected area this trend is mitigated by restrictions (Vuohelainen et al., 2012). The Appalachian
Mountains already had greater protected area coverage than the Eastern US as a whole before the
implementation of the Appalachian Trail. However, legal protection of lands along the AT
accelerated after the trail's implementation (1920s and 1930s) and even more after the NTS Act
(1968), especially in the narrower corridor, which has since been officially protected (Murray,
1968). This difference highlights the influence of the NTS Act in protecting the corridor, which
received new impetus after a 1978 NTS amendment. It enabled the acquisition of a 300m wide
corridor, allocated funds, and determined that all land be acquired within three years (Startzell,
1989). In this corridor the pace of land protection grew from 0.6% of the corridor area per year
between 1918 and 1968 to 1.8% over the next 50 years.
The Federal Land Acquisition Program protected a large part of the corridor, now mostly
on public lands (Startzell, 1989). However, the possibility of negotiating rights-of-way and
conservation easements, which limit land use change through agreements with landowners, also
made conservation possible in private lands (Chapman et al., 2023). These arrangements and the
direct action of a non-profit organization (ATC) as co-manager of the trail also facilitated the use
of private funds and donations. In several cases, the ATC conducted the acquisition process
(Hunt, 1986).
The effect of NTS Act on the narrow trail corridor is direct, but other AT-related actions
have effects on adjoining lands. When considering the minimum width for an effective wildlife
corridor, 2 km (Beier, 2019), the pace of protection also increased after the formal recognition of
the AT (from 0.5% to 1.4% of the corridor area per year). When considering a 10 km corridor,
the effect is smaller but still noticeable (from 0.4% to 1% per year). In addition to land
acquisition in the trail corridor, campaigns led by hikers and mountain clubs contributed to the
145
designation of several protected areas. In 1973, for example, the ATC and four trail clubs
engaged in the Great Smokies Park Wilderness Advocates coalition (Coffey, 1975), which
resulted in the designation of several wilderness areas in the region between the 1970s and
1980s, such as Cohutta, Southern Nantahala, and Tray Mountains. In another example of civic
action, in 1985, the ATC and the Green Mountain Club led the effort to protect Stratton
Mountain, in Vermont, which was threatened by the expansion of a ski resort. After mobilizing
Congress members but having funds cut off, the ATC obtained support from The Nature
Conservancy to acquire the area and subsequently transmit it to the Green Mountain National
Forest (Van Meter, 1986).
Of course other factors, and not only the AT, influenced the growth of protected area
coverage in the region, as this is considered one of the main strategies for conserving
biodiversity used worldwide (Rodrigues et al., 2004). Protection of natural areas in the Eastern
US also grew over the period but covering a much smaller proportion of the territory. Today,
17.2% of the study region is protected, fulfilling the Aichi target 11 established by the
Convention on Biological Diversity for 2020 (Lopoukhine & de Souza Dias, 2012), but still far
from the target of 30% established for 2030, the so-called 30x30 (Chapman et al., 2023).
5.5.2 Influence of the Appalachian Trail on Connectivity
Regarding the analysis of changes in connectivity along the trail over time, the results
suggest a positive influence of AT compared with the control trail (the least-cost path). The
cumulative cost to travel the AT path decreased (-26.5%) while remained practically stable in the
LCP (-0.2%) between before and after scenarios. When considering the resistance map only with
land use, both had an increase in cumulative cost, but the rise in AT (11.7%) was much smaller
than in LCP (51.3%). In regions heavily impacted by human activities, conserved areas tend to
146
be concentrated on slopes and areas less suitable for agriculture and most economic activities
(Joppa & Pfaff, 2009), as the LCP suggests when following a route through the mountains and
avoiding the lower parts of the AT (Figure 5). Even passing through lowland areas with high
agricultural potential, the AT path had comparatively better results than the LCP in changes in
potential connectivity.
The use of LCP to identify the best corridors has several limitations (Pinto & Keitt, 2009;
Pullinger & Johnson, 2010), and its use in this study is intended only to establish a reference to
compare the contribution of AT for connectivity. However, the similarity of the routes in the
southern and northern sections suggests that in these sections the AT coincides with the most
strategic areas for maintaining a climate corridor (Carroll et al., 2018). The central part is the
most degraded along the AT (McKinley et al., 2019; Shriver et al., 2005), and the modeled LCP
suggests that the Allegheny and Catskill mountains would form a more promising corridor.
However, the Appalachian Mountains are not continuous, and between the Catskill and Green
mountains, the LCP modeled in the before scenario crosses a lower and now developed area in
New York. By protecting a corridor crossing lower and flatter areas more suitable for agriculture
and other economic uses (Baker & Capel, 2011), the AT seems to contribute effectively to
connectivity in critical areas. An example is the narrow corridor north of the Clarence
Fahnestock Memorial State Park (New York),where the land parcels acquired by the NPS protect
a narrow corridor amid anthropized areas that, until the 1970s, were predominantly classified as
very low use (Figure 5).
The challenge of protecting corridors in areas suitable for other human activities can be
illustrated by the conflicts to implement a narrow corridor along the Cumberland Valley
(Pennsylvania), an area undergoing an intense process of population density and land use change
147
between the 1970s and 1980s (Startzell, 1984). Some landowners resisted land condemnation
and created the CANT (Citizens Against New Trail) association. There was an explicit conflict
among local residents, with another group creating the PRO-TRAIL (Pennsylvanians Rallied on
a Trail Route Advocating) association. The first claimed that the Land Acquisition Program
contradicted their property rights, while the latter argued that the trail was in the public and
community interest. (ATC, 1986; Mittlefehldt, 2010; Startzell, 1984). After more than a decade
of negotiation and management, the new trail corridor was officially opened (ATC, 1990).
Landscape architects contributed to the design of a narrow forest corridor crossing agricultural
areas with different special-use permits (ATC, 1990), and the land surrounding Boiling Springs
Lake was acquired and transformed into a public recreation area, reinforcing the link with
residents (King, 1987). The restored vegetation along this narrow corridor (around 40m wide in
the narrowest sections) is the only continuous line of trees in the most critical areas of the valley
(Figure 6).
Regarding the analysis of the extent of AT influence comparing AT and control areas, the
AT 300m corridor had a reduction in resistance while the control areas had an increase (-24.5%
and 8.8% in average resistance, respectively). The fact that resistance is lower now than in the
1970s can be explained by the legal protection of the AT corridor, with land acquisition,
conservation and rights-of-way easements along the entire trail (Startzell, 1989). However, even
when considering only land use, despite slightly worsening between the before and after
scenarios, the AT 300m corridor trend is still significantly better than that of the control areas
(7.6% and 58.8%, respectively). The results indicate that the AT 300m corridor protection policy
effectively enhances connectivity along the trail.
148
If the purchase of conservation and rights-of-way easements can explain the effects in the
300m corridor, the differences found in the 2km and even the 10km corridors reinforce the
findings of previous analyses and suggest that the positive effects of AT go beyond the direct
land acquisitions and easements. Among the explanations for greater connectivity is the
designation of protected areas far beyond the trail corridor, such as the aforementioned
wilderness areas (Coffey, 1975). More recently, ATC and NPS have been leading the AT
Landscape Partnership, joining several organizations with the express goal of “looking at the
entire AT landscape as one whole system rather than a long, thin, linear corridor divided by
boundaries and jurisdictions” (Shaffer, 2016, p.179). The declared intention of broadening the
scale is relatively recent and may generate even more expressive results in terms of habitat
connectivity in the future.
Another possible factor positively influencing connectivity is campaigns against
development projects that threaten trail integrity and its landscapes. The intense pressure for
development in the eastern US generates demands for roads, pipelines, and powerlines crossing
the Appalachians (Gates, 1991). These linear structures constitute barriers to movement for many
species and have a known effect on connectivity (Ascensão et al., 2019; Gregory et al., 2021;
Karlson & Mörtberg, 2015). Campaigns against scenic roads following the mountain spine were
successful in Georgia (ATC, 1964c) and Vermont (Strong, 1966). Proposals of highways cutting
through the mountains were barred after protests in North Carolina (ATC, 1968) and Virginia
(DeVaughn, 1994), and even forest roads for timber logging were the target of ATC campaigns
(Sommerville, 1987). Civic actions against gas pipelines were successful in New York (ATC,
1988) and Virginia (Igelman, 2017a), and a powerline in Virginia had its route changed after five
years of negotiation with the ATC, becoming a cut in the trail in a less conserved area (ATC,
149
2001a; King, 1996). The ATC also mobilized to prevent the implementation or reduce the
impacts of ski resorts (ATC, 1989, 1997; Koerber, 1966), a windfarm (ATC, 2002, 2006), a
gravel quarry (ATC, 2004) and even a racetrack in neighbor lands (ATC, 2003, 2005).
The evidence that the AT mobilized several campaigns against development projects
combined with the results of the landscape analysis suggests that the engagement of hikers,
volunteers, and organizations influences the protection of the trail corridor and the AT landscape
as a whole. Although the involvement of users and local actors is often pointed out as important
to maintain connectivity and sustainable landscapes (Opdam et al., 2006; Tompkins & Adger,
2004), Heller & Zavaleta (2009) point out that enlisting people and local communities to
“soften” land use and restore habitats to improve landscape “were among the most poorly
developed recommendations, limited mainly to very general actions without identification of
kinds of actors that might need to be involved” and connectivity strategies should “ bring
together local governments, urban planners, community groups and conservation organizations”
(p.25). The AT mobilizes actors that go beyond those directly involved in conservation,
expanding the conservation audience, and involving people who directly act on the ground.
5.5.3 Implications for Trail Management and Landscape Conservation
Our results suggest that the AT made an effective contribution to landscape connectivity
that goes beyond the legally protected 300m-wide corridor. However, if we consider the most
challenging areas with lands more suitable for agriculture and other human activities, the
corridor may be only tens of meters wide, which can be considered a bottleneck in the AT
corridor. These are the most challenging stretches for connectivity, and where the AT is most
strategic as a conservation tool (McKinley et al., 2019; Shriver et al., 2005). It is widely accepted
150
that the wider the corridor, the better (Ford et al., 2020; Harrison, 1992), and Beier suggests 2 km
as a role of thumb for minimal effective corridor width (Beier, 2019). To be most effective, the
AT conservation initiative should consider increasing the minimum width of the legally
protected corridor and consider these aspects in the land acquisition and conservation easements
strategy.
Another issue that must be considered is to what extent the use of the trail interferes with
the use of the corridor by wildlife. Preferential use of trails has been recorded for several animal
species (Ford et al., 2020; Kays et al., 2017), though others always avoid them or at least do so at
times of intense use by humans (Gaynor et al., 2018; Whittington et al., 2022). Indeed, Erb et al.
(2012) found that black bears avoid highly used areas in the AT, while red foxes use these same
areas more intensely. Ford et al. (2020) found that different carnivore species flee from humans
at varying distances, from 10 m for black bears to 488 m for wolves, which would interfer with
the effective width of the corridor. These observations suggest that the 300-m-wide corridor with
the AT in the middle may not serve as a functional corridor for many species.
On the other hand, some of the main bottlenecks, where narrow forest corridors cross
open landscapes (Loro et al., 2015), are not particularly attractive to day-hikers and are
predominantly used by thru-hikers, thus creating minimal conflicts between wildlife and people.
Due to weather conditions, the ideal window for thru-hiking is narrow, and the hiker bubble is
concentrated in short periods each year (Dolman & Marion, 2022), which would facilitate the use
of these corridors by forest-dwelling species for a large part of the year (Nickel et al., 2020). In
areas with human activities and significant limitations to implement wider corridors, it would be
beneficial to locate the trail on the edge of the forest corridor, reducing its influence on the
effective corridor width (Ford et al., 2020). Locating the trail at the edge can both reduce adverse
151
effects on wildlife and satisfy hikers who claim against a green tunnel and desire more open
views (Farmer, 1985).
The other two most renowned US National Scenic Trails (Pacific Crest and Continental
Divide) are better preserved than the AT (Wilson & Belote, 2022). These trails are located
mostly in conserved public lands which were designated before the trail implementation, which
suggests a smaller effective contribution of the trails to conservation. Due to its location in the
oldest and most densely populated US region (WPR, 2023), the AT seems to be an important
example of how mega trails can effectively promote and recover connectivity in large landscapes
intensely altered by human activities.
In a broad review of recommendations for climate change strategies adaptation for
biodiversity management, Heller & Zavaleta (2009) identified several recommendations to
promote landscape connectivity, such as “the designation of new parks oriented longitudinally,
(…) actions in non-reserve land, (…) and planting trees and shrubs to create shelterbelts and
hedgerows in farmlands” (p.24). These authors also highlight the need to “integrate ecology with
other disciplines and approaches that explicitly address the roles of institutions, policy, politics,
and people in successful conservation strategies” (p.29). Our study seeks to answer this call, and
the results suggest that AT meets most of their recommendations and is a valid conservation
strategy. The long public-private partnership and the institutional arrangements that made AT
protection possible can serve as an example not only for other mega trails but for other
conservation projects involving land management (Mittlefehldt, 2010). Maintaining the
integration of public engagement and landscape conservation around the AT and intensifying
actions to protect as wide a corridor as possible seems to be strategic for long-term biodiversity
conservation in the eastern U.S.
152
5.5.4 Limitations and Further Research
Connectivity models may not represent well real conditions influencing wildlife
movements through landscapes (Baldwin et al., 2010), and resistance maps are sensitive to
changes in the values assigned to the costs of potential movements (Savary et al., 2022). The
scarcity of GIS databases with data from the 1970s and the lack of indices such as Human
Footprint (Sanderson et al., 2002) and ecological integrity (Theobald, 2013) for that time made it
necessary to develop a new resistance map, which is subject to errors such as ranking of costs to
potential movements not based on empirical data (Sawyer et al., 2011). The effect of these
possible errors was minimized by using the same criteria to build the resistance maps in the two
moments analyzed and the same maps to compare the AT corridor and control areas. Despite the
limitations of available data, the results of the modified resistance maps were consistent and
showed low sensitivity to changes in the indices.
AT matching with control areas is not perfect. Even considering land use and including
variables such as elevation and slope to define paired points, the initial AT values were lower
than the paired control points. This difference may be due to unobserved confounding factors
(Schleicher et al., 2020). However, the AT itself may also have influenced it since the trail
already existed decades earlier than the before scenario. The extension of the study region would
require high computing power, but using random corridors with the same length or initial
cumulative cost equal to the AT could consider the entire length of the AT corridor in this
analysis and minimize the matching problem.
153
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that evaluates the effect of a trail on
landscape connectivity. Our results suggest that AT positively influences landscape connectivity.
However, this is the oldest mega trail with the greatest mobilization to protect corridors. Studies
on other mega trails would help to evaluate the generalizability of these findings and establish
guidelines to ensure that they are effective tools to enhance connectivity in extensive landscapes.
154
Figure 5-1. Buffers along the Appalachian Trail (300m, 2 km, and 10 km wide corridors) with
existing protected areas in 1918, 1968, and 2018. Colors represent GAP-Status: 1
(dark green), 2 (leaf green); 3 (light green); and 4 (orange).
155
Table 5-1. Costs to potential movements in each raster layer.
Raster Layer
Cost
Land Use Classes
Very Low or Very Low use, Conservation
0
Grazing potential
1
Wetlands
2
Pasture/Hay 3
Crops
4
Anthropogenic Other
5
Water
5
Urban Interface Low Medium 6
Developed, Other
7
Residential, Low-Medium Density
8
Recreation
9
Urban Interface High 9
Residential, High Density
10
Mining/Extraction
11
Commercial/Services
12
Major Transportation 12
Industrial/Military
12
Distance from Roads
>300m
0
180-300m
1
60-180m
2
0-60m
3
PAD-US GAP Status
GAP 1 0
GAP 2
1
GAP 3
2
GAP 4
3
No GAP protection 4
* 1 unit was added to each raster cell since there is no movements with 0 cost.
156
Figure 5-2. Before-After-Control-Intervention (BACI) comparison with matched samples.
A: buffers around random points along the AT and control paired points selected
randomly with similar land use, elevation, and slopes; B: Resistance map of point AT
70 with 300m, 2km, and 10km diameter buffers in the before scenario; C: Point AT
70 in after scenario; D: Point Control 70 in before scenario; E: Point Control 70 in the
after scenario.
157
Table 5-2. Total protected area by GAP-status and their proportional coverage of the corridors of different widths and in the study
region in 1918, 1968, and 2018
GAP-Status
Area in 300 m corridor
Area in 2 km corridor
Area in 10 km corridor
Area in study region (200km)
1918
(%)
1968
(%)
2018
(%)
1918
(%)
1968
(%)
2018
(%)
1918
(%)
1968
(%)
2018
(%)
1918
(%)
1968
(%)
2018
(%)
GAP 1
123
(1.3)
94
(9.4)
168
(16.8)
60
(1.0)
540
(9.1)
988
(16.6)
130
(0.5)
1,786
(6.7)
3,112
(11.8)
199
(0.04)
3,536
(0.8)
7,271
(1.6)
GAP 2
15
(1.5)
85
(8.5)
310
(31.0)
79
(1.3)
465
(7.8)
1,064
(17.9)
248
(0.9)
1,700
(6.4)
2,979
(11.3)
826
(0.2)
8,902
(2.0)
21,251
(4.8)
GAP 3
71
(7.0)
204
(20.5)
412
(41.2)
391
(6.6.)
1,098
(18.4)
2,182
(36.6)
1,395
(5.3)
3,827
(14.5)
6,355
(24.0)
7,548
(1.7)
21,070
(4.7)
36,011
(8.1)
GAP 4
0
(0)
0.3
(0.03)
5
(0.5)
0.1
(0)
5
(0.1)
39
(0.7)
29
(0.1)
48
(0.2)
421
(1.6)
276
(0.1)
1,143
(0.3)
11,553
(2.6)
All PAs
99
(9.9)
384
(38.4)
895
(89.5)
530
(8.9)
2,108
(35.4)
4,273
(71.7)
1802
(6.8)
7,36
(27.8)
12,867
(48.6)
8,850
(2.0)
34,651
(7.7)
76,086
(17.0)
Total Buffer
Area
1,001 (100%) 5,958 (100%) 26,475 (100%) 447,239 (100%)
Average
increase
(km2/year)
1918-1968
1968-2018
1918-1968
1968-2018
1918-1968
1968-2018
1918-1968
1968-2018
5.7 17.8 31.6 84.8 111.2 255.1 516.0 1511.4
Areas in km2; Proportional coverage in %.
158
Figure 5-3. Protected area coverage (%) considering different corridor widths along the
Appalachian Trail (300m, 2km, and 10km) and in the whole study region (200 km) at
three moments in time (1918, 1968, and 2018).
159
Figure 5-4. Appalachian Trail (black line) and Least-Cost Path (blue line) over the Resistance
map for before scenario, showing proximity between them in the South and North
parts and the distance in the Central part.
160
Table 5-3. Cumulative costs along the Appalachian Trail and the Least-Cost Path in before and
after scenarios
Appalachian
Trail
Least-cost Path
Differences***
(LCP/AT)
Length
3,416 km
1,984 km
58.1%
Resistance maps*
Cumulative cost before
210,693
119,458
56.7%
Cumulative cost after
154,802
119,185
77.0%
Variation in time
-26.5%
-0.2%
Land use resistance maps**
Cumulative cost before
66,158
32,495
49.1%
Cumulative cost after
73,910
49,174
66.5%
Variation
11.7%
51.3%
* Resistance maps built from three layers (land use, distance from roads, and protected
areas, with value per cell ranging from 1 to 20); ** Land use resistance maps built from
land use layer only (value per cell ranging from 1 to 13); *** Difference refers to the ratio
between LCP and AT; Variation refers to the difference between the resistance values in
the before and after scenarios.
Table 5-4. Average resistances over time, and paired t-test results for resistance changes at
different corridor widths along the Appalachian Trail (AT) and in control areas
Corridor
Width
AT points
Control Areas
t* p
Before
After
Variation
Before
After
Variation
300 m
4.41
3.33
-24.5%
5.48
5.96
8.8%
-6.639
<.001
2 km
4.50
3.91
-13.0%
5.49
6.08
10.8%
-5.513
<.001
10 km
4.83
4.74
-1.9%
5.71
6.23
9.2%
-4.075
<.001
* T-tests using 95% Confidence Interval; 99 Degrees of Freedom.
161
Figure 5-5.Change in land use along the Appalachian Trail (black line) in eastern New York
from 1974 to 2012 showing that very low-use areas only remain along a narrow AT
corridor. Land use intensity ranges from 1 to 13, following the land use classes from
Table 1.
162
Figure 5-6. The narrow AT corridor in the Cumberland Valley and adjacent croplands. A: aerial
image of Google Earth Pro on 8/14/2022; B: AT crossing York Road; and C: AT
entering the tree corridor and corn fields (B and C photos by Ernesto V. Castro on
5/8/2021).
163
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
By adopting a multidisciplinary approach, this study provides a comprehensive view of
the contribution of mega trails to nature conservation. The evaluation of the effects of these trails
on hikers, communities, and landscape showed that they could play a role as conservation tools,
contributing to aspects as diverse as people and community awareness and engagement,
sustainable economic development, land protection, and landscape conservation. By comparing
research findings on the three trails that form the US Triple Crown of Hiking, we can identify
limitations and difficulties, but also actions that could enhance their benefits, generating
guidelines for implementing mega trails as conservation tools worldwide.
After a brief introduction (Chapter 1) presenting the conceptual framework and the three
main elements related to mega trail explored in this dissertation - hikers, communities, and
natural environments - I explored the sense of place presented by hikers (Chapter 2). The
findings on the relationship between hiking duration and sense of place and its spatial scale
suggest that mega trails can create meaningful places (Gustafson, 2001) at the landscape level.
By finding that even day hikers have a stronger and broader sense of place if motivated by mega
trails, we conclude that the positive effect of mega trails goes far beyond the few thousand
people who endure long-distance hikes annually and that the sense of place can go beyond the
specific sites visited. The perception that there is a brand effect (Swait & Erdem, 2007) is
reinforced by interviews in gateway communities, which showed that these long-distance hikers
give concreteness to the idea of the mega trail beyond the trail audience (Cerveny et al., 2022).
The trail brands seem to bring these large landscapes into the perceptible realm of people,
which is one of the biggest challenges in gaining support for large-scale conservation actions
(Gobster et al., 2007). Despite some controversy about the difficulty of incorporating knowledge
164
about sense of place into management decisions (Farnum et al 2005; Kaltenborn and Bjerke,
Williams, 2008), harnessing the beneficial effects of sense of place in favor of conservation
projects seems promising. Implementing mega trails as backbones of conservation projects in
priority landscapes and geographic features, such as mountain ranges, ecoregions, biodiversity
hotspots, or climate corridors can help reinforce the meaning of these places and strengthen
conservation actions in these territories. If trail systems and networks contribute to integrated
planning and connectivity, they should not overshadow trail brands directly related to geographic
features and priority areas for conservation. These trail brands can be more effective in
communicating the importance of these areas for conservation to society.
The mega trails studied pass through some of the most famous natural attractions in the
U.S., such as the Old Faithful Geyser in Yellowstone National Park (CDT) or Clingmans Dome,
in the Great Smoky Mountains NP (AT). However, there is little or no mention of the trail in
some of these places. Intensive outreach and signage in these popular sections and road crossings
could strengthen the trail brands. The trails studied adopt different strategies concerning major
tourist attractions. While the CDT and AT pass through many major attractions, the PCT seems
to prioritize a more wilderness experience, avoiding places such as the Yosemite Valley and the
Crater Lake Rim Trail, the most popular of the respective national parks. However, 85% of PCT
thru-hikers take the rim trail as an alternate route in Crater Lake NP (Halfway Anywhere, 2023),
showing their interest in major attractions. Locating the trail to provide experiences at major
attractions and reaching a wider audience while having alternate routes for those who prefer to
avoid crowded areas, seems like a balanced strategy to broaden audiences and ensure enjoyable
experiences for all.
165
In Chapter 3, I found that sense of place alone is not enough to generate civic actions and
pro-environmental behaviors, being necessary to forge a connection to nature as a whole for that.
A better understanding of the relationships and processes that lead from outdoor experience to
support for conservation is essential to improve planning and experiences offered in natural
environments, and this study represents another step in this direction. Despite some controversy
about the relationships between these constructs and their subdimensions (Jorgensen & Stedman,
2001; Tam, 2013), putting together the findings of chapters 2 and 3, it is possible to state that
hiking experiences on mega trails are related to sense of place, connection to nature, and pro-
environmental behaviors.
Regarding local communities, as my conceptual framework highlighted, they are also a
key element in the dynamics of mega trails, whether as users, direct beneficiaries, or actors in
conservation actions, as seen in Chapter 4. The finding that positive perceptions about the trail
are not always based on facts, such as the importance of the trail in the local economy, suggests
that trails play a role in community identities, going beyond the effects of this and other tangible
benefits (Stewart et al., 2004). Reinforcing these linkages through initiatives such as trail town
programs appears to result in more positive perceptions and attitudes toward trail protection.
Despite the relatively low economic importance, the overall positive perception of the
trails and hikers is justified by the even lower perception of the eventual trail's negative impacts
on communities (Frauman & Banks, 2012; Harrill, 2004). This finding reinforces that mega trails
divide the economic benefits among many gateway communities but also their negative impacts.
Maintaining tourist activity on a limited scale is essential for mega trails initiatives to minimize
negative impacts on communities and promote sustainable tourism, which is proposed to be
economically viable, environmentally appropriate, and socially acceptable (McCool, 2016).
166
The third element of my conceptual framework is the natural environment. Chapter 5
demonstrated that civic action involving hikers, local communities, and public managers results
in greater landscape connectivity. This chapter focused only on the Appalachian Trail, and the
generalizability of the findings needs to be tested. Nevertheless, based on the AT example, we
can say that public-private partnerships with the engagement of hikers and organizations and
long-term presence in the territory (Mittlefehldt, 2010) have created a favorable scenario for
conservation. By joining the authority and structure of the government, with the flexibility and
engagement of non-profit organizations, AT has seen the protected area coverage and landscape
connectivity grow. The legal basis for protecting the trail corridor and the growing focus on the
landscape perspective gave impetus to conservation actions, positively influencing connectivity
beyond the narrow trail corridor.
On the other hand, in many sections, the trail corridor seems too narrow to represent an
alternative to many species' movements (Beier, 2019). This problem mainly occurs in flatter
areas more suitable for agriculture and other human activities. Trails planned as conservation
tools should seek to protect wider corridors or add to their strategies other actions to increase
connectivity, such as easements and agreements with landholders to adopt production practices
that increase the matrix permeability (Baum et al., 2004) even in places where it is not viable to
establish a wide forest corridor. Planning the trail location in the corridor can also result in a
greater effective corridor width (Ford et al., 2020). In places where the corridor width is critical,
the trail can be located on the edge or even in adjacent open areas.
Mega trails can be backbones for many large-scale conservation actions, including the
designation of protected areas, protection or restoration of corridors, and engagement with
landholders and local communities to promote more sustainable land uses. These measures are
167
among the most frequently cited as important to promote landscape conservation and climate
change adaptation (Gregory et al., 2021; Heller & Zavaleta, 2009). Overall, a dollar invested in
mega trails or related local trails seems to give a greater return to society than a dollar invested in
isolated local trails.
This study explored the relationship between mega trails and nature conservation through
different approaches and opened several possibilities for future investigation. Further research
may help to understand whether the sense of place and connection to nature results from trail
experiences or at what level hikers choose this activity influenced by a previous connection to
nature and places. I concluded that mega trails could keep tourism at sustainable levels but
estimating the economic impact of hikers in gateway communities, especially small towns
without other significant attractions, would help to understand the extent to which mega trails
could sustain the economy of rural communities that suffer with the decline of extractive
industries. Regarding the landscape, I concluded that the AT influences corridor protection and
connectivity at a large scale, but further research can answer the role of the trail in connectivity
at a local scale. Empirical studies with species more vulnerable to fragmentation can answer if
they effectively use the narrow corridors restored in critical areas or indicate other necessary
actions for the mega trails to provide connectivity also on a local scale.
Based on my findings so far, I can conclude that the pioneer Benton Mackaye (1921) was
right when he proposed the first mega trail as a strategy to promote contact with nature for the
people, enable sustainable rural communities, and landscape-scale planning. Mega trails can play
an important role as conservation tools, but how they are planned, managed, and marketed is
essential to create a high level of success. Considering a wider audience than long-distance
hikers in communication strategies, involving local communities, and taking environmental
168
criteria into account when planning routes and ecological corridors could make a big difference
in the level of success of these initiatives.
169
APPENDIX A
SURVEY APPLIED TO HIKERS (CHAPTERS 2 AND 3)
Research Informed Consent:
Hello. My name is Ernesto Viveiros de Castro, I am a PhD student at the School of Natural
Resources and Environments at the University of Florida. I would like to invite you to
participate on a research about long distance trails. Before you decide, I would like to let you
know a few things about this study.
First, this survey is part of a study looking at how hikers and local people think about these trails
and their environments. I'll ask you questions about your opinions on trail management and
environmental issues. There are no right or wrong answers. We're really just interested in your
opinion on these topics.
Second, It will take around 15 minutes of your time to address my questions
Finally, This study is anonymous, answering these questions will not affect you either for better
or for worse. Please understand your participation is voluntary and that there is no payment or
compensation for your participation. There is no anticipated risk or direct benefit to participants.
You have the right to withdraw your consent or discontinue participation at any time without
penalty. You have the right to refuse to answer any particular question.
If you have any questions about this research protocol, with number IRB 202100413, please
contact Dr. Taylor Stein, at +1 (650) 204¬1052 o tstein@ufl.edu. Questions or concerns about
your rights as a research participant may be directed to the IRB02 office at University of Florida
by telephone at +1 (352) 392-0433.
170
I am 18 years old or older, I understand the information above and I provide my consent to
participate in this study.
1. I am 18 years old or older, I have read the information above and I provide my consent to
participate in this study.
Yes _____
No _____
Section 1: Trail use
2.
How many times have you used this trail?
[ ] First time [ ] 6 to 10 times
[ ] 2 to 5 times [ ] More than 10 times
3.
If you were coming here and someone asked you to which trail you were
going, what would you say?
[PROMPT:
How would you refer to this trail? (a given
name)
]
________________________________________________________________
4. Did you know that this trail is part of the [mega trail]?
[ ] Y es [ ] No
5.
Have you ever referred to this trail as part of the
xxxxxxx Trail
? [PROMPT:
that is, when talking about this trail to someone, you have used the term
[mega trail]
instead of another name]
[ ] Y es [ ] N o
6.
About your reasons for choosing this trail to hike during this visit, can you tell
171
me how important was each of these reasons?
[PROMPT: using a five point scale
from not at all important to extremely important]
1- Not important at all; 2- slightly important; 3- moderately important; 4- very important; 5-
Extremely important
7. About how long did you spend (or are spending) on the trail during this visit?
[ ] Up to 2 hours
[ ] Half-day hiking (or less)
[ ] Day hiking
[ ] Multiple-day hiking (How many days?______)
[ ] [mega trail] Section hiking [PROMPT: meaning a plan to complete the [mega trail] in
multiple trips] (How many days?)
[ ] [mega trail] Thru hiking
8. Did you visited or will visit other places for outdoor activities during this trip?
[ ]
No (SKIP TO QUESTION #13)
[ ]
Yes (Please specify: _______________)
9. Have you ever hiked other [mega trail] section?
[ ] Y es [ ] N o [IF NO, SKIP THE NEXT TWO QUESTIONS]
10. How many days have you hiked in the [mega trail] before?
[PROMPT: It can be an
approximate number…]
1
2
3
4
5
6.1. Hike in any natural trail close to
home/accommodation
6.2. Visit [local attraction]
6.3. Hike in the [local protected area]
6.4. Hike in the [mega trail]
172
[ ] Days [INSERT THE NUMBER OF ESTIMATED DAYS]
[ ] Thru hiking [MARK IF S/HE IS/WAS A THRU HIKER]
11. Do you consider that you collect sections of the [mega trail]? [PROMPT: in this sense
collecting means looking for hiking opportunities in as many [mega trail] sections as possible,
whether you're thinking of completing the trail one day or not]
[ ] Y es [ ] N o
12. Have you ever hiked on another long-distance trail?
[ ] No [IF NO, SKIP THE NEXT QUESTION]
[ ] Appalachian Trail
[ ] Continental Divide Trail
[ ] Other (Please specify: ___________ )
13. Except for the [mega trail], how many days have you hiked in long-distance trails before?
[PROMPT: It can be an approximate number… If you are/were a thru hiker only check
this option and inform the trail name]
[ ] Days
[ ] Thru hiking
Section 2: Sense of Place
14.
Now, I’m going to ask you some questions about what you think and feel about
these places.
For the following statements please indicate your agreement or
disagreement according to the scale.
173
SD
D
N
A
SA
a.
I feel like these places are part of me.
1
2
3
4
5
b.
These places are the best place for what I like
to do
1
2
3
4
5
c.
I identify strongly with these places.
1
2
3
4
5
d.
I get more satisfaction out of being here than
anywhere else.
1
2
3
4
5
e.
I am very attached to these places.
1
2
3
4
5
f.
Coming or being here says a lot about who I
am.
1
2
3
4
5
g.
The things I do here, I would enjoy doing just
as much somewhere else.
1
2
3
4
5
h.
Because of my lifestyle, these places are
important to me
1
2
3
4
5
i.
Most of my family/friends are, in some way,
connected with these places.
1
2
3
4
5
j.
I identify with the physical landscape of these
places.
1
2
3
4
5
k.
I am interested in the plants and animals that
live in these places.
1
2
3
4
5
1- Strongly disagree; 2- Disagree; 3- Neither agree nor disagree; 4- Agree; 5- Strongly agree
15.
When you've been talking about how you feel about these places, are you thinking
more of these places as being…?
[PROMPT: MARK ALL THAT APPLY]
[ ] [Local Trail/Attraction]
[ ] [Local protected area]
[ ] [Local Mountains/geographic features]
[ ] [The State]
[ ] [The Mega Trail]
[ ] Nature as a whole
16.
In a scale from 1 to 5, tell me how connected you feel with each of these following
places
[PROMPT:
Please answer by
responding:
not connected at all; disconnected; neither
connected nor disconnected; connected; and strongly connected]
174
1- Strongly connected; 2- Somewhat connected; 3- Neither connected nor disconnected; 5- Not
connected at all
Section 3: Scale of Sense of Place
17. Based on your previous responses and thinking about the places that matter to you, please
touch the map to indicate the areas the areas you deem important to protect or keep
protected. [PROMPT: You can use up to 3 touches. So, you can use more than one touch
to mark a large area]
* Example of local map
18. Now, considering a broader scale, are there other places that matter to you? Please touch
NC
D
N
C
SC
a. [Local attraction Local Trail/Attraction]
1
2
3
4
5
b. [Local protected area]
1
2
3
4
5
c. [Local Mountains/geographic features]
1
2
3
4
5
d. [The State]
1
2
3
4
5
e. [The Long-distance Trail]
1
2
3
4
5
f. Nature as a whole
1
2
3
4
5
175
the map to indicate the areas you deem important to protect or keep protected.
[PROMPT: You can use up to 10 touches. So, you can use more than one touch to mark
a large area]
*Example of large map
19.
Again,
thinking in your connection with these places, please tell me which of these places
is more important for you, ranking in order of importance. [PROMPT: Please rank
marking 1 for the most important, 2, 3 etc. subsequently. You can leave some options blank]
20. Aside from these places, is there another natural place that you feel connected to?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [If no, skip next question]
a. [Local attraction Local Trail/Attraction]
b. [Local protected area]
c. [Local Mountains/geographic features]
d. [The State]
e. [The Mega Trail]
176
21. Why that place is special for you? [PROMPT: Open ended question. Please mark that best
fit]
[ ] Where I spent my childhood
[ ] Where I had my first experience in nature
[ ] The closest natural environment to my home
[ ] A place I've never been (e.g. I've known it through reports, books, documentaries, etc.)
[ ]Other reason (Please specify)
Section 4: Connection to nature and pro-environmental behavior
22.
Now, I’m going to ask you some questions about your feelings about nature as a
whole.
For the following statements please indicate your agreement or
disagreement according to the scale.: strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor
disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree.
SD
D
N
A
SA
a.
I think of the natural world as a community to
which I belong
1
2
3
4
5
b.
When I think of my life, I imagine myself to be
part of a larger cyclical process of living.
1
2
3
4
5
c.
I often feel a kinship with animals and plants.
1
2
3
4
5
d.
I feel as though I belong to the Earth as equally as
it belongs to me.
1
2
3
4
5
e.
I often feel part of the web of life.
1
2
3
4
5
f. I feel that all inhabitants of Earth, human, and
nonhuman, share a common “life force.”
1
2
3
4
5
g. Like a tree can be part of a forest, I feel embedded
within the broader natural world.
1
2
3
4
5
1- Strongly disagree; 2- Disagree; 3- Neither agree nor disagree; 4- Agree; 5- Strongly
agree.
177
23. If something threatened to change the landscape or environment of this place, such as
permanent clear cuts for commercial purposes, how willing would you be to to take
each of the following actions? [PROMPT: Please answer on a scale of 1 to 5, from not
willing at all to definitely would].
1
2
3
4
5
a.
Talk to family/friends/community about it
b.
Use online tools (e.g. post on internet/social
media) to gather attention
c.
Sign a petition
d.
Written to authorities (e.g. congress people)
e.
Attend a protest/rally
f.
Take this issue in account when voting
g.
Stop consuming products from companies
that threaten the landscape
h.
Donate money to ensure the protection of the
land
1- Not willing at all; 2- Slightly willing; 3- Moderately willing; 4- Very willing; 5- Definitely
would.
24. How much would you be willing to donate in a year to ensure the protection of the land?
[PROMPT: For example for an NGO to buy the land and allocate it for conservation. ONLY
ASK IF IF THE PREVIOUS ANSWER IS THAT S/HE IS WILLING TO DONATE]
____________
25. Would you consider being a volunteer to work to protect or keep this place in good
conditions? If so, how many days would you work in a year? [PROMPT: Do not take into
account the distance from home. IF NO, SKIP NEXT QUESTION]]
[ ] Not willing at all
[ ] Slightly willing
[ ] Moderately willing
178
[ ] Very willing
[ ] Definitely would
26. How many days in a year? _____________
27. Now, thinking about your everyday actions, please tell me how frequently you adopt these
behaviors. Please answer using the scale: never, rarely (once a year), occasionally (once
a month), frequently (once a week), always
1
2
3
4
5
a.
I try to eat local food as much as possible.
b.
I try to adapt my diet to reduce my impact on
nature (e.g. reducing meat consumption or being
vegetarian)
c.
I try to reduce my energy consumption (e.g. using
bikes or public transport, turning off air
conditioning)
d.
I try to reduce my carbon footprint.
e.
I take steps to improve habitat for wildlife near my
home
f.
I do volunteer work to care for a natural area
near my home
1- Never; 2- Rarely (once a year); 3- Occasionally (once a month); 4- Frequently (once a
week); 5- Always
Section 6: Demography and economy
We would like to ask a few questions about you, your background, and your past
experiences. This information will be used for statistical analysis only, and all information
will remain anonymous and strictly confidential.
28. What is your main address Zip Code? [If you prefer, inform city and neighborhood]
__________
179
29. Do you own a secondary home in this area? [In this case, area include this county and
neighbor counties]
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
30. Which gender do you identify with? [OPEN ENDED QUESTION. MARK THE OPTION
THAT BEST APPLY]
[ ] Female [ ] Transgender Female [ ] Non-binary
[ ] Male [ ] Transgender Male [ ] Other
[ ] Prefer not to say
31. Which of the following best describes your status?
[ ] Married [ ] Divorced
[ ] Single [ ] Widowed
[ ] Prefer not to say
32. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
[ ] Eighth grade or less [ ] Some College [ ] Graduate Degree or beyond
[ ] Some High School [ ] College Complete
[ ] High School Graduate or GED [ ] Some Graduate School
33. What is your profession or occupation? ______________________
34. Are you presently… [Please mark all that apply]
[ ] Employed Full Time [ ] Retired
[ ] Employed Part Time [ ] Part Time Student
[ ] Unemployed looking for work [ ] Full Time Student
[ ] Unemployed not looking for work [ ] Disabled
180
35. What year were you born? _______________________
36. What race or ethnic group(s) would you place yourself in? [Please mark all that apply]
[ ] Black [ ] Hispanic or Latino [ ] Asian American
[ ] Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander [ ] American Indian or Alaskan Native
[ ] White [ ] Other, Mixed…
37. What was your approximate total household income, before taxes this past year?
[ ] Less than $15,000 [ ] $40,001 to $50,000 [ ] $100,001 to $150,000
[ ] $15,001 to $30,000 [ ] $50,001 to $70,000 [ ] $150,001 to $200,000
[ ] $30,001 to $40,000 [ ] $70,001 to $100,000 [ ] More than $200,000
[ ] Prefer not to say
38. How many people are included in your household?
____ People
39. How many days in your trip and how many people are included in your expenses?
____ Days ____ People
40. Can you tell me how much money you spent in this trip? [PROMPT: considering
transportation, accommodation, food, groceries, equipments for this trip and other expenses,
including the whole group]
Total expenses ___________
41.
I
s there anything else you'd like to add on this topic about, which I haven't asked
you specifically?
______________
181
APPENDIX B
SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS GUIDE – LOCAL KEY ACTORS
Research Informed Consent:
Hello. My name is Ernesto Viveiros de Castro, I am a PhD student at the School of Natural
Resources and Environments at the University of Florida. I would like to invite you to participate
on a research on long distance trails. Before you decide, I would like to let you know a few things
about this study.
First, this interview is part of a study regarding how hikers and local residents think about these
trails. Most of this research is based on anonymous surveys, but you were invited as a local
stakeholder and should be identified. I will ask for your name, workplace, and contact information,
but all of your responses will be held in confidence. Your name and institution will be kept
confidential and only the sector where your institution works will be mentioned in the final work.
Second, It will take around 30 minutes of your time to address my questions I'll ask you questions
about your opinions. There are no right or wrong answers. We're really just interested in your
opinion on these topics as a local stakeholder.
Finally, answering these questions will not affect you either for better or for worse. Please
understand your participation is voluntary and that there is no payment or compensation for your
participation. There is no anticipated risk or direct benefit to participants. You have the right to
withdraw your consent or discontinue participation at any time without penalty. You have the right
to refuse to answer any particular question.
182
If you have any questions about this research protocol, with number IRB 202100413, please
contact Dr. Taylor Stein, at +1 (650) 204¬1052 o tstein@ufl.edu. Questions or concerns about
your rights as a research participant may be directed to the IRB02 office at University of Florida
by telephone at +1 (352) 392-0433.
I’d like to ask for your permission to record the interview
I am 18 years old or older, I understand the information above and I provide my consent to
participate in this study.
____
[PROMPT: Identify the name of interviewee, town, date and time]
1- Could you introduce yourself and tell me if you are involved in any way with the [Mega
Trail]? [PROMPT: If the person answers yes, ask: how and how long?]
2- How long have you lived here? [Only for people coming from other regions] What
influenced your decision to move here?
3- Do you feel there is value in having the trail located close to your community?
[PROMPT: If the person answers yes, ask: what are the most significant benefits?]
4- In your opinion, what is the role played by the [Mega Trail] in the local economy?
[PROMPT: If the answer is too laconic, encourage with something like; “Tell me more
about it. Do you think she is relevant or not? And why?]
5- [Only for business owners/managers] How important is the [Mega Trail] in your income?
183
6- [Only for business owners/managers] Do you seek to adopt practices to minimize the
impact of your activity? [PROMPT: If the person answers only yes, ask: Which ones?]
7- In your opinion, what is the role played by the [Mega Trail] in the local identity?
[PROMPT: If the answer is too laconic, encourage with something like; “Tell me more
about it. Do you think she is relevant or not? And why?]
8- Could you estimate the proportion of residents who know about the existence of the
[Mega Trail]?
9- In your opinion, does the trail somehow influence the local people relationship with
nature?
10- Do you think local people view the [Mega Trail] positively, negatively, or neutrally?
Why?
11- How do you think local people seem the long-distance hikers: positively, negatively, or
neutrally? Why?
12- Do you think that people who works with activities not related to the trail, like
agriculture, seem the trail in a different way?
13- On the other side, do you feel that there are negative impacts of having the trail near
your community? [PROMPT: If the person answers only yes, ask: what are the most
significant negative impacts?]
14-
I
s there anything else you'd like to add on this topic, which I haven't asked you
specifically?
184
To finish, please fill this short questionnaire with some data. I reinforce that all of
your responses will be held in confidence (self-administered in Qualtrics):
Name:
Town:
Institution/company:
Time involved in present economic activity/profession:
What year were you born?
Which gender do you identify with?
If you are interested in receive info about the results of this research, please inform
your e-mail.
185
APPENDIX C
UF INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD EXEMPT APPROVALS
186
187
188
APPENDIX D
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RESEARCH PERMITS
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
189
190
191
192
193
Crater Lake National Park
194
195
196
197
Glacier National Park
198
199
200
201
202
LIST OF REFERENCES
Abbott, A. (1992). What do cases do? Some notes on activity in sociological analysis. In What is
a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry (pp. 53–82). Cambridge University Press.
Agnew, J. A. (1987). Place and politics: The geographical mediation of state and society.
Routledge.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. Springer.
Alisat, S., & Riemer, M. (2015). The environmental action scale: Development and psychometric
evaluation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 13–23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.05.006
Altman, I., & Low, S. M. (1992). Place Attachment: A Conceptual Inquiry. Springer US.
Amerson, K., Rose, J., Lepp, A., & Dustin, D. (2020). Time on the trail, smartphone use, and
place attachment among Pacific Crest Trail thru-hikers. Journal of Leisure Research, 51(3), 308–
324. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2019.1680264
Andam, K. S., Ferraro, P. J., Pfaff, A., Sanchez-Azofeifa, G. A., & Robalino, J. A. (2008).
Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 105(42), 16089–16094.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0800437105
Andereck, K. L., & Vogt, C. A. (2000). The relationship between residents’ attitudes toward
tourism and tourism development options. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 27–36.
Anderson, D. H., & Fulton, D. C. (2008). Experience Preferences as Mediators of the Wildlife
Related Recreation Participation: Place Attachment Relationship. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife, 13(2), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871200701669971
Anderson, K. (2006). A socio-cultural assessment of the inholders along the Appalachian trail in
the state of New Hampshire. American Land Rights Association.
http://www.landrights.org/OCS/SocioCultural/ALRA_HumanRights_AppalachianTrail.htm#PA
RT%20ONE:
Anderson, L. (2002). Benton MacKaye: Conservationist, planner, and creator of the
Appalachian Trail. JHU Press.
Ap, J. (1992). Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(4),
665–690.
Aplet, G., Thomson, J., & Wilbert, M. (2000). Indicators of Wildness: Using Attributes of
Wilderness. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference: Wilderness within the Context
of Larger Systems, 2, 89–98.
203
Ardoin, N. M. (2006). Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of place: Lessons for
environmental education. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education (CJEE), 112–126.
Ardoin, N. M. (2009). Sense of place and environmental behavior at an ecoregional scale
[Doctoral dissertation]. Yale University.
Ardoin, N. M. (2014). Exploring Sense of Place and Environmental Behavior at an Ecoregional
Scale in Three Sites. Human Ecology, 42(3), 425–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-014-9652-
x
Ardoin, N. M., Schuh, J. S., & Gould, R. K. (2012). Exploring the dimensions of place: A
confirmatory factor analysis of data from three ecoregional sites. Environmental Education
Research, 18(5), 583–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.640930
Ascensão, F., Kindel, A., Teixeira, F. Z., Barrientos, R., D’Amico, M., Borda-de-Água, L., &
Pereira, H. M. (2019). Beware that the lack of wildlife mortality records can mask a serious
impact of linear infrastructures. Global Ecology and Conservation, 19, e00661.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00661
AT Landscape Climate Advisory Group. (2022). Conserving an Intact and Enduring
Appalachian Landscape: Designing a corrido in response to climate change.
ATC. (2023a). Appalachian Trail Conservancy Strategic Plan 2023-2026.
https://appalachiantrail.org/our-work/about-us/strategic-plan-2023-2026/
ATC. (1945a). Conservation. Appalachian Trailway News, 6(2), 15–17.
ATC. (1945b). National System of Foot Trails. Appalachian Trailway News, 6(3), 33–34.
ATC. (1964a). Conservation Committee. Appalachian Trailway News, 25(3).
ATC. (1964b). Eternal vigilance: The price of life. Appalachian Trailway News, 25(1), 6–7.
ATC. (1964c). Georgia Trail—Parkway Conflict Resolved. Appalachian Trailway News, 25(1),
23.
ATC. (1968). Transmountain Road in the Smokies Disapproved by the Secretary of Interior.
Appalachian Trailway News, 29(1), 3–4.
ATC. (1975). Summaries of the resolutions 20th Meeting of the Appalachian Trail Conference.
Appalachian Trailway News, 36(3), 40–46.
ATC. (1983). Legislative News: $9.1 million sought for A.T. project in ’84. Appalachian
Trailway News, 36(2), 4.
ATC. (1986). NPS decides Cumberland Valley Trail route. Appalachian Trailway News, 47(1),
4.
204
ATC. (1988). Interior Rejects Gas Pipeline Route Across AT in New York. Appalachian
Trailway News, 49(2), 5.
ATC. (1989). Vermont Groups Join ATC Protests of Ski-resort Easement. Appalachian Trailway
News, 50(3), 8.
ATC. (1990). Cumberland Valley: New route scheduled to open September 22. Appalachian
Trailway News, 51(3), 5.
ATC. (1997). A.T. Protection Along Vermont Ski Area Hopefully Near Completion.
Appalachian Trailway News, 58(4), 6.
ATC. (2001a). AEP Powerline approved for Southwest Virginia. Appalachian Trailway News,
62(3), 20.
ATC. (2001b). Corridor Countdown. Appalachian Trailway News, 62(2), 7.
ATC. (2002). Conference Will Oppose Maine “Wind Farm” Project. Appalachian Trailway
News, 63(1), 11.
ATC. (2003). Racetrack Hearing Set For June 2 After ATC Debunks Noise Data. Appalachian
Trailway News, 64(2), 11.
ATC. (2004). Quarry Loses Court Appeal, Permit Revoked. Appalachian Trailway News, 65(3),
16.
ATC. (2005). Two Court Actions Against Car Track Pending. Appalachian Trailway News,
66(1).
ATC. (2006, May). ATC files Comments on Redington Wind Farm. A.T. Journeys, 33.
ATC. (2023b). 2,000-Milers. Appalachian Trail Conservancy.
https://appalachiantrail.org/explore/hike-the-a-t/thru-hiking/2000-milers/
Bailey, R. G. (1998). Ecoregions. New York.
Baker, N. T., & Capel, P. D. (2011). Environmental factors that influence the location of crop
agriculture in the conterminous United States. US Department of the Interior, US Geological
Survey Reston, VA, USA.
Baldwin, R. F., Perkl, R. M., Trombulak, S. C., & Burwell, W. B. (2010). Modeling ecoregional
connectivity. Landscape-Scale Conservation Planning, 349–367.
Baum, K. A., Haynes, K. J., Dillemuth, F. P., & Cronin, J. T. (2004). The matrix enhances the
effectiveness of corridors and stepping stones. Ecology, 85(10), 2671–2676.
Beery, T., Chawla, L., & Levin, P. (2020). Being and Becoming in Nature: Defining and
Measuring Connection to Nature in Young Children. International Journal of Early Childhood
Environmental Education, 7(3), 3–22.
205
Beery, T., & Jönsson, K. I. (2017). Outdoor recreation and place attachment: Exploring the
potential of outdoor recreation within a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Journal of Outdoor
Recreation and Tourism, 17, 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2017.01.002
Beier, P. (2019). A rule of thumb for widths of conservation corridors. Conservation Biology,
33(4), 976–978. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13256
Beier, P., & Loe, S. (1992). In My Experience: A Checklist for Evaluating Impacts to Wildlife
Movement Corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006), 20(4), 434–440.
Beier, P., Majka, D. R., & Spencer, W. D. (2008). Forks in the Road: Choices in Procedures for
Designing Wildland Linkages. Conservation Biology, 22(4), 836–851.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00942.x
Beier, P., & Noss, R. F. (1998). Do Habitat Corridors Provide Connectivity? Conservation
Biology, 12(6).
Belote, R. T., Dietz, M. S., McRae, B. H., Theobald, D. M., McClure, M. L., Irwin, G. H.,
McKinley, P. S., Gage, J. A., & Aplet, G. H. (2016). Identifying Corridors among Large
Protected Areas in the United States. PLOS ONE, 11(4), e0154223.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154223
Benítez-López, A., Alkemade, R., & Verweij, P. A. (2010). The impacts of roads and other
infrastructure on mammal and bird populations: A meta-analysis. Biological Conservation,
143(6), 1307–1316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.009
Bernard, H. R. (2011). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches (5th ed). AltaMira Press.
Bernstein, D. (2010, August). End of the Road. A.T. Journeys, 44–45.
Black, A., & Liljeblad, A. (2006). Guide to Methods Used for Developing, Analyzing, and
Preparing Social Data Related to Attachment to Place.
BNT. (2023). The National Trail. The National Trail. https://nationaltrail.com.au/
Boardman, W. S. (1961). Standing Indian and The nature Conservancy. Appalachian Trailway
News, 22(3), 50–51.
Bogert, J. M., Ellers, J., Lewandowsky, S., Balgopal, M. M., & Harvey, J. A. (2022). Reviewing
the relationship between neoliberal societies and nature: Implications of the industrialized
dominant social paradigm for a sustainable future. Ecology and Society, 27(2), art7.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13134-270207
Borman, K. M., Clarke, C., Cotner, B., & Lee, R. (2012). Cross-case analysis. In Handbook of
complementary methods in education research (pp. 123–139). Routledge.
206
Bowker, J. M., Bergstrom, J. C., & Gill, J. (2007). Estimating the Economic Value and Impacts
of Recreational Trails: A Case Study of the Virginia Creeper Rail Trail. Tourism Economics,
13(2), 241–260. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000007780823203
Breckler, S. J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct
components of attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1191.
Brehm, J. M., Eisenhauer, B. W., & Stedman, R. C. (2013). Environmental concern: Examining
the role of place meaning and place attachment. Society & Natural Resources, 26(5), 522–538.
Bristow, R. S., Judkins, J., & Schottanes, J. (2022). Appalachian Trail Communities: Gateway
Partners in Parks and Protected Area Management. In Tourism Transformations in Protected
Area Gateway Communities (pp. 10–23). CABI GB.
Brown, G., & Raymond, C. (2007). The relationship between place attachment and landscape
values: Toward mapping place attachment. Applied Geography, 27(2), 89–111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2006.11.002
Brown, M. T., & Vivas, M. B. (2005). Landscape development intensity index. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment, 101(1–3), 289–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-005-0296-6
Brulle, R. J. (1996). Environmental Discourse and Social Movement Organizations: A Historical
and Rhetorical Perspective on the Development of U.S. Environmental Organizations.
Sociological Inquiry, 66(1), 58–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1996.tb00209.x
Brymer, E., Cuddihy, T. F., & Sharma-Brymer, V. (2010). The role of nature-based experiences
in the development and maintenance of wellness. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and
Physical Education, 1(2), 21–27.
BTF. (2023). Walk the Bibbulmun Track. The Bibbulmun Track.
https://www.bibbulmuntrack.org.au/
Buckley, R. (2004). The Effects of World Heritage Listing on Tourism to Australian National
Parks. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(1), 70–84.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580408667225
Buckley, R., Brough, P., Hague, L., Chauvenet, A., Fleming, C., Roche, E., Sofija, E., & Harris,
N. (2019). Economic value of protected areas via visitor mental health. Nature Communications,
10(1), 5005.
Budruk, M., & Wilhelm Stanis, S. A. (2013). Place attachment and recreation experience
preference: A further exploration of the relationship. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and
Tourism, 1–2, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2013.04.001
Buta, N., Holland, S. M., & Kaplanidou, K. (2014). Local communities and protected areas: The
mediating role of place attachment for pro-environmental civic engagement. Journal of Outdoor
Recreation and Tourism, 5, 1–10.
207
Butchart, S. H. M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Almond, R.
E. A., Baillie, J. E. M., Bomhard, B., Brown, C., Bruno, J., Carpenter, K. E., Carr, G. M.,
Chanson, J., Chenery, A. M., Csirke, J., Davidson, N. C., Dentener, F., Foster, M., Galli, A., …
Watson, R. (2010). Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines. Science, 328(5982),
1164–1168. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1187512
Butler, R. W. (1975). Tourism as an Agent of Social Change. Proceedings of the International
Geographical Union’s Working Group on the Geography of Tourism and Recreation, 85–90.
Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for
management of resources. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien, 24(1), 5–12.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.1980.tb00970.x
Butsic, V., Lewis, D. J., Radeloff, V. C., Baumann, M., & Kuemmerle, T. (2017). Quasi-
experimental methods enable stronger inferences from observational data in ecology. Basic and
Applied Ecology, 19, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2017.01.005
Cain, N. M., Meehan, K. B., Roche, M. J., Clarkin, J. F., & De Panfilis, C. (2019). Effortful
control and interpersonal behavior in daily life. Journal of Personality Assessment, 101(3), 315–
325.
Camp, A. (2020). Deciding on Trails: 7 practices of healthy trail towns.
Cantrill, J. G., & Senecah, S. L. (2001). Using the ‘sense of self-in-place’ construct in the context
of environmental policy-making and landscape planning. Environmental Science & Policy, 4(4–
5), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1462-9011(01)00023-5
Carroll, C., Parks, S. A., Dobrowski, S. Z., & Roberts, D. R. (2018). Climatic, topographic, and
anthropogenic factors determine connectivity between current and future climate analogs in
North America. Global Change Biology, 24(11), 5318–5331. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14373
CDTC. (2023a). CDT Gateway Communities. Continental Divide Trail Coalition.
https://continentaldividetrail.org/community-engagement/
CDTC. (2023b). Official List of CDT thru-hikers. https://continentaldividetrail.org/cdtc-official-
list-of-cdt-thru-hikers/
Cerveny, L. K., Derrien, M. M., & Miller, A. B. (2020). Shared Stewardship and National Scenic
Trails: Building on a Legacy of Partnerships. International Journal of Wilderness, 26(2), 18–33.
Cerveny, L. K., Derrien, M. M., Miller, A. B., & Meyer, C. (2022). Partnership and community
engagement models for stewarding national scenic trails: A social-ecological systems
perspective. Tourism Planning & Development, 19(3), 204–226.
Chapman, M., Boettiger, C., & Brashares, J. S. (2023). Leveraging private lands to meet 2030
biodiversity targets in the United States. Conservation Science and Practice, 5(4), e12897.
208
Chapple, G. (2001). Long Trails: Origins, Governance and Volunteer Support in the USA,
Canada and UK. Based on a Churchill Fellowship of.
Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective environmental action. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 31(1), 15–26.
Cheng, J. C.-H., & Monroe, M. C. (2012). Connection to Nature: Children’s Affective Attitude
Toward Nature. Environment and Behavior, 44(1), 31–49.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916510385082
Chen-Sankey, J., Jeong, M., Wackowski, O. A., Unger, J. B., Niederdeppe, J., Bernat, E.,
Bansal-Travers, M., Moran, M., Kennedy, R. D., Broun, A., Hacker, K., & Choi, K. (2022).
Noticing people, discounts and non-tobacco flavours in e-cigarette ads may increase e-cigarette
product appeal among non-tobacco-using young adults. Tobacco Control.
https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2022-057269
Clayton, S. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. Identity
and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature, 45–65.
Coffey, C. (1975). A Citizen’s Wilderness Proposal for the Smokies. Appalachian Trailway
News, 36(2), 28.
Collier, J. E. (2020). Applied Structural Equation Modeling Using AMOS: Basic to Advanced
Techniques (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003018414
Convery, I., Corsane, G., & Davis, P. (Eds.). (2012). Making sense of place: Multidisciplinary
perspectives. Boydell Press.
Cook, A. (2008). Recreation value of a new long-distance walking track. Tourism Economics,
14(2), 377–391.
Corral-Verdugo, V. (1997). Dual ‘Realities’ of Conservation Behavior: Self-Reports Vs
Observations of Re-Use and Recycling Behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(2),
135–145. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1997.0048
Court, C. D., Ferreira, J.-P., Stair, C. A., & Hodges, A. W. (2023). Importance of Consistency
and Standardization in Estimating Economic Contributions of the Forest Industry in the Southern
United States. Journal of Forestry, fvad001.
Cover, J. H. (1958, September). The Place of the Appalachian Trail in Regional Planning.
Appalachian Trailway News, 19(3), 35–38.
Cresswell, T. (2004). Defining Place. In Place: A Short Introduction. Blackwell Ltd.
Cresswell, T. (2009). Place. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (Vol. 8, pp.
169–177).
Cronqvist, L. (2019). Tosmana (1.61). https://www.tosmana.net.
209
Cuba, L., & Hummon, D. M. (1993). A Place to Call Home: Identification With Dwelling,
Community, and Region. The Sociological Quarterly, 34(1), 111–131.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1993.tb00133.x
Cumming, G. S. (2016). The relevance and resilience of protected areas in the Anthropocene.
Anthropocene, 13, 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2016.03.003
Cumming, G. S., Allen, C. R., Ban, N. C., Biggs, D., Biggs, H. C., Cumming, D. H. M., De Vos,
A., Epstein, G., Etienne, M., Maciejewski, K., Mathevet, R., Moore, C., Nenadovic, M., &
Schoon, M. (2015). Understanding protected area resilience: A multi-scale, social-ecological
approach. Ecological Applications, 25(2), 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-2113.1
Cunha, S. K. da, & Cunha, J. C. da. (2005). Tourism cluster competitiveness and sustainability:
Proposal for a systemic model to measure the impact of tourism on local development. BAR-
Brazilian Administration Review, 2, 47–62.
Damico, D. A. (2005, September). Damascus, Virginia. A.T. Journeys, 1(2), 34–37.
Decker, S. J. (2020, Fall). Recreation as a Gateway. A.T. Journeys, 14–19.
DeVaughn, M. (1994). Paving the “Rooftop of Virginia.” Appalachian Trailway News, 47(4), 7–
11.
Ditmer, M. A., Niemiec, R. M., Wittemyer, G., & Crooks, K. R. (2022). Socio-ecological drivers
of public conservation voting: Restoring gray wolves to Colorado, USA. Ecological
Applications, 32(3), e2532. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2532
Dixon, J., & Durrheim, K. (2000). Displacing place-identity: A discursive approach to locating
self and other. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(1), 27–44.
https://doi.org/10.1348/014466600164318
Dolman, M. R., & Marion, J. L. (2022). Invasive plant hitchhikers: Appalachian Trail thru-hiker
knowledge and attitudes of invasive plants and leave No trace practices. Journal of Outdoor
Recreation and Tourism, 40, 100581.
Dresner, M., Handelman, C., Braun, S., & Rollwagen-Bollens, G. (2015). Environmental
identity, pro-environmental behaviors, and civic engagement of volunteer stewards in Portland
area parks. Environmental Education Research, 21(7), 991–1010.
Dudley, N., Parrish, J. D., Redford, K. H., & Stolton, S. (2010). The revised IUCN protected area
management categories: The debate and ways forward. Oryx, 44(4), 485–490.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605310000566
Dufour, C., & Crisfield, E. (2008). The Appalachian Trail MEGA-Transect. Appalachian Trail
Conservancy.
Dumez, H. (2015). What is a case, and what is a case study? Bulletin of Sociological
Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 127(1), 43–57.
210
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “New Environmental Paradigm.” The Journal of
Environmental Education, 9(4), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.40.1.19-28
Dutcher, D. D., Finley, J. C., Luloff, A. E., & Johnson, J. B. (2007). Connectivity With Nature as
a Measure of Environmental Values. Environment and Behavior, 39(4), 474–493.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506298794
Earl, J., Martin, A., McCarthy, J. D., & Soule, S. A. (2004). The use of newspaper data in the
study of collective action. Annu. Rev. Sociol., 30, 65–80.
Ehringhaus, B. (2012). Transboundary Protection of Mont Blanc: Twenty Years of Tri-national
Negotiation around the Roof of the European Alps. In Parks, Peace, and Partnerships: Global
Initiatives in Transboundary Conservation (pp. 79–93).
Elkinton, S., Caproni, L., & Hoeflschweiger, J. (2008). The National Trails System: A Grand
Experiment. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social Exchange Theory. Annual Reviews of Sociology, 2, 335–362.
ERA. (2004). Bechyne declaration. European Ramblers Association. https://www.era-ewv-
ferp.org/
ERA. (2022). E-paths: The best way to get to know Europe. European Ramblers Association.
Erb, P. L., McShea, W. J., & Guralnick, R. P. (2012). Anthropogenic Influences on Macro-Level
Mammal Occupancy in the Appalachian Trail Corridor. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e42574.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042574
Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2011). Exploratory Factor Analysis. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199734177.001.0001
Falcone, J. A. (2015). U.S. conterminous wall-to-wall anthropogenic land use trends (NWALT),
1974–2012: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 948 (No. 948; U.S. Geological Survey Data
Series, p. 33). U.S. Geological Survey. https://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/0948/ds948.pdf
Farmer, R. (1985). Views, vistas, and variety. Appalachian Trailway News, 46(3), 18–20.
Farnum, J., Hall, T., & Kruger, L. E. (2005). Sense of place in natural resource recreation and
tourism: An evaluation and assessment of research findings. (PNW-GTR-660; p. PNW-GTR-
660). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
https://doi.org/10.2737/PNW-GTR-660
Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1978). Attitudinal qualities relating to the strength of the attitude-
behavior relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(4), 398–408.
Ferraro, P. J., & Pattanayak, S. K. (2006). Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of
biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biology, 4(4), e105.
211
Ferraro, P. J., & Pressey, R. L. (2015). Measuring the difference made by conservation
initiatives: Protected areas and their environmental and social impacts. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370(1681), 20140270.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0270
Fletcher, R., & Fortin, M.-J. (2018). Spatial Ecology and Conservation Modeling: Applications
with R. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01989-1
Fletcher, R. J., Didham, R. K., Banks-Leite, C., Barlow, J., Ewers, R. M., Rosindell, J., Holt, R.
D., Gonzalez, A., Pardini, R., & Damschen, E. I. (2018). Is habitat fragmentation good for
biodiversity? Biological Conservation, 226, 9–15.
Floress, K., de Jalón, S. G., Church, S. P., Babin, N., Ulrich-Schad, J. D., & Prokopy, L. S.
(2017). Toward a theory of farmer conservation attitudes: Dual interests and willingness to take
action to protect water quality. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 73–80.
Fondren, K. M., & Brinkman, R. (2022). A Comparison of Hiking Communities on the
Appalachian and Pacific Crest Trails. Leisure Sciences, 44(4), 403–420.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2019.1597789
Ford, A. T., Sunter, E. J., Fauvelle, C., Bradshaw, J. L., Ford, B., Hutchen, J., Phillipow, N., &
Teichman, K. J. (2020). Effective corridor width: Linking the spatial ecology of wildlife with
land use policy. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 66, 1–10.
Foresta, R. (1987). Transformation of the Appalachian Trail. Geographical Review, 77(1), 76.
https://doi.org/10.2307/214677
Forman, R. T., & Deblinger, R. D. (2000). The ecological road-effect zone of a Massachusetts
(USA) suburban highway. Conservation Biology, 14(1), 36–46.
Foster, C. H. W. (1968). The Private Role in Public Trail Lands Acquisition. Appalachian
Trailway News, 29(1), 7.
Franzosi, R. (1987). The press as a source of socio-historical data: Issues in the methodology of
data collection from newspapers. Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and
Interdisciplinary History, 20(1), 5–16.
Frauman, E., & Banks, S. (2011). Gateway community resident perceptions of tourism
development: Incorporating Importance-Performance Analysis into a Limits of Acceptable
Change framework. Tourism Management, 32(1), 128–140.
Frauman, E., & Banks, S. (2012). Using importance-performance analysis of resident
perceptions to inform a tourism development framework. International Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Systems, 5(1), 12.
FSC. (2023). Sendero de Chile. Fundación Sendero de Chile.
https://www.fundacionsenderodechile.org/
212
Gallegos, A. G., Juan, F. R., & Montes, M. E. G. (2005). El Camino de Santiago como sendero
de gran recorrido en la naturaleza. Revista Digital, Buenos Aires, 10(87).
GAPC. (2021). Great Allegheny Passage Economic Impact Report. Great Allegheny Passage
Conservancy.
Garvey, E. B. (1978, September). Damascus, Virginia—No. 1 Appalachian Trail Hospitality
Town. Appalachian Trailway News, 39(4), 8–10.
Garvey, E. B. (1985). Preserving Trail diversity. Appalachian Trailway News, 46(2), 4.
Gatersleben, B., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2002). Measurement and Determinants of Environmentally
Significant Consumer Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34(3), 335–362.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502034003004
Gatersleben, B., Wyles, K. J., Myers, A., & Opitz, B. (2020). Why are places so special?
Uncovering how our brain reacts to meaningful places. Landscape and Urban Planning, 197,
103758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103758
Gates, J. E. (1991). Powerline corridors, edge effects, and wildlife in forested landscapes of the
central Appalachians. In Wildlife and habitats in managed landscapes (pp. 13–32). Island Press
Washington, DC.
Gaynor, K. M., Hojnowski, C. E., Carter, N. H., & Brashares, J. S. (2018). The influence of
human disturbance on wildlife nocturnality. Science, 360(6394), 1232–1235.
Geertz, C. (1996). Afterword. In Senses of Place. School of American Research Press.
https://sarweb.org/senses-of-place/, https://sarweb.org/senses-of-place/
Gigliotti, L. C., Xu, W., Zuckerman, G. R., Atwood, M. P., Cole, E. K., Courtemanch, A.,
Dewey, S., Gude, J. A., Hnilicka, P., Hurley, M., Kauffman, M., Kroetz, K., Lawson, A.,
Leonard, B., MacNulty, D., Maichak, E., McWhirter, D., Mong, T. W., Proffitt, K., …
Middleton, A. D. (2022). Wildlife migrations highlight importance of both private lands and
protected areas in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Biological Conservation, 275, 109752.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109752
Gigliotti, L. M. (1994). Environmental issues: Cornell students’ willingness to take action, 1990.
The Journal of Environmental Education, 26(1), 34–42.
Gilbert-Norton, L., Wilson, R., Stevens, J. R., & Beard, K. H. (2010). A Meta-Analytic Review
of Corridor Effectiveness. Conservation Biology, 24(3), 660–668. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-
1739.2010.01450.x
Giuliani, M. V. (2003). Theory of Attachment and Place Attachment. In Psychological theories
for environmental issues (pp. 137–170). Aldershot.
213
Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C., & Fry, G. (2007). The shared landscape: What does
aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology, 22(7), 959–972.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x
Godtman Kling, K., Fredman, P., & Wall-Reinius, S. (2017). Trails for tourism and outdoor
recreation: A systematic literature review. Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal,
65(4), 488–508.
Goldenberg, M., & Soule, K. E. (2014). Outcomes of hiking the pacific crest trail. Journal of
Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership, 6(1), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.7768/1948-
5123.1177
Gonçalves, F. T. (2021). Policies of Hiking: How to realise the potential of long-distance trails
in Brazil? [Master Thesis]. Technische Universität Berlin.
Gorham, L., Qu, S., Telg, R., & Lamm, A. (2016). Testing the Usability of Communication
Materials through Heat Maps in Online Survey Platforms. Journal of Applied Communications,
100(3). https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1226
Gosling, E., & Williams, K. J. H. (2010). Connectedness to nature, place attachment and
conservation behaviour: Testing connectedness theory among farmers. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 30(3), 298–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.005
Graham, H., Mason, R., & Newman, A. (2009). Literature Review: Historic Environment, Sense
of Place and Social Capital. International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies (ICCHS).
Gray, C. L., Hill, S. L., Newbold, T., Hudson, L. N., Börger, L., Contu, S., Hoskins, A. J.,
Ferrier, S., Purvis, A., & Scharlemann, J. P. (2016). Local biodiversity is higher inside than
outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nature Communications, 7(1), 12306.
Greene, D., & David, J. L. (1984). A research design for generalizing from multiple case studies.
Evaluation and Program Planning, 7(1), 73–85.
Gregory, A., Spence, E., Beier, P., & Garding, E. (2021). Toward Best Management Practices for
Ecological Corridors. Land, 10(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10020140
Grelle, C. E. V., Niemeyer, J., Viveiros de Castro, E. B., Lanna, A. M., Uzeda, M., & Vieira, M.
V. (2021). Sustainability issues in a tropical mega trail. Royal Society Open Science, 8(3),
rsos.201840, 201840. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201840
Gustafson, P. (2009). Mobility and Territorial Belonging. Environment and Behavior, 41(4),
490–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508314478
Haddad, N. M., Brudvig, L. A., Clobert, J., Davies, K. F., Gonzalez, A., Holt, R. D., Lovejoy, T.
E., Sexton, J. O., Austin, M. P., Collins, C. D., Cook, W. M., Damschen, E. I., Ewers, R. M.,
Foster, B. L., Jenkins, C. N., King, A. J., Laurance, W. F., Levey, D. J., Margules, C. R., …
Townshend, J. R. (2015). Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems.
Science Advances, 1(2), e1500052. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500052
214
Halfway Anywhere. (2023). Pacific Crest Trail and Continental Divide Trail Surveys.
https://www.halfwayanywhere.com/
Halpenny, E. A. (2010). Pro-environmental behaviours and park visitors: The effect of place
attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 409–421.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.006
Hansen, A. S., Beery, T., Fredman, P., & Wolf-Watz, D. (2022). Outdoor recreation in Sweden
during and after the Covid-19 pandemic – management and policy implications. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2022.2029736
Harrill, R. (2004). Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism Development: A Literature Review with
Implications for Tourism Planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 18(3), 251–266.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412203260306
Harris, C. C., McLaughlin, W. J., & Brown, G. (1998). Rural communities in the interior
Columbia Basin: How resilient are they? Journal of Forestry, 96(3), 11–15.
Harrison, R. L. (1992). Toward a theory of inter-refuge corridor design. Conservation Biology,
6(2), 293–295.
Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., De Vries, S., & Frumkin, H. (2014). Nature and Health. Annual Review
of Public Health, 35, 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443
Hashemnezhad, H., Heidari, A. A., & Mohammad Hoseini, P. (2013). Sense of place” and “place
attachment. International Journal of Architecture and Urban Development, 3(1), 5–12.
Hay, R. (1998). Sense of place in developmental context. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
18(1), 5–29.
Hebblewhite, M., Hilty, J. A., Williams, S., Locke, H., Chester, C., Johns, D., Kehm, G., &
Francis, W. L. (2022). Can a large-landscape conservation vision contribute to achieving
biodiversity targets? Conservation Science and Practice, 4(1), e588.
Heller, N. E., & Zavaleta, E. S. (2009). Biodiversity management in the face of climate change:
A review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation, 142(1), 14–32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.006
Hill, E., Goldenberg, M., & Freidt, B. (2009). Benefits of Hiking: A Means-End Approach on the
Appalachian Trail. Human Movement Sciences Faculty Publications, 19–27.
Homer, C. H., Fry, J. A., & Barnes, C. A. (2012). The national land cover database. US
Geological Survey Fact Sheet, 3020(4), 1–4.
Honey, M. (1999). Ecotourism and sustainable development. Who owns paradise? Island press.
215
Hoppes, W. G. (1989). Trust aims to protect A.T. views. Appalachian Trailway News, 50(2), 9–
10.
Horwitz, W. A. (1996). Developmental Origins of Environmental Ethics: The life Experiences of
Activists. Ethics & Behavior, 6(1), 29–54.
Hunt, R. (1986). Land Trust Speeds Acquisition. Appalachian Trailway News, 47(4).
Hunter Jr., M. L., Jacobson Jr., G. L., & Webb III, T. (1988). Paleoecology and the Coarse-Filter
Approach to Maintaining Biological Diversity. Conservation Biology, 2(4), 375–385.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1988.tb00202.x
Huynh, L. T. M., Gasparatos, A., Su, J., Dam Lam, R., Grant, E. I., & Fukushi, K. (2022).
Linking the nonmaterial dimensions of human-nature relations and human well-being through
cultural ecosystem services. Science Advances, 8(31), eabn8042.
Igelman, J. (2017a, Spring). Cutting the Core. A.T. Journeys, 30–34.
Igelman, J. (2017b, Fall). The Future of Landscape Protection. A.T. Journeys, 26–30.
IMPLAN. (2022). Understanding Zip Code Data. IMPLAN Group, LLC.
Jenner, J. (1987, July). Damascus salute the Appalachian Trail. Appalachian Trailway News,
48(3), 14–17.
Johnson, J. D., Snepenger, D. J., & Akis, S. (1994). Residents’ perceptions of tourism
development. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 629–642.
Jones, C. D., Patterson, M. E., & Hammitt, W. E. (2000). Evaluating the construct validity of
sense of belonging as a measure of landscape perception. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(4),
383–395.
Joppa, L. N., & Pfaff, A. (2009). High and Far: Biases in the Location of Protected Areas. PLOS
ONE, 4(12), e8273. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008273
Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners
attitudes toward their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 233–248.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0226
Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., & Williams, D. R. (1997). A theoretical analysis of host community
resident reactions to tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 36(2), 3–11.
Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional Affinity toward Nature as a
Motivational Basis to Protect Nature. Environment and Behavior, 31(2), 178–202.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972056
216
Karlson, M., & Mörtberg, U. (2015). A spatial ecological assessment of fragmentation and
disturbance effects of the Swedish road network. Landscape and Urban Planning, 134, 53–65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.009
Kaszynski, W. (2000). The American highway: The history and culture of roads in the United
States. McFarland.
Kays, R., Parsons, A. W., Baker, M. C., Kalies, E. L., Forrester, T., Costello, R., Rota, C. T.,
Millspaugh, J. J., & McShea, W. J. (2017). Does hunting or hiking affect wildlife communities in
protected areas? Journal of Applied Ecology, 54(1), 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-
2664.12700
Keeley, A. T., Beier, P., & Gagnon, J. W. (2016). Estimating landscape resistance from habitat
suitability: Effects of data source and nonlinearities. Landscape Ecology, 31, 2151–2162.
Keeley, J. E., & Syphard, A. D. (2021). Large California wildfires: 2020 fires in historical
context. Fire Ecology, 17(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-021-00110-7
Kil, N., Holland, S. M., & Stein, T. V. (2010). Improving the Management of Natural Resource
Recreation Areas through Understanding Place-Attached Visitor Segments. Journal of Park and
Recreation Administration, 28(3), 16–41.
Kil, N., Holland, S. M., & Stein, T. V. (2014). Structural relationships between environmental
attitudes, recreation motivations, and environmentally responsible behaviors. Journal of Outdoor
Recreation and Tourism, 7–8, 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2014.09.010
Kil, N., Holland, S. M., Stein, T. V., & Ko, Y. J. (2012). Place attachment as a mediator of the
relationship between nature-based recreation benefits and future visit intentions. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 20(4), 603–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.610508
King, B., Anderson, L., Rubin, R., Perkins, A., Jenner, J., & Dawson, M. (2000). Trail years: A
history of the Appalachian Trail Conference. Appalachian Trailway News. Harpers Ferry, WV:
The Appalachian Trail Conference.
King, B. B. (1987). Trust for A.T. Lands facilitates protection of Cumberland Valley lake.
Appalachian Trailway News, 48(5), 24–25.
King, B. B. (1996). Along the Trail in Virginia: Forest Supervisor Recommends Ban on
Proposed Transmission Line. Appalachian Trailway News, 57(4), 8–9.
King, L. M., McCool, S. F., Fredman, P., & Halpenny, E. (2012). Protected area branding
strategies to increase stewardship among park constituencies. PARKS, 18(2), 54–63.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed). Guilford
Press.
Koerber, A. R. (1966). Greylock Can Be Saved. Appalachian Trailway News, 27(2), 21.
217
Koerber, A. R. (1967). Criteria for preserving a Wilderness Environment for the AT.
Appalachian Trailway News, 28(3), 40.
Koo, J. (2018). Visibility of sustainable development efforts: Assessment of Kentucky Trail
Towns. Journal of Sustainable Development, 11(6), 187–204.
Krosby, M., Breckheimer, I., John Pierce, D., Singleton, P. H., Hall, S. A., Halupka, K. C.,
Gaines, W. L., Long, R. A., McRae, B. H., Cosentino, B. L., & Schuett-Hames, J. P. (2015).
Focal species and landscape “naturalness” corridor models offer complementary approaches for
connectivity conservation planning. Landscape Ecology, 30(10), 2121–2132.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0235-z
Kyle, G., Absher, J. D., & Graefe, A. R. (2003). The Moderating Role of Place Attachment on
the Relationship Between Attitudes Toward Fees and Spending Preferences. Leisure Sciences,
25(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400306552
Kyle, G., Graefe, A., & Manning, R. (2004). Attached recreationists... Who are they. Journal of
Park and Recreation Administration, 22(2), 65–84.
Kyle, G., Graefe, A., Manning, R., & Bacon, J. (2004). Effect of Activity Involvement and Place
Attachment on Recreationists’ Perceptions of Setting Density. Journal of Leisure Research,
36(2), 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2004.11950020
Kyle, G. T., Graefe, A.R., Manning, R.E., & Bacon, J.J. (2003). An Examination of the
Relationship between Leisure Activity Involvment and Place Attachment among Hikers Along
the Appalachian Trail. Journal of Leisure Research, 35(3), 249–273.
Kyle, G. T., Mowen, A. J., & Tarrant, M. (2004). Linking place preferences with place meaning:
An examination of the relationship between place motivation and place attachment. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 439–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.11.001
Larsen, A. E., Meng, K., & Kendall, B. E. (2019). Causal analysis in control–impact ecological
studies with observational data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 10(7), 924–934.
https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13190
Larson, L. R., Stedman, R. C., Cooper, C. B., & Decker, D. J. (2015). Understanding the multi-
dimensional structure of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43,
112–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.004
Lawler, J. J., Ruesch, A. S., Olden, J. D., & McRae, B. H. (2013). Projected climate-driven
faunal movement routes. Ecology Letters, 16(8), 1014–1022. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12132
Lee, J. A., & Holden, S. J. (1999). Understanding the determinants of environmentally conscious
behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 16(5), 373–392.
Lewicka, M. (2005). Ways to make people active: The role of place attachment, cultural capital,
and neighborhood ties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(4), 381–395.
218
Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 31(3), 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001
Li, Y., Westlund, H., & Liu, Y. (2019). Why some rural areas decline while some others not: An
overview of rural evolution in the world. Journal of Rural Studies, 68, 135–143.
Lieberson, S. (1992). Small N’s and big conclusions: An examination of the reasoning in
comparative studies based on a small number of cases. In What is a case?: Exploring the
foundations of social inquiry (pp. 105–118). Cambridge university press.
Livermore, J. (2014). The Pacific Crest Trail: A History of America’s Relationship with Western
Wilderness [Scripps College, Claremont, California].
http://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/316
Longshore, K., Lowrey, C., & Thompson, D. B. (2013). Detecting short-term responses to
weekend recreation activity: Desert bighorn sheep avoidance of hiking trails. Wildlife Society
Bulletin, 37(4), 698–706. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.349
Lopoukhine, N., & de Souza Dias, B. F. (2012). What does Target 11 really mean. Parks, 18(1),
5.
Loro, M., Ortega, E., Arce, R. M., & Geneletti, D. (2015). Ecological connectivity analysis to
reduce the barrier effect of roads. An innovative graph-theory approach to define wildlife
corridors with multiple paths and without bottlenecks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 139,
149–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.03.006
Louv, R. (2005). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder.
Algonquin Books.
Low, S. M. (1992). Symbolic ties that bind: Place attachment in the plaza. In Place attachment
(Springer, Vol. 12, pp. 165–185).
Low, S. M., & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry. In Place attachment
(pp. 1–12). Springer US.
MacArthur, R. H., & Wilson, E. O. (1967). The theory of island biogeography (Vol. 1).
Princeton university press.
MacKaye, B. (1921). An Appalachian Trail: A Project in Regional Planning. Journal of the
American Institute of Architects 9, 9, 325–330.
Manning, R. E. (1984). Men and Mountains Meet: Journal of the Appalachian Mountain Club,
1876–1984. Journal of Forest History, 28(1), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.2307/4004789
Manzo, L. C. (2005). For better or worse: Exploring multiple dimensions of place meaning.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(1), 67–86.
219
Marion, J. L., Leung, Y.-F., Eagleston, H., & Burroughs, K. (2016). A Review and Synthesis of
Recreation Ecology Research Findings on Visitor Impacts to Wilderness and Protected Natural
Areas. Journal of Forestry, 114(3), 352–362. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.15-498
Markle, G. L. (2013). Pro-environmental behavior: Does it matter how it’s measured?
Development and validation of the pro-environmental behavior scale (PEBS). Human Ecology,
41, 905–914.
Marvier, M., & Wong, H. (2012). Resurrecting the conservation movement. Journal of
Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4), 291–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0096-6
Matsuba, M. K., & Pratt, M. W. (2013). The Making of an Environmental Activist: A
Developmental Psychological Perspective: The Making of an Environmental Activist. New
Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2013(142), 59–74.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20049
Mauri, À. (1994). Sentiers de grande randonnée. Catalònia, 4–6.
Maxwell, S. L., Fuller, R. A., Brooks, T. M., & Watson, J. E. M. (2016). Biodiversity: The
ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature, 536(7615), 143–145.
Mayer, A. (2021). Economic change, the death of the coal industry, and migration intentions in
rural Colorado, USA. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 36(1), 4.
Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of
individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4),
503–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001
McCarthy, D. P., Donald, P. F., Scharlemann, J. P., Buchanan, G. M., Balmford, A., Green, J.
M., Bennun, L. A., Burgess, N. D., Fishpool, L. D., & Garnett, S. T. (2012). Financial costs of
meeting global biodiversity conservation targets: Current spending and unmet needs. Science,
338(6109), 946–949.
McCool, S. F. (2016). The changing meanings of sustainable tourism. In Reframing sustainable
tourism (pp. 13–32). Springer.
McKinley, P. S., Belote, R. T., & Aplet, G. H. (2019). An assessment of ecological values and
conservation gaps in protection beyond the corridor of the Appalachian Trail. Conservation
Science and Practice, 1(6), e30. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.30
McMahon, E. (1999). Gateway communities. Planning Commissioners Journal, 34, 6–7.
Meegan, R. P., & Maehr, D. S. (2002). Landscape Conservation and Regional Planning for the
Florida Panther. Southeastern Naturalist, 1(3), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1656/1528-
7092(2002)001[0217:LCARPF]2.0.CO;2
Miles, M. B. (1990). New methods for qualitative data collection and analysis: Vignettes and
pre-structured cases. Internation Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 3(1), 37–51.
220
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
sage.
Millar, M. G., & Millar, K. U. (1996). The Effects of Direct and Indirect Experience on
Affective and Cognitive Responses and the Attitude–Behavior Relation. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 32(6), 561–579. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1996.0025
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis.
Island Press Washington, DC.
Miller, J. R. (2005). Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in
Ecology & Evolution, 20(8), 430–434.
Miller, M. M., Gibson, L. J., & Wright, N. G. (1991). Location quotient: A basic tool for
economic development analysis. Economic Development Review, 9(2), 65.
Mitten, D., Overholt, J. R., Haynes, F. I., D’Amore, C. C., & Ady, J. C. (2016). Hiking: A Low-
Cost, Accessible Intervention to Promote Health Benefits. American Journal of Lifestyle
Medicine, 12(4), 302–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1559827616658229
Mittlefehldt, S. (2010). The People’s Path: Conflict and Cooperation in the Acquisition of the
Appalachian Trail. Environmental History, 15(4), 643–669.
https://doi.org/10.1093/envhis/emq087
Mittlefehldt, S. (2013). Tangled roots: The Appalachian trail and American environmental
politics. University of Washington Press.
Molnár, A. J. (2022). Synergistic Planning of Long-distance and Local Trails: A Twin Case
Study of Trail Network Development in Northern Transdanubia. Tourism Planning &
Development, 19(3), 245–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2021.1936148
Monroe, M. C. (2003). Two avenues for encouraging conservation behaviors. Human Ecology
Review, 113–125.
Monterrubio Cordero, J. C. (2008). Residents’ Perception of Tourism: A Critical Theoretical and
Methodological Review. Ciencia Ergo Sum, 15(1), 35–44.
Moore, R. L., & Barthlow, K. (1998). The Economic Impacts and Uses of Long-Distance Trails:
Featuring a Case Study of the Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail. US Department of
the Interior, National Park Service.
Moore, R. L., & Graefe, A. R. (1994). Attachments to recreation settings: The case of rail‐trail
users. Leisure Sciences, 16(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409409513214
Moore, R. L., & Shafer, C. S. (2001). Introduction to special issue trails and greenways:
Opportunities for planners, managers, and scholars. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 19(3), 1–16.
221
Morse, J. W., Gladkikh, T. M., Hackenburg, D. M., & Gould, R. K. (2020). COVID-19 and
human-nature relationships: Vermonters’ activities in nature and associated nonmaterial values
during the pandemic. PLOS ONE, 15(12), e0243697.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243697
Murray, S. A. (1965). Steps Toward Trail Preservation. Appalachian Trailway News, 26(2), 19.
Murray, S. A. (1968, September). Federal Trail Legislation. Appalachian Trailway News, 29(3),
31.
Naidoo, R., Gerkey, D., Hole, D., Pfaff, A., Ellis, A. M., Golden, C. D., Herrera, D., Johnson, K.,
Mulligan, M., Ricketts, T. H., & Fisher, B. (2019). Evaluating the impacts of protected areas on
human well-being across the developing world. Science Advances, 5(4), eaav3006.
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav3006
NCED. (2023). National Conservation Easement Database [Data set].
https://www.conservationeasement.us/
Neisel, Wm. J. (1942, May). Reforestation Along Appalachian Trail. Appalachian Trailway
News, 3(2).
Newbold, T., Hudson, L. N., Hill, S. L. L., Contu, S., Lysenko, I., Senior, R. A., Börger, L.,
Bennett, D. J., Choimes, A., Collen, B., Day, J., De Palma, A., Díaz, S., Echeverria-Londoño, S.,
Edgar, M. J., Feldman, A., Garon, M., Harrison, M. L. K., Alhusseini, T., … Purvis, A. (2015).
Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature, 520(7545), Article 7545.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14324
Nickel, B. A., Suraci, J. P., Allen, M. L., & Wilmers, C. C. (2020). Human presence and human
footprint have non-equivalent effects on wildlife spatiotemporal habitat use. Biological
Conservation, 241, 108383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108383
Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking
Individuals’ Connection With Nature to Environmental Concern and Behavior. Environment and
Behavior, 41(5), 715–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508318748
Nord, M., Luloff, A. E., & Bridger, J. C. (1998). The association of forest recreation with
environmentalism. Environment and Behavior, 30(2), 235–246.
NPS. (2015). Appalachian National Scenic Trail Foundation Document. National Park Service.
NPS. (2023a). Appalachian National Scenic Trail Lands [Geo database].
NPS. (2023b). National Scenic Trails. National Trails System.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationaltrailssystem/national-scenic-trails.htm
NPS, & ATC. (2022). Appalachian Trail Landscape Partnership Three-Year Strategic Plan
2022-2024 (p. 12). National park Service & AT Conservancy.
222
NSW-NPWS. (2023). Types of protected areas. New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife
Service. https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/conservation-and-heritage/national-parks
Nuñez, T. A., Lawler, J. J., McRae, B. H., Pierce, D. J., Krosby, M. B., Kavanagh, D. M.,
Singleton, P. H., & Tewksbury, J. J. (2013). Connectivity planning to address climate change.
Conservation Biology, 27(2), 407–416.
Nunnaly, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Construction of conventional tests. Psychometric
Theory, 293–323.
Oi, M. (1969). The Tokai Nature Trail. Japan Quarterly, 16(4), 438.
Opdam, P., Steingröver, E., & Rooij, S. van. (2006). Ecological networks: A spatial concept for
multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75(3), 322–332.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.015
Pasca, L., Aragonés, J. I., & Coello, M. T. (2017). An analysis of the connectedness to nature
scale based on item response theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1330.
PCTA. (2023). PCT visitor use statistics. Pacific Crest Trail Association.
https://www.pcta.org/our-work/trail-and-land-management/pct-visitor-use-statistics/
Perdue, R. R., Long, P. T., & Allen, L. (1987). Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes.
Annals of Tourism Research, 14(3), 420–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(87)90112-5
Pergams, O. R. W., & Zaradic, P. A. (2006). Is love of nature in the US becoming love of
electronic media? 16-year downtrend in national park visits explained by watching movies,
playing video games, internet use, and oil prices. Journal of Environmental Management, 80(4),
387–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.02.001
Perkins, H. E. (2010). Measuring love and care for nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
30(4), 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.05.004
Perrin, J. L., & Benassi, V. A. (2009). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of
emotional connection to nature? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(4), 434–440.
Phillips, R. J. (1988, May). Trail Towns: Damascus, Virginia. Appalachian Trailway News,
49(2), 8–12.
Pinto, N., & Keitt, T. H. (2009). Beyond the least-cost path: Evaluating corridor redundancy
using a graph-theoretic approach. Landscape Ecology, 24(2), 253–266.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-008-9303-y
Pollock, N., Chase, L. C., Ginger, C., & Kolodinsky, J. (2007). Methodological Innovations for
Measuring Economic Impacts of Long-Distance Recreation Trails.
223
Potere, D., Woodcock, C. E., Schneider, A., Ozdogan, M., & Baccini, A. (2007). Patterns in
Forest Clearing Along the Appalachian Trail Corridor. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote
Sensing, 73(7), 783–791. https://doi.org/10.14358/PERS.73.7.783
Prior-Magee, J. S., Thompson, B. C., & Daniel, D. (1998). Evaluating consistency of
categorizing biodiversity management status relative to land stewardship in the Gap Analysis
Program. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 41(2), 209–216.
Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 2(10), 147–
169.
Proshansky, H. M., & Fabian, A. K. (1987). The development of place identity in the child. In
Spaces for children (pp. 21–40). Springer US.
Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world
socialization of the self. In The people, place, and space reader (pp. 111–115). Routledge.
Pullinger, M. G., & Johnson, C. J. (2010). Maintaining or restoring connectivity of modified
landscapes: Evaluating the least-cost path model with multiple sources of ecological information.
Landscape Ecology, 25(10), 1547–1560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9526-6
Pyle, R. M. (2003). Nature matrix: Reconnecting people and nature. Oryx, 37(2), 206–214.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605303000383
Qin, H., Fan, Y., Tappmeyer, A., Freeman, K., Prentice, E., & Gao, X. (2017). Capturing
community context through qualitative comparative analysis of case studies. Human Ecology,
45, 103–109.
Redford, K. H., Huntley, B. J., Roe, D., Hammond, T., Zimsky, M., Lovejoy, T. E., Da Fonseca,
G. A., Rodriguez, C. M., & Cowling, R. M. (2015). Mainstreaming biodiversity: Conservation
for the twenty-first century. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 137.
Reinius, S. W., & Fredman, P. (2007). Protected areas as attractions. Annals of Tourism
Research, 34(4), 839–854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2007.03.011
Restall, B., & Conrad, E. (2015). A literature review of connectedness to nature and its potential
for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 159, 264–278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.022
Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. C. (2009). Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative
comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Sage Publications.
Rodrigues, A. S., Andelman, S. J., Bakarr, M. I., Boitani, L., Brooks, T. M., Cowling, R. M.,
Fishpool, L. D., Da Fonseca, G. A., Gaston, K. J., & Hoffmann, M. (2004). Effectiveness of the
global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature, 428(6983), 640–643.
Roe, M. H. (2012). Making sense of place at the landscape scale. In Making Sense of Place:
Multidisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 191–206). Boydell Press.
224
Rouget, M., Cowling, R. M., Lombard, A. T., Knight, A. T., & Kerley, G. I. h. (2006). Designing
Large-Scale Conservation Corridors for Pattern and Process. Conservation Biology, 20(2), 549–
561. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00297.x
Russell, D. W., & Russell, C. A. (2010). Experiential Reciprocity: The Role of Direct Experience
in Value Perceptions. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27(6), 624–634.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2010.507157
Rysavy, M. D. T., Michalak, R., & Hunt, K. (2018). Mapping points of interest: An analysis of
students’ engagement with digital primary sources. American Journal of Distance Education,
32(3), 202–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2018.1475929
Salazar, G., Monroe, M. C., Jordan, C., Ardoin, N. M., & Beery, T. H. (2021). Improving
assessments of connection to nature: A participatory approach. Frontiers in Ecology and
Evolution, 498.
Sandbrook, C., Albury-Smith, S., Allan, J. R., Bhola, N., Bingham, H. C., Brockington, D.,
Byaruhanga, A. B., Fajardo, J., Fitzsimons, J., & Franks, P. (2023). Social considerations are
crucial to success in implementing the 30\times 30 global conservation target. Nature Ecology &
Evolution, 1–2.
Sanderson, E. W., Jaiteh, M., Levy, M. A., Redford, K. H., Wannebo, A. V., & Woolmer, G.
(2002). The human footprint and the last of the wild: The human footprint is a global map of
human influence on the land surface, which suggests that human beings are stewards of nature,
whether we like it or not. BioScience, 52(10), 891–904.
Sarmiento, J. M. N., Rúa, G. M. H., & Bernad, P. L. (2002). Propuesta para una convergencia de
la normativa autonómica sobre senderos. Acciones e Investigaciones Sociales, 15, 215–237.
Saunders, D. A., & Hobbs, R. J. (1991). The role of corridors in conservation: What do we know
and where do we go? In The role of corridors (pp. 421–427). Chipping Norton, NSW, Surrey
Beatty & Sons.
Savary, P., Foltête, J. C., & Garnier, S. (2022). Cost distances and least cost paths respond
differently to cost scenario variations: A sensitivity analysis of ecological connectivity modeling.
International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 36(8), 1652–1676.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2021.2014852
Sawyer, S. C., Epps, C. W., & Brashares, J. S. (2011). Placing linkages among fragmented
habitats: Do least-cost models reflect how animals use landscapes? Journal of Applied Ecology,
48(3), 668–678.
Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). The relations between natural and civic place attachment and
pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 289–297.
Scarlett, L., & McKinney, M. (2016). Connecting people and places: The emerging role of
network governance in large landscape conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,
14(3), 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1247
225
Schlapfer, T. A. (1971). Trail Ecology—Man’s Involvment. Appalachian Trailway News, 32(1),
5–7.
Schleicher, J., Eklund, J., D. Barnes, M., Geldmann, J., Oldekop, J. A., & Jones, J. P. (2020).
Statistical matching for conservation science. Conservation Biology, 34(3), 538–549.
Schottanes, J. A. (2021). An Assessment of Four Selected Communities Along the Appalachian
Trail in Relation to Emile Benton Mackaye’s Original Vision of Regional Planning.
Schultz, P. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations.
Psychology of Sustainable Development, 61–78.
Schultz, P. W., & Tabanico, J. (2007). Self, Identity, and the Natural Environment: Exploring
Implicit Connections With Nature. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(6), 1219–1247.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00210.x
Schwartz, S. H. (1973). Normative explanations of helping behavior: A critique, proposal, and
empirical test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9(4), 349–364.
Shaffer, D. (2016). Connecting humans and nature: The Appalachian Trail landscape
conservation initiative. The George Wright Forum, 33(2), 175–184.
Shamai, S. (1991). Sense of place: An empirical measurement. Geoforum, 22(3), 347–358.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(91)90017-K
Shingala, M. C., & Rajyaguru, A. (2015). Comparison of post hoc tests for unequal variance.
International Journal of New Technologies in Science and Engineering, 2(5), 22–33.
Shriver, G., Maniero, T., Schwarzkopf, K., Lambert, D., Dieffenbach, F., Owen, D., Wang, Y.Q.,
Nugranad-Marzilli, J., Tierney, C., Reese, C., & Moore, T.T. (2005). Appalachian Trail Vital
Signs.
Shukla, P. R., Skea, J., Calvo Buendia, E., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pörtner, H. O., Roberts, D. C.,
Zhai, P., Slade, R., Connors, S., & Van Diemen, R. (2019). IPCC, 2019: Climate Change and
Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable
land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems.
Siroux, R. (1968). Les sentiers de grande randonnée. Revue Forestière Française, 10, 670–679.
Smith, J. W., Anderson, D. H., Davenport, M. A., & Leahy, J. E. (2013). Community Benefits
From Managed Resource Areas. Journal of Leisure Research, 45(2), 192–213.
https://doi.org/10.18666/jlr-2013-v45-i2-3011
Smith, J. W., Davenport, M. A., Anderson, D. H., & Leahy, J. E. (2011). Place meanings and
desired management outcomes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 101(4), 359–370.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.03.002
226
Smith, J. W., & Moore, R. L. (2011). Perceptions of Community Benefits from Two Wild and
Scenic Rivers. Environmental Management, 47(5), 814–827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-
011-9671-y
Sommerville, M. (1987). ATC, SMHC Challenge Forest Road. Appalachian Trailway News,
48(5), 7.
Startzell, D. (1984). Cumberlan Valley: Bridging the gap. Appalachian Trailway News, 45(3), 6–
11.
Startzell, D. (1989). Protecting the Trail: The Last 100 Miles. Appalachian Trailway News,
50(3), 9–21.
Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a Social Psychology of Place: Predicting Behavior from Place-
Based Cognitions, Attitude, and Identity. Environment and Behavior, 34(5), 561–581.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502034005001
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review
and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
Stender, K., Sanders, D., & Dowling, R. (2018). Sustainable Long-Distance Trail Management:
International Perspectives. Tourism Analysis, 23(3), 365–376.
https://doi.org/10.3727/108354218X15305418666986
Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally
significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A Value-Belief-Norm
Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism. Human Ecology
Review, 6(2), 81–97.
Stewart, W. P., Liebert, D., & Larkin, K. W. (2004). Community identities as visions for
landscape change. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(2), 315–334.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.07.005
Stoker, P., Rumore, D., Romaniello, L., & Levine, Z. (2021). Planning and development
challenges in western gateway communities. Journal of the American Planning Association,
87(1), 21–33.
Strong, S. (1966). Let’s Preserve Vermont’s Mountain Wilderness. Appalachian Trailway News,
27(2), 21–22.
Swait, J., & Erdem, T. (2007). Brand Effects on Choice and Choice Set Formation Under
Uncertainty. Marketing Science, 26(5), 679–697. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1060.0260
Tabor Jr., R. J. (1970). Land Acquisition in the Roanoke Valley. Appalachian Trailway News,
31(1), 7.
227
Tam, K.-P. (2013). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and
differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 64–78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.004
TAT. (2019). Te Araroa Trust Strategic Plan 2019-2022. Te Araroa Trust.
https://www.teararoa.org.nz/assets/Documents/Te-Araroa-Trust-Strategic-Plan-2019-2022.pdf
Taylor, P. D., Fahrig, L., Henein, K., & Merriam, G. (1993). Connectivity Is a Vital Element of
Landscape Structure. Oikos, 68(3), 571. https://doi.org/10.2307/3544927
Thapa, B., & Graefe, A. R. (2003). Forest Recreationists and Environmentalism. Journal of Park
and Recreation Administration, 21(1), 75–103.
Theobald, D. M. (2013). A general model to quantify ecological integrity for landscape
assessments and US application. Landscape Ecology, 28(10), 1859–1874.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9941-6
Theobald, D. M. (2014). Development and Applications of a Comprehensive Land Use
Classification and Map for the US. PLOS ONE, 9(4), e94628.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094628
Theodori, G. L., Luloff, A. E., & Willits, F. K. (1998). The Association of Outdoor Recreation
and Environmental Concern: Reexamining the Dunlap-Heffernan Thesis1. Rural Sociology,
63(1), 94–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.1998.tb00666.x
Thøgersen, J. (1999). Spillover processes in the development of a sustainable consumption
pattern. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20(1), 53–81.
Thøgersen, J. (2006). Norms for environmentally responsible behaviour: An extended taxonomy.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(4), 247–261.
Timothy, D. J., & Boyd, S. W. (2015). Tourism and trails: Cultural, ecological and management
issues. Channel View Publications.
TNC. (2023). Conserving the Appalachians: Hope in a changing climate. The Nature
Conservancy. https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-work/priority-
landscapes/appalachians/
TNT. (2023). Tokai Nature Trail. Tokai Nature Trail. https://www.tokainaturetrail.com/
Tompkins, E. L., & Adger, W. N. (2004). Does adaptive management of natural resources
enhance resilience to climate change? Ecology and Society, 9(2).
Tosh, J. (2013). The pursuit of history (5th ed.). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Tuan, Y.-F. (1975). Place: An Experiential Perspective. Geographical Review, 65(2), 151.
https://doi.org/10.2307/213970
228
Tucker, M. A., Böhning-Gaese, K., Fagan, W. F., Fryxell, J. M., Van Moorter, B., Alberts, S. C.,
Ali, A. H., Allen, A. M., Attias, N., & Avgar, T. (2018). Moving in the Anthropocene: Global
reductions in terrestrial mammalian movements. Science, 359(6374), 466–469.
US Census Bureau. (2021). American Community Survey Accuracy of the Data.
https://www2.census.gov/programs-
surveys/acs/tech_docs/accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of_Data_2021.pdf
US Census Bureau. (2023). City and Town Population Totals: 2020-2021.
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-total-cities-and-towns.html
USGS. (2023). Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) 3.0. U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP). https://doi.org/10.5066/P9Q9LQ4B.
Van Meter, L. (1986). Stratton Mountain Protected. Appalachian Trailway News, 47(3), 7–9.
Vaske, J. J. (2019). Survey Research and Analysis Applications in Recreation Human Dime (2nd
ed.). Sagamore Venture.
Vaske, J. J., Gliner, J. A., & Morgan, G. A. (2002). Communicating Judgments About Practical
Significance: Effect Size, Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios. Human Dimensions of Wildlife,
7(4), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871200214752
Vaske, J. J., & Kobrin, K. C. (2001). Place Attachment and Environmentally Responsible
Behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 16–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960109598658
Vink, M. P., & Van Vliet, O. (2009). Not quite crisp, not yet fuzzy? Assessing the potentials and
pitfalls of multi-value QCA. Field Methods, 21(3), 265–289.
Viveiros de Castro, E. B. (2018). Changing a Brazilian Protected Areas Paradigm: Why Public
Use is Not Just Optional. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 36(3), 129–140.
https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2018-V36-I3-8409
Viveiros de Castro, E. B., Lanna, A. M., Lobo, A. C., Feliciani, F., Bradford, R. B., do
Nascimento, J. L., & Grelle, C. E. (2021). The Atlantic Forest Trail: Reconnecting people,
biodiversity, and protected areas. The Atlantic Forest: History, Biodiversity, Threats and
Opportunities of the Mega-Diverse Forest, 403–419.
Vivek, P., Singh, S. N., Mishra, S., & Donavan, D. T. (2017). Parallel Analysis. Parallel
Analysis Engine to Aid in Determining Number of Factors to Retain Using R.
https://analytics.gonzaga.edu/parallelengine/
Vorkinn, M., & Riese, H. (2001). Environmental Concern in a Local Context: The Significance
of Place Attachment. Environment and Behavior, 33(2), 249–263.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121972972
229
Vuohelainen, A. J., Coad, L., Marthews, T. R., Malhi, Y., & Killeen, T. J. (2012). The
effectiveness of contrasting protected areas in preventing deforestation in Madre de Dios, Peru.
Environmental Management, 50, 645–663.
Wakefield, S. E. L., Elliott, S. J., Cole, D. C., & Eyles, J. D. (2001). Environmental risk and
(re)action: Air quality, health, and civic involvement in an urban industrial neighbourhood.
Health & Place, 7(3), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1353-8292(01)00006-5
Walker, A. J., & Ryan, R. L. (2008). Place attachment and landscape preservation in rural New
England: A Maine case study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86(2), 141–152.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.02.001
Warzecha, C. A., & Lime, D. W. (2001). Place attachment in Canyonlands National Park:
Visitors’ assessment of setting attributes on the Colorado and Green Rivers. Journal of Park and
Recreation Administration, 19(1).
Wauchope, H. S., Amano, T., Geldmann, J., Johnston, A., Simmons, B. I., Sutherland, W. J., &
Jones, J. P. (2021). Evaluating impact using time-series data. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,
36(3), 196–205.
WCPA-IUCN. (2023). IUCN Trails and Conservation Working Group.
https://theurbanimperative.org/trails
Weiler, S., & Seidl, A. (2004). What’s in a name? Extracting econometric drivers to assess the
impact of national park designation. Journal of Regional Science, 44(2), 245–262.
Whittington, J., Hebblewhite, M., Baron, R. W., Ford, A. T., & Paczkowski, J. (2022). Towns
and trails drive carnivore movement behaviour, resource selection, and connectivity. Movement
Ecology, 10(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40462-022-00318-5
Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W., & Watson, A. E. (1992). Beyond the
commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sciences,
14(1), 29–46.
Williams, D. R., & Roggenbuck, J. W. (1989). Measuring Place Attachment: Some Preliminary
Results. Outdoor Planning and Management NRPA Symposium on Leisure Research, San
Antonio, Texas.
Williams, D. R., & Stewart, S. I. (1998). Sense of place: An elusive concept that is finding a
home in ecosystem management. Journal of Forestry, 96(5), 18–23.
Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: Validity and
generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49(6), 830–840.
Wilson, M. B., & Belote, R. T. (2022). The Value of Trail Corridors for Bold Conservation
Planning. Land, 11(3), 348. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11030348
Wilson, R. (1997). A sense of place. Early Childhood Education Journal, 24, 191–194.
230
Wolsko, C., & Lindberg, K. (2013). Experiencing Connection With Nature: The Matrix of
Psychological Well-Being, Mindfulness, and Outdoor Recreation. Ecopsychology, 5(2), 80–91.
https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2013.0008
Woodside, C. (2001, July). Sharing the Trail. Appalachian Trailway News, 62(3), 18–20.
Woolmer, G., Trombulak, S. C., Ray, J. C., Doran, P. J., Anderson, M. G., Baldwin, R. F.,
Morgan, A., & Sanderson, E. W. (2008). Rescaling the Human Footprint: A tool for conservation
planning at an ecoregional scale. Landscape and Urban Planning, 87(1), 42–53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.04.005
WPR. (2023). The US States population. World Population Review.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/states
WTN. (2023). The World Trails Network. https://worldtrailsnetwork.org/
Wyman, M., & Stein, T. (2010). Examining the Linkages Between Community Benefits, Place-
Based Meanings, and Conservation Program Involvement: A Study Within the Community
Baboon Sanctuary, Belize. Society & Natural Resources, 23(6), 542–556.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920902878267
Wynveen, C. J., Schneider, I. E., Arnberger, A., Cottrell, S., & von Ruschkowski, E. (2020).
Integrating Place Attachment into Management Frameworks: Exploring Place Attachment
Across the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. Environmental Management, 66(2), 248–262.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01292-7
Yang, E., & Smith, J. W. (2023). The spatial and temporal resilience of the tourism and outdoor
recreation industries in the United States throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Tourism
Management, 95, 104661.
Yuksel, F., Bramwell, B., & Yuksel, A. (1999). Stakeholder interviews and tourism planning at
Pamukkale, Turkey. Tourism Management, 20(3), 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-
5177(98)00117-4
Zaradic, P. A., Pergams, O. R. W., & Kareiva, P. (2009). The Impact of Nature Experience on
Willingness to Support Conservation. PLoS ONE, 4(10), e7367.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007367
Zarnoch, S., Bowker, M., Cordell, K., Owens, M., Green, G. T., & Ginn, A. (2011). Appalachian
National Scenic Trail pilot survey (SRS-GTR-143; p. SRS-GTR-143). U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. https://doi.org/10.2737/SRS-GTR-143
Zeller, K. A., McGarigal, K., & Whiteley, A. R. (2012). Estimating landscape resistance to
movement: A review. Landscape Ecology, 27(6), 777–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-
9737-0
Zhao, J., Wang, Y., Hashimoto, H., Melton, F. S., Hiatt, S. H., Zhang, H., & Nemani, R. R.
(2013). The Variation of Land Surface Phenology From 1982 to 2006 Along the Appalachian
231
Trail. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 51(4), 2087–2095.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2012.2217149
Zylstra, M. J., Knight, A. T., Esler, K. J., & Le Grange, L. L. L. (2014). Connectedness as a Core
Conservation Concern: An Interdisciplinary Review of Theory and a Call for Practice. Springer
Science Reviews, 2(1–2), 119–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40362-014-0021-3
232
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Ernesto Bastos Viveiros de Castro received his Doctor of Philosophy degree in
interdisciplinary ecology, with a concentration in tropical conservation and development, in the
summer of 2023 from the University of Florida in the School of Natural Resources and
Environments. His research interests lie in environmental management and conservation
subjects, including protected areas, tourism and recreation, landscape management, and wildlife
conservation. Before arriving at UF, he graduated with honors in biology with a bachelor's
degree in Ecology at Rio de Janeiro Federal University (UFRJ, Brazil) in 1999. He got a Master
of Science degree in ecology from the same university, with a concentration in biological
conservation, in 2002, studying differential extinction vulnerabilities of mammals in a
fragmented landscape in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest.
He has been working in the Brazilian federal agency for protected areas (ICMBio) for the last 20
years, as Superintendent of Serra dos Órgãos National Park (2004-2011), National Coordinator
of Ecotourism (2011-2012) and Superintendent of Tijuca National Park (2012-2018). Ernesto is
also a member of the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA-IUCN), the IUCN Tourism
Specialists Group (TAPAS-IUCN), and the World Trails Network. In addition to his academic
life and work in the agency, he is a nature photographer and the proposer of the Atlantic Forest
Trail, a mega trail that is being implemented as a climate corridor strategy in Brazil.
