\

KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEVELOPING THE CAPE TO CAPE LONG­ DISTANCE TRAIL, NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA

by

John Glynn-Morris

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Studies

at

Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia September 2008

© Copyright by John Glynn-Morris, 2008 Library and Archives Bibliotheque et 1*1 Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition

395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada

Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-56345-8 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-56345-8

NOTICE: AVIS:

The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.

The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.

In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these.

While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis.

14-1 Canada DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY

To comply with the Canadian Privacy Act the National Library of Canada has requested that the following pages be removed from this copy of the thesis:

Preliminary Pages Examiners Signature Page (pii) Dalhousie Library Copyright Agreement (piii)

Appendices - Copyright Releases (if applicable) TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES xi

LIST OF FIGURES xii

ABSTRACT xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED xiv

ACTS CITED xv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xvi

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 STUDY OVERVIEW 1

1.2 GO ALAND OBJECTIVES 3

1.3 STUDY SIGNIFICANCE 3

1.4 TERMINOLOGY 4

1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THESIS 5

CHAPTER 2 - NOVA SCOTIA AND CAPE TO CAPE CONTEXT 6

2.1 CAPE TO CAPE TRAIL INTRODUCTION 6

2.2 NOVA SCOTIA OUTDOOR RECREATION 7

2.3 NOVA SCOTIA OUTDOOR RECREATION TRENDS 9

2.4 NOVA SCOTIA PARKS AND PROTECTED AREAS 11

2.5 NOVA SCOTIA PRIVATE LAND AND LAND RIGHTS 11

2.6 NOVA SCOTIA TRAILS 13

2.7 NOVA SCOTIA PAST AND PRESENT LONG DISTANCE TRAILS 14

2.8 NOVA SCOTIA SHELTERS 14

IV 2.9 RURAL LAND-USE COMPLEXITIES: TWO CASES 15

2.10 CAPE TO CAPE TRAIL PROPONENTS 16

2.11 CONCLUSION 17

CHAPTER 3 - LITERATURE REVIEW 19

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING 19

3.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING BACKGROUND 19

3.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, OUTDOOR RECREATION AND LONG-DISTANCE TRAILS 20

3.2 OUTDOOR RECREATION 21

3.2.1 OUTDOOR RECREATION BACKGROUND 21

3.2.2 OUTDOOR RECREATION SETTINGS AND TYPES 22

3.2.3 OUTDOOR RECREATION AND TOURISM 24

3.2.4 OUTDOOR RECREATION AS NATURE-BASED TOURISM 25

3.2.5 OUTDOOR RECREATION DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS 26

3.2.6 OUTDOOR RECREATION ACTIVITY TRENDS 28

3.2.7 OUTDOOR RECREATION AND OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES 29

3.2.8 BENEFITS OF OUTDOOR RECREATION 30

3.2.9 COSTS OF OUTDOOR RECREATION 30

3.3 LONG-DISTANCE TRAILS 31

3.3.1 WORKING DEFINITION BACKGROUND 31

3.3.2 LONG-DISTANCE TRAILS: DEVELOPMENT PURPOSE AND PROPONENTS 32

3.3.3 LONG-DISTANCE TRAILS: GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS 34

3.3.4 LONG-DISTANCE TRAILS: TRENDS 34 3.3.5 LONG-DISTANCE TRAILS: BENEFITS 34

3.3.6 LONG-DISTANCE TRAILS: COSTS 36

3.3.7 LONG-DISTANCE TRAILS: DEVELOPMENT AND HISTORY IN CANADA 36

3.4 SHELTERS AND ACCOMMODATIONS 3 8

3.4.1 SHELTER AND ACCOMMODATION USE ON LONG-DISTANCE TRAILS 38

3.4.2 SHELTER AND ACCOMMODATION RANGE AND TERMINOLOGY 39

3.4.3 SHELTERS: LOCATIONS AND DESIGN 41

3.4.5 EXISTING SHELTER-ASSOCIATED LONG-DISTANCE TRAILS 43

3.4.6 SHELTERS: COMMON THEMES 43

3.4.7 SHELTERS: BENEFITS 43

3.4.8 SHELTERS: COSTS AND ISSUES 45

3.5 KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEVELOPING A LONG-DISTANCE TRAIL 45

3.5.1 VISION 47

3.5.2 MANAGEMENT PLAN 47

3.5.3 MAINTENANCE 48

3.5.4 PARTNERSHIPS 48

3.5.5 FUNDING 50

3.5.6 MARKETING AND PROMOTION 50

3.5.7 INFRASTRUCTURE 50

3.5.8 LOCAL COMMUNITIES 51

3.5.9 PRIVATE LANDOWNERS 51

3.5.10 LIABILITY 52

3.5.11 COMMUNICATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS 52 3.5.12 CONSIDER SERVICE, ACCOMMODATION AND AMENITIES 53

3.5.13 USER-CONFLICTS 53

3.6 CONCLUSION 54

CHAPTER 4 - METHODS 56

4.1 CASE STUDY 56

4.2 STUDY AREA 56

4.3 PURPOSE OF STUDY 56

4.4 BASIC AND APPLIED RESEARCH 57

4.5 SELECTION OF METHODS 57

4.6 SAMPLING AND INTERVIEWING 58

4.7 DATA ANALYSIS 61

4.8 WEAKNESSES AND JUSTIFICATIONS 65

4.9 LIMITATIONS OF CONTENT ANALYSIS 66

4.10 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 67

4.11 TERMINOLOGY CHANGE 67

CHAPTER 5 - RESULTS 68

5.1 COMPREHENSIVE RESULTS 68

5.2 VISION AND PURPOSE 75

5.2.1 ADDRESS ROLE OF OHV USERS 75

5.2.2 CREATE COMMON VISION 79

5.2.3 INCORPORATE COMMERCIAL ACCOMMODATION AND BASIC WILDERNESS SHELTER 80

Vll 5.3 ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT 80

5.3.1 CLARIFY ROLES 81

5.3.2 PROPONENTS MUST BE PATIENT 81

5.3.3 MUST BE COMMUNITY-LED 82

5.4 PLANNING PROCESS 82

5.4.1 ACQUIRE PRIVATE LANDOWNERS' SUPPORT 82

5.4.2 CONFIRM AND CLARIFY LIABILITY COVERAGE 84

5.4.3 EVALUATE COMMUNITY TRAIL DEVELOPMENT MODEL 86

5.4.4 PLANNING 87

5.4.5 MARKET LDT ASSOCIATED BENEFITS 88

5.4.6 ACQUIRE PROXIMATE COMMUNITY SUPPORT 89

5.4.7 EARLY AND TRANSPARENT COMMUNICATION 90

5.4.8 MAINTENANCE 91

5.4.9 DEVELOP PARTNERSHIPS 91

5.4.10 COUNTY-MUNICIPALITY GOVERNMENT SUPPORT 92

5.4.11 DETERMINE FUNDING SOURCES 92

5.4.12 STRATEGIC TIMING AND CONTEXT UNDERSTANDING 93

5.4.13 TRAIL PROMOTION 93

5.4.14 PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT 94

5.5 LONG-DISTANCE TRAIL DEVELOPMENT 95

5.5.1 NEW WILDERNESS SHELTER DEVELOPMENT DESIGN 95

5.5.2 UNDERSTAND EXISTING LDT MODELS 96

5.5.3 NEW TRAIL DEVELOPMENT DESIGN 96

5.6 CONCLUSION 97 CHAPTER 6 - COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 98

6.1 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF STUDY GOAL AND OBJECTIVES 98

6.2 COMPARISON OF KEY CONSIDERATIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE LITERATURE AND BY KEY-INFORMANTS 98

6.3 SIMILARITIES 100

6.3.1 VISION AND PURPOSE 100

6.3.2 ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT 103

6.3.3 PLANNING PROCESS 104

6.3.4 LONG-DISTANCE TRAIL DEVELOPMENT 110

6.4 DIFFERENCES 111

6.5 DISCUSSION 112

6.6 KEY FINDINGS 114

6.7 IMPLICATIONS 115

6.8 LIMITATIONS 115

CHAPTER 7 - CONCLUSION 117

7.1 RESEARCH SUMMARY 117

7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE C2C 117

7.2.1 ESTABLISH C2C LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE 118

7.2.2 CREATE A COMMON VISION 118

7.2.3 ASSESS THE COMMUNITY TRAIL MODEL AND DEVELOP A MANAGEMENT PLAN 119

7.2.4 CONFIRM LIABILITY COVERAGE, AND DETERMINE FUNDING SOURCES AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS 120

7.2.5 CONDUCT LOCAL COMMUNITY, PRIVATE LANDOWNER AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS 120

IX 7.2.6 DEVELOP PARTNERSHIPS 121

7.2.7 ASSESS C2C ANTHROPOGENIC AND BIOPHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS 121

7.2.8 DEVELOP A C2C PROPOSAL 122

7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LONG-DISTANCE TRAIL PRACTITIONERS AND SCHOLARS 122

7.4 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS 123

7.5 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 123

7.6 CONCLUSION 124

REFERENCES 125

APPENDIX A - Selected Nova Scotia Hiking Trail Findings 138

APPENDIX B - Benefits of Trails in Canada 139

APPENDIX C - East Coast Trail Economic Benefits Study Summary 141

APPENDIX D - Selected Long-Distance Trails with Shelters 143

APPENDIX E - Comprehensive Trail Development Model 147

APPENDIX F - Interview Request Letter 148

APPENDIX G - Formal Interview Consent Form 149

APPENDIX H - The Hut-to-Hut Concept Explained 154

APPENDIX I - Interview Schedule 155

APPENDIX J - Coding Manuel 156

APPENDIX K - Coding Schedule 158 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Key Areas Required in Promoting a Positive Climate for Trail Development in Nova Scotia 8

Table 2 Different Criteria and Characteristics of Tourists and Outdoor Recreationists 25

Table 3 Long-Distance Trail (LDT) Characteristics 32

Table 4 Twelve Challenges Facing the Ontario Trails Community 37

Table 5 Literature Summary of the Key Considerations for Developing a LDT 46

Table 6 Comprehensive Results (n=18) 69

Table 7 Summary of Key Results (n= 18) 74 Table 8 Key Considerations for Developing a LDT as identified by C2C Key- Informants and the Literature 99

XI LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Proposed Cape to Cape Trail, Nova Scotia, Canada 7

Figure 2 Range of Long-Distance Trail Shelters 41

Figure 3 Interview Data Structure 61

Figure 4 Example of Interview Data Structure in Practice 61

Xll ABSTRACT

This study examines the key considerations around developing the Cape to Cape (C2C) long-distance trail (LDT) as the first of its kind in Nova Scotia, Canada. The contents of in-depth, semi-structured interviews with eighteen key-informants were quantitatively analyzed for important considerations identified in the LDT planning literature. Findings indicate that C2C key-informants identified similar key considerations for sustainable LDT planning as those in the literature. However, it appears the current C2C development process, although in its initial stages, is not following standard planning guidelines or addressing key considerations. Specifically, proponents need to develop a common vision, consult stakeholders, acquire local communities and landowner(s) support, and develop a management plan that outlines roles and responsibilities and considers long-term funding and maintenance. Furthermore, proponents need to address potential conflicts around the roles of commercial and wilderness shelters and the use of recreational off-highway vehicles.

xni LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED

ACC Alpine Club of Canada

AT Appalachian Trail

ARPA Alberta Recreation and Parks Association

C2C Cape-to-Cape trail, Nova Scotia

CREDA Cumberland Regional Economic Development Agency, Nova Scotia

DOC Department of Conservation, New Zealand

ECT East-Coast Trail, Newfoundland

HNS Hike Nova Scotia

IAT International Appalachian Trail

LDT Long-distance trail

MEC Mountain Equipment Co-op

NSDHPP Nova Scotia Department of Health Promotion and Protection

NSDNR Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources

NSDTCH Nova Scotia Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage

NSE Nova Scotia Environment

NSTF Nova Scotia Trails Federation

NWWAC National Waymarked Way Advisory Committee, Ireland

OHV Off-highway vehicle

PC-AFWA Polletts Cove-Aspy Fault Wilderness Area, Nova Scotia

TCT Trans-Canada Trail

UBoFBI Upper Bay of Fundy Biosphere Initiative, Nova Scotia

XIV ACTS CITED

British North America Act (1867)

Nova Scotia Angling Act (1989)

Nova Scotia Opportunities for Sustainable Prosperity Act (2006)

Nova Scotia Private Ways Act (1989)

Nova Scotia Protection of Property Act (1989)

Nova Scotia Trails Act (1978)

Nova Scotia Wilderness Areas Protection Act (1998)

Nova Scotia Wildlife Act (1989)

United Kingdom National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act (1949)

XV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to sincerely thank my two thesis supervisors, Dr. Karen Beazley and Mr. Peter Labor, for their invaluable guidance, insight, enthusiasm, and flexibility. I would also like to thank Dr. John Shultis for participating as the external reader.

I would like to acknowledge the School for Resource and Environmental Studies and the Faculty of Graduate Studies at Dalhousie University for financial support. Thanks to Brenda, Mary and Susan for making the process smoother, and all the SRES students for keeping it fun! I would also like to thank Hike Nova Scotia and Mr. Ted Scrutton at the Nova Scotia Department of Health Promotion and Protection for financially supporting this research.

Many thanks also to my family and friends for all their ongoing support and encouragement. A special thanks belongs to Sue, who picked me up when I was down and gave me inspiration and motivation every single day.

Finally, I would like to thank my research participants for helping make this study possible. In particular I'd like to acknowledge the Gape to Cape Trail proponents. I hope this study can strengthen the Cape to Cape concept and other trail developments in Nova Scotia and elsewhere.

It really is about the journey.

XVI CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 STUDY OVERVIEW

A trail is an established path generally marked to guide users, and comprises an important component of recreation and leisure infrastructure (Halpenny, 2005). Before the advent of leisure and recreation, trails generally existed because of economic and social necessity (Morrow, 2005). Presently in developed countries, trails have more of a recreation orientation (Jensen, 1995; Varnedoe, 1994). The fastest growing recreational activities are associated with trail use (Cordell, Lewis, & McDonald, 1995) and many natural areas provide opportunities for outdoor recreation along trails (Lynn and Brown, 2003). The development of long-distance trails (LDT) for recreation and tourism has increased over the last decade (Bennett, Tranter, & Blaney, 2003). LDTs are generally defined as trails that vary from 15 kilometers to thousands of kilometers in length and require at least one overnight stop (Cook & Harrison, 2002). Many LDTs provide shelters for users (Hugo, 1999).

Outdoor recreation and tourism have over-lapping and distinct requirements (Baud-Bovy & Lawson, 2002). Many outdoor recreation demographic and activity trends support the development of LDTs (Cordell & Betz, 2002; Neirotti, 2003). LDTs have many associated health, social, environmental and economic benefits (Moore & Barthlow, 1998; Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion, 2005). Shelters can make certain LDTs more accessible and popular (Crowe & Reid, 1998; Roberts, 1989, in Glyptis 1993; Hugo, 1999). A LDT is a type of outdoor recreation system, network or infrastructure which is a sub-field of environmental planning. A sustainable LDT requires that certain key environmental planning principals and outdoor recreation elements be considered (Economic Planning Group, 2003; Hugo, 1999; Varnedoe, 1994); thus, LTD planning is a sub-field of environmental planning.

Iconic LDTs include England's Pennine Way, Spain's Camino de Santiago, the USA's Appalachian Trail (AT), and Canada's Bruce Trail. National examples of LDT

1 development include the National Recreation Trails Program in the USA, the Trans- Canada Trail (TCT), and the European Greenways Association.

A sound planning process and community involvement is critical for trail development success and long-term sustainability (Eyler, Brownson, Evenson, Levinger, Maddock, Pluto, Troped, Schmid, Carnoske, Richards, & Steinman, 2008; Hugo, 1999; Sutton & Cessford, 2007). While the literature on trail routing, site planning, and construction is abundant (R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services, 1999; Varnedoe, 1994), there is less on the approaches used by community organizations to undertake trail systems planning (Eyler et al., 2008). Canadian trail development literature is particularly limited (R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services, 1999).

Canadian LDTs are relatively undeveloped forms of outdoor recreation infrastructure compared to other countries including Norway, Italy, the UK, New Zealand, and parts of the USA (R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services, 1999). There is, however evidence of new LDT development as exemplified by Newfoundland's East Coast Trail (ECT). Furthermore, the International Appalachian Trail (IAT), an extension of the AT, is being developed in New Brunswick, Quebec and Newfoundland (Richard, 1997).

The Nova Scotian Cape to Cape Trail (C2C) is a community-led initiative envisioned to be "Nova Scotia's first long-distance footpath" (Pictou County Trails Association, 2008). The C2C will connect Cape George to Cape Chignecto (Pictou County Trails Association, 2008) and may serve as part of the Nova Scotian portion of the IAT (Richard, 1997).

Nova Scotian trail studies have been conducted regarding the provincial trail movement (Proceedings of the Trails for Tomorrow Conference, 1987), hiking trail users (A Survey of Nova Scotia Hiking Trail Users, 1999), and trail development (Developing a Hiking Trail in a Wilderness Area, 2006; & Developing Recreation Trails in Nova Scotia, 2002). However, no provincial literature has focused on LDT development. The latter is partially due to the fact that there are few LDTs in Nova Scotia (Haynes, 2002).

2 Initial development stages of the C2C have commenced under the direction of several proponents. The C2C is a challenging undertaking in a province with limited LDT development experience and no precedent for community-developed LDTs. The proponents of the C2C require guidance in identifying the key considerations to facilitate the development of a sustainable LDT. This study is both timely and relevant because it describes the key considerations for developing a LDT as identified by C2C key- informants and as determined from a review of the environmental planning and outdoor recreation literature.

1.2 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

This study's goal is to describe the key considerations for developing the C2C in Nova Scotia, and identify those that may be relevant for similar LDT development elsewhere. This study has four objectives:

- To determine the key consideration of LDT development as derived from the literature;

- To identify the key considerations of the C2C LDT development from key-informant interviews;

- To compare and contrast the key LDT development considerations identified in the literature and C2C key-informant interviews; and,

- To provide recommendations to the proponents on whether and/or how to move the C2C concept forward.

1.3 STUDY SIGNIFICANCE

This study makes an original literary contribution to the planning and outdoor recreation literature by adding a Nova Scotian case-study, and by exploring potential differences in geographical, political, economic, social and/or cultural considerations that might influence LDT development. More locally, it provides C2C proponents and stakeholders with an appraisal of the considerations around C2C development, including a compilation

3 of key-informant views and opinions, a comparison with key considerations derived from the LDT development literature, and a set of recommendations based on the findings.

1.4 TERMINOLOGY

Outdoor recreation is recreation that occurs outdoors in urban, rural, and often 'natural' environments (Jenkins & Piagram, 2005). Hiking, backpacking, snowshoeing and cross­ country skiing are all popular forms of non-motorized outdoor recreation (Cordell & Betz, 2002) that take place on Nova Scotian trails (NSDHPP, 2005). Snowmobiling and all-terrain vehicles are popular forms of motorized recreation (Janmaat & VanBlarcom, 2009; Thapa & Graefe, 2003).

In North America, to 'hike' is to go on an extended walk for pleasure or exercise for up to one day; to 'backpack' is to hike while also carrying everything you need to stay out for at least one night (Seaborg & Dudley, 1994). Backpackers may use a range of shelter including tents and huts (Hugo, 1999). LDT backpackers are often termed 'thru-hikers', while alpine-recreationists are called 'mountaineers' (Seaborg & Dudley, 1994).

There is not always clear delineation between hiking and backpacking in North America. Other English-speaking countries use different terms. In the United Kingdom, 'hill- walking' and 'rambling' are used, whereas in Australia and New Zealand, the terms 'bushwalking' and 'tramping' are used respectively. In eastern and southern Africa, Himalayan Asia, and Patagonian South America, the term 'trekking' is more common. In South Africa, backpacking can be called 'long-distance walking' and 'tracking' (Hugo, 1999). In Nova Scotia, terminology is inconsistent; hiking is used to describe day-hiking, and multi-day hiking, and backpacking. This research will use Seaborg and Dudley's (1994) definitions of hiking and backpacking.

This study's use of the term LDT is rooted in Cook and Harrison's (2002) general definition of a LDT as an overnight trail extending over 15 kilometers.

4 1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THESIS

This study is organized into seven chapters. Chapter 1 is an introduction to the study. Chapter 2 discusses the Nova Scotian context within which the C2C is being developed. Chapter 3 situates the LDT concept within the planning and outdoor recreation literature. Chapter 4 describes the methods by which the study was conducted: a quantitative content analysis of key-informant interviews used to derive the key considerations for developing the C2C. Results are found in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 is a comparative analysis and discussion of key considerations identified by key informants and those derived from the literature; the meaning of the results of the interview content analysis in the context of the current literature is elucidated. Finally, Chapter 7 offers conclusions, recommendations and suggestions for further research.

5 CHAPTER 2 - NOVA SCOTIA AND CAPE TO CAPE CONTEXT

This chapter will describe the Nova Scotian context within which the C2C is being developed. In order to describe the key considerations for developing the C2C, the context for LDT development in Nova Scotia must be understood and the opportunities and constraints evaluated.

2.1 CAPE TO CAPE TRAIL INTRODUCTION

The C2C is a proposed LDT in Nova Scotia extending from Cape George to Cape Chignecto (Figure 1). The intended route is approximately 400 kilometers in length and will cross both provincial crown land and private land. The intended route will connect existing trails where available and will follow the Cobequid Mountains (Pictou County Trails Association, 2008). The intended route will cross four provincial Wilderness Areas - Economy River, Portapique, Eigg Mountain-James River, and Gully Lake - and Cape Chignecto Provincial Park.

The C2C is in the preliminary stages: county trail associations have been developed and are collaborating, funding has been acquired from a variety of sources, there has been cooperation between government departments, and proponents have identified trail routes and blazed several trail sections. The actual route, however, has not been finalized. C2C proponents envision a variety of accommodation and shelter alternatives along or connected to the LDT. The C2C is intended to be a continuous footpath for pedestrian and non-motorized forms of recreation (Pictou County Trails Association, 2008).

The origins of the idea for the C2C are not clear. In the 1980s, Don McDougal and Gerard Mclsaac had the idea of a hiking trail along the Cobequid fault line and organized meetings with the then Nova Scotia Sports and Recreation Commission (Scrutton, personal communication, 19 November 2007). Antigonish County trail-champion, Peter Jackson, and Pictou County trail-champion, Gordon Young, later decided to connect existing trails in their respective counties starting from Cape George and continuing through to Cape Chignetco. The idea was dubbed the "C2C". Norris Whiston and

6 Garnet McLaughlin later became the C2C champions in Colchester County. Presently, there is minimal representation in Cumberland County.

PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTTA Includes County Lines

Portapique River Wilderness Area

Economy River Wilderness Area

Cape Chignecto Provincial Park"

..• Prospective Cape to Cape Trail Note: conceptual purposes only

Source: Province of Nova Scotia (2009) http://www.gov.ns.ca/snsmr/land7online/images/nsgcmap4.gif

Figure 1: Proposed Cape to Cape Trail, Nova Scotia, Canada.

2.2 NOVA SCOTIA OUTDOOR RECREATION

Healthy population strategies, including outdoor recreation promotion, are included in the 2006 Opportunities for Sustainable Prosperity Act (NSDHPP, 2006). Outdoor recreation is under the mandate of the Nova Scotia Department of Health Promotion and Protection (NSDHPP), which promotes and finances trail development (NSDHPP, 2006). According to NSDHPP,

Currently in Nova Scotia, most trail development is community-based and generally supported by the provincial government due to a recognition that the

7 trails and active transportation movement, contributes to multiple government mandates including health, environment, recreation, social, economic, tourism, community development, and conservation (2005,p. 1).

In the 2005 document, Creating a Positive Climate for Trail Development in Nova Scotia, six priorities for promoting a positive climate for trail development in Nova Scotia were outlined by NSDHPP (see Table 1). It is within this context that the C2C initiative came to fruition as NSDHPP started to provide financial and expertise support for C2C proponents. However, not all key areas have been fulfilled do to the scale of the C2C LDT; namely securing land resources as most of the proposed trail will cross private land.

Table 1: Key Areas Required in Promoting a Positive Climate for Trail Development in Nova Scotia.

Table 1: Key Areas Required in Promoting a Positive Climate for Trail Development in Nova Scotia.

1 - Gain a critical mass of committed, talented, and creative trail proponents

2 - Secure a land and water resource

3 - Enable legislation, policy, by-laws, strategies and accessible affordable insurance

4 - Proliferate quality and accessible information

5 - Nurture a diverse resource base that is supportive of trail initiatives

6 - Ensure governments are committed to supporting trail development and management

Source: NSDHPP (2005).

The Nova Scotia Department of Tourism, Culture, and Heritage (NSDTCH) promotes outdoor recreational opportunities as part of the province's brand (NSDTCH, 2008). Natural settings are seen as a "critical factor in quality nature-based tourism, and travel trade industries experienced significant growth and demand for soft adventure activities" (NSDTCH, 1997, p. 3).

Outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism are interlinked in Nova Scotia. According to the 2005 A Guide to Starting and Operating an Adventure Tourism Business in Nova Scotia, there has been a significant growth in the number of operators offering adventure

8 travel in response to the growing market demand, including guided hiking and walking adventures (Economic Planning Groups). Currently, products range from single to multi- day trips including overnight camping and tourism (Economic Planning Group, 2005).

The Nova Scotia Trails Federation (NSTF) and Hike Nova Scotia (HNS) represent provincial hiking interests. NSTF, in conjunction with the province, insures all associated trail organizations and users against liability for up to $5,000,000 (Canadian dollars) (NSTF President Terry Norman, personal communication, 2007). Various smaller hiking organizations exist as interest groups (e.g., Federation of Nova Scotia Naturalists, and Volksmarsh) or specific trail management groups (e.g., Pictou County Trails Association, Cape Maboo Trails Society, and Cobequid Eco-Trails).

2.3 NOVA SCOTIA OUTDOOR RECREATION TRENDS

Several provincial studies suggest there is a demand for more hiking trails in wilderness settings which offer both day and multi-day hiking and backpacking opportunities. The 2005 Guide to Starting and Operating an Adventure Tourism Business in Nova Scotia (Economic Planning Group) noted a growing interest in more active and healthier lifestyles, and in the outdoors and wilderness. A Nova Scotia Visitor Exit Survey conducted by NSDTCH in 2000 found that of 'pleasure travelers' surveyed, 12% pursued hiking in remote areas, 34% pursued more leisure hiking and walking, and 34% visited a national or provincial park (Economic Planning Group, 2005). The province's 2003 Nova Scotia Visitor Exit Survey indicated that over half of non-residential visitors walk and/or hike, and it is the province's most popular trail activity, with 7% hiking in wilderness areas (Economic Planning Group, 2005). The 2003 Trails for Tourism' Strategy for Cape Breton identified LDTs for backpacking to have moderate potential in Cape Breton (Economic Planning Group).

A Survey of Nova Scotia Hiking Trail Users (Gardner Pinfold Consulting Economists Ltd., 1999) found that 59% of Nova Scotia hiking-trail users were seeking additional day- use trails, while 36% wanted more wilderness LDTs. While the report noted greater

9 demand for day-use trails, "the (limited) wilderness (LDTs) available in Nova Scotia compared to day use trails may warrant the addition of more wilderness trails... constructing new overnight wilderness trails would allow the province to promote itself as a wilderness backpacking destination to residents and tourists" (Gardner Pinfold Consulting Economists Ltd., 1999, p. 54). The study found also that over 25% of survey respondents do backpacking trips in and outside Nova Scotia. In addition, Nova Scotia Pathways for People noted that walking is the most popular form of physical recreation in Nova Scotia (Hartleib, 2006). Many walkers use trails such as the Trans-Canada Trail (TCT). Additional LDT-relevant findings can be found in Appendix A.

Not all outdoor recreation trends support the development of a LDT. A 2005 Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC) presentation to Parks Canada in Halifax noted a long-term trend to 'popularization' and 'urbanization' of outdoor recreational activities, leading to increased use of guides, motorized vehicles, liability insurance, and a lack of personal responsibility. Second, the increased number of outdoor recreation goods being sold does not represent the true number of remote self-propelled outdoor recreational uses, because many people wear outdoor gear for trend and not functional purposes. Finally, there has been a general trend towards more technical, high-adrenaline activities such as rock- climbing, mountain biking, and white-water kayaking (MEC Manager Denise McDonald, personal communication, 2005). Walking, and to lesser extent hiking, however, are still some of the most popular forms of recreation (Environics, 1998; NSDHPP, 2005).

The term 'Off-Highway Vehicles' (OHVs) generally refers to snowmobiles and All- Terrain Vehicles. Recreational OHV-use is rising in Nova Scotia, and as in many parts of the world, there is considerable and heated debate as to the compatibility of motorized and non-motorized trail users (Gardner Pinfold Consulting Economists Limited, 1999; Janmaat & VanBlarcom, 2009; Nova Scotia Voluntary Planning, 2004). Multi-use LDTs such as the TCT exist. There are however, conflicts on multi-use and single-use/non- motorized trails despite regulation due to an inability for close enforcement (Janmaat & VanBlarcom, 2009).

10 2.4 NOVA SCOTIA PARKS AND PROTECTED AREAS

Nova Scotia has numerous provincial parks and protected areas, and two National Parks. The mandates of Parks Canada, Nova Scotia Environment (NSE) and the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources (NSDNR) all include outdoor recreation, with areas that include trails (NSDNR, 2006; NSE, 2008; Parks Canada, 2008). The 1978 Nova Scotia Trails Act was created to "provide a comprehensive framework within which a network of quality trails can be established for wide-spread public recreation benefits" (Smith, 1987). The 1998 Wilderness Areas Act allows the Nova Scotia Minister of the Environment to "designate, develop, and manage a trail or route for (non- motorized) wilderness recreation" and to "construct, manage, and maintain such structures or facilities as are...required for wilderness recreation or for the management or use of a wilderness area" (Wilderness Areas Protection Act. 1998, c.27. s. 23 (2) a & b.) NSE has created a prospectus, Developing a Hiking Trail in a Wilderness Area, to establish a "trail planning development process which is designed to protect nature, while offering a high quality wilderness recreation opportunity" (NSE, 2006, p. 2). NSE administers four Wilderness Areas located along the C2C route, and remaining crown lands are administered by NSDNR. Cape Chignecto Provincial Park is co-managed by the Cumberland Regional Economic Development Agency (CREDA) and NSDNR.

2.5 NOVA SCOTIA PRIVATE LAND AND LAND RIGHTS

Private lands are owned by individuals or corporations. Nova Scotia has a relatively high percentage of privately held lands; the provincial crown holds only 30.4%, which is the lowest in Canada after Prince Edward Island (Nova Scotia Public Lands Coalition, 2006). In the 2005 report, Creating a Positive Climate for Trail Development in Nova Scotia, access to private land is noted as vital to the success of the trails movement (NSDHPP, 2005). The exact ratio of public-private lands required for the C2C trail is presently unknown as the C2C route has not yet been finalized. Based on the general location, however, the majority of the trail will be situated on individually or commercially owned private land.

11 Specific laws are pertinent to the development of a LDT in Nova Scotia. The Protection of Property Act allows 'certain activities' to take place on forest land, as long as the 'forest land' is not a tree plantation, a forestry study area, a woodland that is being harvested or a commercial berry growing area (Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture, 2008). The Act clarifies "certain activities" in section 15(2): "No person may be prosecuted for contravening any notice given pursuant to this Act prohibiting entry or prohibiting activity on forest land if that person is hunting as defined in the Wildlife Act, fishing, picnicking, camping, hiking, skiing or engaged in another recreational activity or engaged in a study of flora or fauna". The Act defines "forest land" in Section 15(1) as a "wooded area, forest stand, tract covered by underbrush, barren ground, marsh or bog, but does not include: (a) an area that is apparently a tree plantation area or a Christmas tree management area; (b) a special forestry study area; (c) the immediate area where any activity is apparently being carried out on woodlands for the purpose of harvesting a forest product; or (d) a commercial berry growing area".

The Protection of Property Act states that on forest land a person cannot be prosecuted for failing to comply with a notice such as a 'No Trespassing' sign if they are hunting (in accordance with the Wildlife Act) fishing, picnicking, camping, hiking, skiing or engaged in another recreational activity. This does not mean that the property owner could not take legal action; simply that the person will not be prosecuted under the Protection of Property Act (Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture, 2008).

Section 3(1) of the Angling Act states: "Any resident of the Province shall have the right to go on foot along the banks of any river, stream or lake, upon and across any uncultivated lands and Crown lands for the purpose of lawfully fishing with rod and line in such rivers, streams or lakes". Section 2(e) of the Act defines "uncultivated land" as: "land that is in its natural wild state, and includes also land that has been wholly or partially cleared, but is otherwise in its natural state". The rights conferred by this Section, however, shall not in any way limit or restrict the right of any owner or occupant to compensation for actual damages caused by any person going upon or across such

12 lands for the purpose aforesaid, and shall not be construed to give the right to build any fires upon such lands (Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture, 2008).

Legal access through private property may be gained through a right of way. A right of way is maintained even if the land is sold to someone else, and is generally registered with the property in the Registry of Deeds office. A right of way may also be issued by the government in special circumstances under the Private Ways Act (Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture, 2008).

The high percentage of private land in Nova Scotia makes LDT development challenging because proponents will have to engage with multiple landowners. Depending on what trail proponents envision however, the interpretation of certain laws with landowner support may facilitate LDT development.

2.6 NOVA SCOTIA TRAILS

Michael Haynes, in his eighth edition of Hiking Trails of Nova Scotia (2002, p.7) states:

Many of the trails are located in provincial and national parks; these tend to be of the highest quality, well maintained and well signed, with special maps and background information. Most of the new trails profiled have been developed by community trail associations, and these are also developed to very high standards. In addition, many are shared-use, accommodating more recreation use than just walking. However, a few of the hikes presented in this book are still unimproved: coastal walks following game trails and deserted roads leading to forgotten villages. Unlike the park trails, few of these possess signage or services of any kind.

Haynes lists four LDTs suitable for hiking: the Mabou-Inverness Trail (two days), Cape Chignecto Provincial Park (three days), the Liberty Lake Loop Trail (three days), and Polletts Cove (two days). Only the latter three are restricted to pedestrian travel (Haynes, 2002). According to Haynes: "In a recent survey, more than 500 different routes were identified as being used for hiking, although fewer than 200 were officially recognized as trails" (2002, p.9). Trail-proponents in Nova Scotia should identify existing trails as they may help facilitate new LDT development.

13 2.7 NOVA SCOTIA PAST AND PRESENT LONG DISTANCE TRAILS

Perhaps the first notion of a Nova Scotia LDT was the Acadian Trail concept during the 1970s, a LDT reaching from the northern tip of Cape Breton connecting with New Brunswick's Fundy Trail (Smith, 1987; Deeg, 2008). The concept never materialized due to a lack of funding, support, and capacity (Deeg, 2008). The TCT is the first regional LDT in Nova Scotia which follows abandoned rail-lines and is multi-use designed for motorized and non-motorized users. There is currently no regional LDT for non- motorized outdoor recreation. According to Nova Scotian trail expert, Michael Haynes, LDTs for non-motorized outdoor recreation are not part of the Nova Scotian tradition (personal communication, 28 January 2008).

2.8 NOVA SCOTIA SHELTERS

Cape Chignecto Provincial Park offers a trail with a bunkhouse and a cabin; however, the shelters are not promoted nor recognized as a 'hut-to-hut'. According to Park staff, in the year 2000, ten bunkhouse/cabin nights were booked, and in 2004, the number had increased to 58 (Mills, personal communication, 29 March 2008).

Both of Nova Scotia's Federal Parks utilize shelters. Cape Breton Highlands National Park operates two backcountry huts primarily for cross-country skiing. According to Park staff, there were 13 hut bookings in 2006 and 11 in 2007 (Briand, personal communication, 20 March 2008). Kejimkujik National Park maintains two cabins for outdoor recreational purposes: Mason's Cabin and the Fire Tower Cabin. User data were unavailable.

Nova Scotia is well positioned for commercial accommodation in agritourism due to a rich farming heritage and increasing pressure for farmers to diversify (Colton & Bissix, 2005). Colton and Bissex (2005) noted that Nova Scotia has great agritourism potential, but identified two general types of weaknesses: (1) weak marketing, product development, and communication; and (2) a lack of government support, education, training, and partnerships. As one Regional Tourism Representative noted:

14 We have vineyards that produce excellent wine, historical...charming bed and breakfast...farm markets on every country road, and U-picks...it's a great opportunity to package these together...but many of the people out there are territorial and don't see the benefits of working together to promote a package and the region as a whole (in Colton & Bissix, 2005, p. 100).

Portions of the existing TCT pass by existing commercial accommodations. The concept of hut-to-hut or a specific TCT accommodation route, however, are not currently publicized.

2.9 RURAL LAND-USE COMPLEXITIES: TWO CASES

The nature of a LDT requires the use of a long corridor of land. Two Nova Scotian case- studies illustrate the complexity of developing a regional project that requires a large land-base: the Upper Bay of Fundy Biosphere Reserve Initiative (UBoFBI) in 2000, and Polletts Cove - Aspy Fault Wilderness Area hiking trail initiative (PC-AFWA) during the late 1990s/early 2000s.

The UBoFBI highlights the strong regional rural character where part of the C2C is located. The UBoFBI ultimately failed for several reasons: the concept was proposed soon after the unpopular creation of Cape Chignecto Provincial Park, and public- consultation meetings were conducted late in the process (Canning, 2005). Canning (2005) made three recommendations: first, the UBoFBI should have started on a smaller scale and grown only as support grew. Second, proponents should have gained a greater sense of local history and culture pertaining to land-use. Finally, proponents should have solved issues of misinformation and misconceptions as soon as possible.

The PC-AFWA was designated in conjunction with the 1998 Wilderness Areas Act. Associated with the new wilderness area was the development of a 100 kilometer "world class hiking trail system" which included the development of a hut-to-hut concept (NSE, 1998, p.l). The initiative had local support from the North of Smokey Economic Development Association, the Pleasant Bay Community Development Association, and the provincial government (EnviroNova Management & Consulting Inc., 2000).

15 While the PC-AFWA was established, the hiking trail component failed likely due to historical context. The designation of the PC-AFWA was perceived locally to encompass land restrictions, especially in the regional context of previous land expropriation associated with the establishment of Cape Breton Highlands National Park, according to NSE staff (13)/( 15)12. Antagonists incorrectly believed that if they could shut down the trail project, they would shut down the wilderness area designation (15). One NSE employee stated:

If the (PC-AFWA trail concept) had been proposed five years later, it would have gone through because people would have had time to absorb what a Wilderness Area was...I think they felt that they had no choice but to try and shut down the trail and protected area all at once, and it polarized the community (15).

Another NDE employee noted that given the unique regional circumstances: "it would be a mistake to draw too many experiences from Polletts Cove" (10).

The UBoFBI and PC-AFWA cases demonstrate the sensitivity of major land-use designations and projects in rural Nova Scotia. Both cases are relevant to the C2C. The UBoFBI took place in Cumberland and Colchester Counties where the C2C will be routed, and illustrates the need to effectively communicate intentions to the community. The PC-AFWA involved the proposed development of a hiking LDT in conjunction with a new Wilderness Area, and highlights the need to distinguish between proposals when one is controversial. The major difference, however, is that the C2C is a local initiative whereas the UBoFBI and PC-AFWA were proposed by non-locals, mostly resident in Halifax, the provincial urban capital.

2.10 CAPE TO CAPE TRAIL PROPONENTS

The C2C is a community-led initiative financed by NSDHPP, and serves as a focal point for HNS, Pictou County Trails Association, and Cobequid Eco-Trails. The C2C may

1 All key-informants will remain anonymous in this research when requested, as discussed it the Methods section.

2 It is noteworthy that a decade after this project proposal, key-informants still wish to remain anonymous regarding the proposed PC-AFWA hiking trail. Antagonism rose to a level of personal threats and safety.

16 serve as portion of the IAT as the Cobequid Mountains are geologically connected to the Appalachian mountain range (Pictou County Trails Association, 2008). NSE staff are involved with the C2C, as the proposed route will pass through four Provincially designated Wilderness Areas, with trail development currently occurring in the Gully Lake Wilderness Area. NSDNR will be involved through their management of provincial crown lands through which the C2C is intended to pass. The majority of the proposed route will pass through corporate and individual private lands (Pictou County Trails Association, 2008). A minority of private landowners are currently involved with or aware of the C2C.

2.11 CONCLUSION

A review of the Nova Scotian context suggests that opportunities and constraints support and hinder the development of a LDT. Hiking and trail organizations are in place provincially and locally, such as HNS, NSTF and Pictou County Trails Association. NSDHPP, under which trail development falls, has and continues to fund trail development as part of its mandate for health promotion. NSE and NSDNR both have trail-friendly policies. Hiking and trails are part of the provincial tourism brand. Partnerships exist between community organizations and provincial departments.

Many studies indicate there is demand for the type of experiences a LDT could offer. Walking, hiking and backpacking are some of the most popular forms of physical recreation and require a trail. Certain trends, however, suggest there is a shift in outdoor recreation towards high-adrenaline and single-day activities. While this may be the case, the absolute number of walkers and hikers remains high.

One constraint posed against LDT development is the lack of precedent in Nova Scotia resulting in a weak backpacking culture. Increasing OHV rider-ship is also a challenge for non-motorized LDT development. A further constraint to LDT development is the high percentage of private land ownership; the UBoFBI and PC-AFWA precedents suggest that challenges associated with large-scale land-use initiatives should not be

17 underestimated. While certain legal allowances may facilitate LDT development, landowner consent is still critical. CHAPTER 3 - LITERATURE REVIEW

To determine the key considerations for developing the C2C LDT, this study must be situated within existing environmental planning and outdoor recreation theory, state of knowledge and practice. Consequently, key considerations for LDT development are ascertained from LDT development literature and existing LDTs.

This study's conceptual framework is a nested hierarchy with environmental planning as the overarching domain. Outdoor recreation is a sub-field of environmental planning. Nature-based tourism is briefly discussed, as its distinction from outdoor recreation is vague (Baud-Bovy & Lawson, 1998). LDT planning is a sub-field of outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism planning, which are sub-fields of environmental planning. An understanding of these fields, their inter-relationships, and the position of this study within these fields will formulate the conceptual framework and contextualize the key elements of a sustainable LDT.

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

3.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING BACKGROUND

Planning is a fundamental human activity which helps us consider possible outcomes before we commit to a specific course of action (Catanese & Snyder, 1988). The term 'planning' denotes the scientific, aesthetic, and orderly configuration of land, resources, facilities and services with a view to securing the physical, economic and social efficiency, health and well-being of urban and rural communities (Canadian Institute of Planners, 2009). Planning is a logical process and methodology that defines a series of elements that focus our attention toward four interrelated activities: (1) establishment of goals and objectives; (2) collection and analysis of information; (3) evaluation of alternative courses of action; and (4) recommendation of a course of action (Klein, 2003).

'Environmental planning' is a sub-field of planning that emerged in the 1960s (Klein, 2003) when planners recognized that care for the environment cannot be left to the

19 uncoordinated and uncontrolled forces of individual actions (Boulding, 1966), and that common property resources are prone to over-exploitation (Hardin, 1968). Environmental planning integrates planning with the concerns of equity distribution (Rose & Kverndokk, 1999) and sustainable development (Selman, 2000). The concept of 'sustainable development', established by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WECD, 1987), is a comprehensive concept including ecological, economic, and social aspects (Hall & Page, 2002). Sustainability requires sound planning to ensure maximum equitable benefits to communities and users without compromising long-term environmental and sociocultural qualities (Hall, 2000). Since the late 1980s, sustainable development has been integral to environmental planning (Hall, 2000; van Pelt, Kuyverndokk & Nijkamp, 1990).

3.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, OUTDOOR RECREATION AND LONG­ DISTANCE TRAILS

Outdoor recreation requires time, money and space (Pigram, 1983) and environmental planning considers space (Selman, 2000). With both outdoor recreation and environmental planning, society must decide what lands should be preserved, and/or used for natural resource extraction, outdoor recreation and other activities (Klein, 2003). Environmental planning must consider diverse societal land-use needs, and outdoor recreation planning is a sub-set of environmental planning (Baud-Bovy & Lawson, 1998; Cobham, 1990). According to Marsh and Wall (1982, p. 15), the "consideration and management of physical and human resources to achieve designed and desired goals in the recreational use of leisure is an essential part of planning". Further, "outdoor recreation competes with agriculture, mining, forestry, housing, industry and a variety of other activities for the same scarce resource of land and water" (Marsh and Wall, 1982, p. 1). According to Pigram (1983, p.42), "Natural resources are cultural appraisals, and what is recognized as a recreation resource by one group of people at one period in time may be of no conceivable use or value to them or others in different circumstances".

20 Planners must balance between the physical environment's diversity for recreation opportunities, and the diversity of public interests in recreational activities (Cobham, 1990). Outdoor recreation requires perceivable modifications to the natural environment such as roads and trails or buildings, facilities and conveniences (Marshall, 1933; Wagner, 1966; Driver & Brown 1978, Clark & Stankey, 1979). Clark & Stankey (1979) suggest that planners develop a continuum of opportunities to best serve the diversity of public tastes.

Social sustainability requires that local perspective be prioritized in rural outdoor recreation development (Hall & Boyd, 2005; Hugo, 1999). However, planners must balance between sometimes contrasting local and non-local interests (Russell & Faulkner, 1999) and acknowledge potential negative environmental, economic, and sociocultural impacts (Hall & Page, 2002; Wall & Mathieson, 2006).

LDTs are outdoor recreation infrastructure (Baud-Bovy & Lawson, 1998). The principles of environmental planning require that outdoor recreation infrastructure be developed sustainably (Cobham, 1990). LDTs must consider sustainability to ensure long-term success (Economic Planning Group, 2003; Hugo, 1999) and be developed according to environmental planning process and methodology (Klein, 2003).

3.2 OUTDOOR RECREATION

An understanding of outdoor recreation is necessary to describe the key considerations for developing a LDT because facilitating outdoor recreation is the primary motive for LDT development. Trails have long been an area of both scholarly and practitioner interest within the broader domain of outdoor recreation. The following sections review the outdoor recreation literature and its relation to LDTs.

3.2.1 OUTDOOR RECREATION BACKGROUND

Outdoor recreation is not a singular subject or discipline; it is an inherently diverse field (Loomis & Walsh, 1997; Manning, 1999; Piagram & Jenkins, 2006). Outdoor recreation

21 in culture and history includes basic notions of human perception of the environment (Tuan, 1990) the role of place and landscape for identity (Massey & Jess, 1995) and the advent of modem industrial society (Gartner & Lime, 2000). Outdoor recreation relates to a multitude of fields, including environmental planning, health, tourism, economic development, community development, and environmentalism (Jensen, 1995).

Re-occurring motives for outdoor recreation include individual and public health (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Jensen, 1995), appreciation of nature, personal satisfaction and enjoyment, positive behavioral patters, and stewardship (Cordell, Bergstrom, Hartman & English, 1990; Jensen, 1995). The 1988 United States Domestic Policy Council's Task Force on Outdoor Recreation Resources and Opportunities summarized outdoor recreation as follows:

Whatever it may be, outdoor recreation is a leisure moment outdoors, freely enjoyed. It has no boundaries and no bounds beyond those of wondering and wandering in the outdoor environments - not even the spacious skies, the majestic purple mountains, the sunrise or sunset, and ever-changing seasons which bring a new dimension to each moment and each day. Outdoor recreation is life rejoicing in the outdoors (in Cordell et al., 1990, p.l).

Outdoor recreation scholarship emerged in the 1960s. Warzecha, Manning, Lime, & Freimund, argue that the one consistent finding in outdoor recreation scholarship is diversity; be it "recreation activities, socioeconomic and cultural characteristics of visitors attitudes abut policy, preferences for services and facilities, sensitivity to crowding and conflict, experience level, and motivation for and benefits received from recreation participant" (2001, p. 99). Due to the diversity of outdoor recreation (Loomis & Walsh, 1997; Manning, 1999; Piagram & Jenkins, 2006) a broad understanding of outdoor recreation is necessary when determining the key considerations for developing a LDT.

3.2.2 OUTDOOR RECREATION SETTINGS AND TYPES

Outdoor recreation activities and settings vary greatly (Jensen, 1995). Many activities are setting-specific, such as downhill skiing, while others may vary, such as hiking. Clark

22 and Stankey's (1979) 'Recreation Opportunity Spectrum' delineates outdoor recreation locations as primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, roaded modified, rural, and, urban.

The terminology used to describe the 'primitive' and 'semi-primitive' locations is inconsistent. The term 'backcountry', for example, has several connotations. From an outdoor recreation perspective, it refers to those areas that necessitate an overnight stay to visit and are generally only accessible by self-propelled means (Croy & Kearsley, 2005). Backcountry is generally contrasted with 'frontcountry', the latter denoting the periphery and access points (Croy & Kearsley, 2005). On a continuum of natural recreation areas, remote backcountry is between the frontcountry and the wilderness; however, many perceive a state of wilderness through the backcountry despite formal designation (Croy & Kearsley, 2005).

Despite inconsistent use of the term 'wilderness', it is perhaps more easily defined by what it is not: environments untouched by civilization (Freimund, 2005); but even this definition is problematic because the term 'untouched' is subjective. Shultis (1999) notes two contrasting views of wilderness: a 'political wilderness' that has been created by special interest groups, bureaucrats, and politicians, and has been exhibited in policy and/ or legislation; and a 'popular wilderness' which can be loosely defined as a social state- of-mind. Furthermore, different cultures view wilderness differently (Freimund, 2005; Shultis, 1999). In 1992, the International Union for Conservation of Nature adopted "wilderness" as a protected-area category; today legally designated wilderness areas exist in Canada among other countries, but may denote different things (Freidmund, 2005).

Legally designated Wilderness Areas exist in Nova Scotia; these are provincially significant natural areas protected under the Wilderness Areas Protection Act (NSE, 2009). In this thesis, unless otherwise specified, the use of the term 'wilderness' will loosely describe the popular concept of the 'natural environment' or a 'natural area', while the term 'Wilderness Area' will refer to the legal designation in Nova Scotia.

23 Outdoor recreation activities are delineated as either 'hard activities', such as wilderness backpacking and mountaineering, or 'soft activities', such as camping and day-hiking (Ewert, 2000). Outdoor recreation activities which take place in natural environments are termed 'wilderness recreation', and are "steeped in tradition, mores, and normative codes that have a stabilizing affect on change" (Ewert & Hollenhorst, 1997, p. 26). 'Adventure recreation', a type of wilderness recreation, involves a deliberate risk-seeking, may or may not be wilderness dependent, and "tends to reject tradition and behaviour norms in favour of unique and novel experience" (Ewert & Hollenhorst, 1997, p. 26). Backpacking is one type of wilderness recreation.

3.2.3 OUTDOOR RECREATION AND TOURISM

Recreation and tourism are separate but over-lapping concepts (Baud-Bovy & Lawson, 1998). 'Recreationists' tend to be more local, spend less time in a given area, have their own transport, be more familiar with the setting, and be repeat visitors. 'Tourists' tend to live further away, generally stay overnight, tend to use commercial accommodations more and camp less, are much less likely to be repeat visitors, and travel more by public or commercial transport (Butler & Boyd, 2000). Table 2 illustrates the different criteria and characteristics of tourists and outdoor recreationists. As Baud-Bovy and Lawson noted

The major difference in the development of tourism or recreation master plans arises from the fact that the market for outdoor recreation is a largely captive one: recreationists are generally limited to those attractions and facilities at a suitable time-distance from their home. Other differences arise from the way tourist and recreational facilities are marketed, run, and financed (1998, p.158).

24 Table 2: Different Criteria and Characteristics of Tourists and Outdoor Recreationists.

Table 2: Different Criteria and Characteristics of Tourists and Outdoor Recreationists.

COMPARISONS TOURISTS OUTDOOR RECREATIONISTS

Facilities - Developed by private sector - Usually with public sector funding - Commercial feasibility crucial

Choice - Wide destination choice - Restricted by time-distance - Strong international competition - Alternatives usually limited

Quality of environment - Unique or distinctive character and - Important in suburban and rural image of destination are key factors areas

Organizations - Intermediaries (tour organizers, - Clubs, societies, and associations agents) play a major role may be involved

Number of users - Limited by available - Determined by catchment accommodation population, access, and facilities

Demands on resources - Continuous over season(s) of use - Highly concentrated on weekends - Sensitive to excessive demand and public holidays - Tolerant of crowding

Economic benefits - High with inflow of capital, - Low with limited (mainly part- employment, and tourist expenditure time) employment and expenditure

Source: Baud-Bovy & Lawson (1998, p.3).

3.2.4 OUTDOOR RECREATION AS NATURE-BASED TOURISM

Factors which have led to the rise of tourism during the 20th century are likely to remain in the future: greater affluence and free time, improved mobility, greater freedom to travel, and improved infrastructure (Butler, 2000). The increasing interest in the environment will likely equate with a greater desire to visit significant and impressive landscapes (Butler, 2000). 'Nature-based tourism' is the use of natural settings and attractions for recreational activities while engaged in leisure travel (Murdy, 2005). Ecotourism is concerned with the conservation of biodiversity, local community and economic development (Fennell, 2003). Adventure-tourism combines travel, sport, and outdoor recreation (Beedie, 2003). Nature-based tourism continues to be one of the highest growth sectors of tourism, and 'ecotourism' and 'adventure-tourism' are increasing in supply and demand (Beedie, 2003).

25 The motives for developing rural nature-based tourism via outdoor recreation are to counter increasing economic marginality, restructuring caused by a decline in primary industries, deindustrialization caused by the globalization of economies, and a general decline in public sector employment (Butler, Hall, & Jenkins, 1998, Power, 1996, in Holmes & Hecox, 2004; Sharpley & Telfer, 2002).

There is considerable debate over the net positive and negative effects of nature-based tourism. Some suggest destinations lack control over tourism factors such as access to transportation, information, political clout, and capital (Hall & Boyd, 2005) and that nature-based tourism has as many negative attributes as mass-tourism (Wheeller, 1994; Beaumont, 2001). Others note successful ventures in proximity to protected areas (Fennell, 2003) and in general (Mieczkowski, 1995).

One paradox of nature-based tourism is that the desire to meet the demands for wilderness experiences sometimes results in areas being 'loved-to-death' (Kearsley, 1990). The culmination of individual visits may collectively and incrementally degrade the resource and the experience (Heberlein, Fredman, & Vuorio, 2002). Many national park agencies are confronted with this dualism of preservation and visitor enjoyment (Vaske, Donnelly, & Whittaker, 2000).

3.2.5 OUTDOOR RECREATION DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS

An understanding of current and projected outdoor recreation trends is important when considering hiking, backpacking and LDT development. General North American trends are affecting outdoor recreation patterns: increasing urbanization, increasing immigration from non-European regions, an aging population, and a trend to higher income levels associated with increased recreation (Cordell & Betz, 2002) with the exception of university and college students who have low incomes (Loomis & Walsh, 1997; Moore & Barthlow, 1998).

Available leisure time affects outdoor recreation participation. Canadian time for leisure activities, including outdoor recreation, has long been decreasing (Butler, 1989; Foot,

26 1990). As time for leisure becomes more scarce, expenditures to make the most of the available time for outdoor recreation increase (Neirotti, 2003) which accounts for the increasing demand for holiday packages (Beedie, 2003). Canadians are taking shorter but more frequent vacations, closer to home, and with a greater family focus (Go for Green, 2005). Future user demands will include: more efficient use of time, more intensive management of resources to facilitate use, greater accessibility, less effort, and less self- reliance (Hammitt & Schuster, 2000).

In general, individuals who are elderly, less educated, part of a minority group, economically disadvantaged, disabled, or living in cities have fewer opportunities to participate in outdoor recreation (Cordell et al., 1990). Variables which may impact outdoor recreation include: user pay concept, decreasing rates of growth, constraints on leisure time, barriers to participation, operation costs, operating concerns, public expectations, and greater sophistication (Ewert & Hollenhorst, 1989; in Ewert & Hollenhorst, 1997). The uneven distribution of opportunities can negatively affect family stability, crime and juvenile delinquency rates, restrict social bonding, increase social conflict, and isolate differing cultures and ethnicities (Cordell et al., 1990).

Wilderness outdoor recreationists are generally white, well educated, between the ages of 30 and 40, and from urban areas (Chavez, 2000). Rural outdoor recreationists tend to prefer consumptive activities, such as fishing, while urban recreationists tend to prefer non-consumptive activities, such as hiking (Loomis & Walsh, 1997).

According to a 2000 study conducted for MEC, the top motivators for outdoor recreation are health, fun, de-stressing, being outside, and socializing. Top barriers include lack of time and money, inexperience, perceptions of inability, and lack of self-esteem due to past experiences and injuries. Attitude toward wilderness is a contributing factor to motivation and barriers. Attractions to wilderness include undisturbed nature, peace and tranquility, challenge and experience, and adventure and adrenaline. Aversions include hygiene, wild animals, and risks involving water, bugs, and planning and time commitments (Sixth Line Solutions, 2006).

27 3.2.6 OUTDOOR RECREATION ACTIVITY TRENDS

Hiking, backpacking, and wilderness camping are consistently among the most popular forms of active outdoor recreation (Cordell & Betz, 2002; Neirotti, 2003; Sixth Line Solutions, 2006). Canadian demographer David Foot (1990) noted that: "growth in outdoor recreation is most likely to occur in natural environmental and general recreation areas" (p. 159). Some activities are seeing a decrease in participation despite an increasing absolute level of outdoor recreation (Loomis & Walsh, 1997). Research conducted by the Outdoor Industry Association and for MEC suggests a steady decline in multi-day backcountry trips such as alpine climbing and ski touring, and a steady increase in short, frontcountry or near-urban activities such as trail running (Sixth Line Solutions, 2005). The latter illustrates an aging population resulting in a shift to less strenuous activities, warmer weather pursuits, and changing amenities and service requirements (Sixth Line Solutions, 2005).

While Cordell et al. (1990) predicted a 155% increase in backpacking by 2040, Chavez (2000) notes that current time-availability and recreation destination-choice trends suggest that day-hiking is becoming the predominant means by which people recreate in wilderness settings. Parks, the location of many outdoor recreation activities, have experienced a leveling off of visitation to backcountry areas, whereas front-country areas have experienced growth (Butler, 2000).

The 'hard' activities synonymous with adventure recreation and high-adrenaline are increasing in participation (Ewert, 2000; Hammitt & Schuster, 2000). As stated by Hammitt and Schuster (2000) "high-adventure, high-risk experiences in wilderness may be as dominant in the next 100 years as backpacking in solitude is today" (p. 12). Beedie (2003) suggested that traditional forms of outdoor recreation such as mountaineering "will continue to erode and will soon only exist in museums and heritage centers" (p. 234).

28 3.2.7 OUTDOOR RECREATION AND OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES

The use of OHVs for recreation is increasing in popularity (Cordell & Betz, 2002; Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion, 2005; Thapa & Graefe, 2003). There is extensive literature regarding conflict between motorized and non-motorized recreationists (Cordell & Betz, 2002; Janmaat & VanBlarcom, 2009; Thapa & Graefe, 2003; Vail & Heldt, 2004; Wang & Dawson, 2005). Jacob and Schreyer (1980, p.369) describe outdoor recreation conflict as "goal interference attributed to another's behavior". The recreational activities that evoke the greatest controversy tend to be the noisiest, fastest, and most mechanized, but also evoke sweeping generalizations such as conflict and improper use of the environment, and unruly and deviant operators (Glyptis, 1989). Generally, non- motorized recreationists aim to prohibit motorized recreationists from favorable areas, while motorized recreationists insist there is no conflict (Janmaat & VanBlarcom, 2009). Thapa and Graefe (2001 & 2003) suggest that 'appreciative' recreationists, such as hikers, tend to display greater pro-environmental attitudes, and motorized recreationists tend to uphold technocentric attitudes where the environment does not seem to be a priority (Thapa & Graefe, 2003).

Multi-use trail development has become more popular in recent years (Cordell & Betz, 2002) and has led to conflicts between non-motorized and motorized recreationists (Janmaat & VanBlarcom, 2009). The social concerns surrounding multi-use trails include safety, trail damage, lack of environmental awareness and the inappropriate use of technology in natural settings (Cessford, 1995; in Goeft & Alder, 2001). Unresolved conflicts arising from such concerns could ultimately lead to lost trail opportunities resulting from a lack of cooperation among users (Moore & Bartlow, 1998). Generally, the more mechanical the means of the user, the more tolerant they are of motorized- recreation (Goeft & Alder, 2001).

The general agreement in the literature is that non-motorized and motorized recreationists are often in conflict over real or perceived jurisdiction (Janmaat & VanBlarcom, 2009; Vail & Heldt, 2004), environmental degradation (Cordell & Betz, 2002; Jensen, 1995)

29 and experience sought (Janmaat & VanBlarcom, 2009; Jensen, 1995; Wang & Dawson, 2005). Planners must consider non-motorized and motorized recreationist issues (Baud- Bovy & Lawson, 1998; Janmaat & VanBlarcom, 2009) on both multi-use and single-use trails (Vail & Heldt, 2004). LDTs intended for non-motorized use only must either incorporate a management scheme that polices trail activities and/or be designed to prohibit OHV use.

3.2.8 BENEFITS OF OUTDOOR RECREATION

The benefits of outdoor recreation are well documented (Cordell et al., 1990; Cordell & Betz, 2002; Go for Green, 2005; Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion, 2005). The President's Commission on American Outdoors (1986) identified numerous social, economic, and environmental benefits of outdoor recreation, including personal health, economic development, family cohesion, enriching culture, and public interest in the quality of the environment and the preservation of wilderness (in Cordell et al., 1990). Furthermore, outdoor recreation can lead to less societal crime and vandalism (Gratton & Taylor, 2000) and the presence of outdoor recreational areas tends to increase surrounding land values because they will remain relatively natural and undeveloped (Loomis& Walsh, 1997).

3.2.9 COSTS OF OUTDOOR RECREATION

Environments set aside for outdoor recreation, such as parks, require a substantial amount of land which results in an opportunity cost. The external costs of a recreation area may include a decrease in natural resource output (Loomis & Walsh, 1997). When conflict arises due to outdoor recreation and land-use, the underlying issues tend to be agriculture, forestry, mining, water supply, and conservation (Glyptis, 1989). Governments may incur additional operations and maintenance costs, and increased transportation costs and road congestion (Loomis & Walsh, 1997).

Potential social and psychological impacts arising from outdoor recreation include traffic congestion, overcrowding, nuisance, noise, aesthetic intrusion, and conflicts between

30 different recreationists (Glyptis, 1989). Outdoor recreation can physically impact flora and fauna (Glyptis, 1989). Impact resulting from any form of outdoor recreation is inevitable, however the impacts are minimal compared to the more consumptive uses of natural resources (Cordell et al, 1990).

3.3 LONG-DISTANCE TRAILS

3.3.1 WORKING DEFINITION BACKGROUND

Trails are a recreational resource of growing importance (Janmaat & VanBlarcom, 2009). A 'trail' can describe many things. The 2005 Ontario Trails Strategy noted that a 'trail' could be a footpath with natural surface, multi-use tracks with manufactured surfaces, on- road bicycle routes, walkways, boardwalks, sidewalks, utility corridors on former rail- lines, forestry and mining access roads designated as trails, waterways, and portages (Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion, 2005). Trail expert John Marsh defines a trail as:

A linear route, outdoors, under five meters wide, officially designated primarily for one or more of the following means of travel: walking, hiking, backpacking, jogging, running, roller-blading, cycling, mountain biking, wheelchair riding, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, horseback riding, motor cycling, All Terrain Vehicle riding, snowmobiling, canoeing, kayaking (Marsh, 2004).

In Australia and New Zealand, the term 'track' is used while in the United Kingdom and parts of North America, the term 'footpath' is more common. The term 'trail' is generally recognized internationally (Hugo, 1999).

LDTs for hiking "may extend for hundreds of kilometers along ancient paths followed by pilgrims, travelers, or migrants, or extent through attractive, and often remote, natural areas" (Baud-Bovy & Lawson, 1998, p.168). In Europe, 'hiking greenways' are rural paths, trails, and routes which often extend over long distances across the countryside, mountains, and coast (Baud-Bovy & Lawson, 1998).

There is no universal LDT definition. In McNamee's thesis Institutional Arrangements to Protect Long Distance Trails: An Evaluation of the Appalachian and Bruce Trail

31 Experiences (1983) LDTs are defined as "a linear corridor that extends for several kilometers through prominent physical environments and great natural beauty, scenic, and cultural diversity" (p.6). McNamee identified three criteria which further delineate LDTs from other trails found in wilderness areas or government parks as outlined in Table 3.

Table 3: Long-Distance Trail (LDT) Characteristics

Table 3: Long-Distance Trail (LDT) Characteristics.

1 - LDTs are generally planned, developed, maintained, and administered by non-profit, volunteer association who seek no remuneration for their efforts in providing a public recreation resource.

2 - LDT are situated across landscapes that are under various types of ownership including various government agencies, and corporate and private-individual landowners.

3 - LDTs are routed through the property of individuals who have allowed the trail association access to their property for no financial gain.

Source: McNamee (1983).

McNamee's LDT characteristics are well suited for the C2C (Pictou County Trails Association, 2008). However, there are many other LDTs that do not fit McNamee's criterion, but are nevertheless viewed as LDTs and which may provide useful development information. As a result, this research will consider McNamee's LDT characteristics while also using Cook and Harrison's (2002) more general definition of a LDT as an overnight trail extending over 15 kilometers because it can be argued that all trails share many fundamental criteria and characteristics (see Eyler et al., 2008; Hugo, 1999).

3.3.2 LONG-DISTANCE TRAILS: DEVELOPMENT PURPOSE AND PROPONENTS

LDTs, as defined by this research, are generally developed for hiking and walking. Potter and Manning's (1984) description of LDTs having multiple access points makes hiking and walking possible. LDTs can use existing trade routes (Morrow, 2005) as in Europe (Hugo, 1999), or be developed for community outdoor recreation and/or nature-based

32 tourism purposes (Baud-Bovy & Lawson, 1998; Hugo, 1999). Presently, most LDT developments are motivated by potential economic and health benefits (Bennett et al., 2003; Cook & Harrison, 2002). Rural LDT proponents tend to see trails as a tool for rural economic development by diversifying local economies (Gartner, 1996, in Pollock, Chase, Ginger, & Kolodinsky, 2007). Blakely and Bradshaw (2005) argue that trail systems are expected to attract visitors who then patronize the regions amenities and services. These expenditures lead to increased local incomes, which lead to greater tax revenue for local governments and additional job creation (in Pollock et al., 2007). The increase in national trail development, for example is due in part to the perception of economic benefit to the region and local development associated with tourism development, rural diversification and job training, and urban renewal (Bennett el al., 2003; Moore & Barthlow, 1998; 2007; Vaughan, Farr, & Slee, 2000).

The boundaries between outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism are indistinct because both often share the same environments and facilities, such as LDTs (Baud-Bovy & Lawson, 1998). To exemplify this crossover, the Scottish Natural Heritage (1997) identified six justifications for LDTs: to improve countryside access, to provide natural heritage experience, to provide well-managed and assured access opportunities, to increase access opportunities, to help market regions for tourism, and to bring locally significant economic benefits to rural communities which the route passes (Morrow, 2005).

Early LDTs such as the AT, the Pennine Way, and the Bruce Trail, resulted from individual vision and voluntary effort (McNamee, 1983; Rubin, 2000, in Morrow, 2005). The voluntary sector has become increasingly responsible for providing and managing rural outdoor recreation on a large scale and in a professional manner (Groome, 1993, in Crowe & Reid, 1998). Increasingly market-based provision of recreation services can lead to loss of land and facilities which have been traditionally free access, but may provide better managed and higher valued services and facilities (Crowe & Reid, 1998).

33 3.3.3 LONG-DISTANCE TRAILS: GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS

LDTs that fit both McNamee (1983) and Cook and Harrison's (2002) definitions can and do exist in a variety of geographic settings. LDTs are typically either situated totally in wilderness/backcountry, or in a blend of wilderness, rural, and urban landscapes. This topic will be discussed below in section 3.4: Shelters and Accommodations.

3.3.4 LONG-DISTANCE TRAILS: TRENDS

Walking is the most popular physical activity among Canadians (Canada Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute, 1998; Alberta Recreation and Parks Association, 2002). An Environics study (1998) found that 85% of Canadians surveyed walked for recreation and leisure purpose, while 82% reported the desire to walk more in the future. Hiking and backpacking, albeit less popular than walking, are also top outdoor recreation choices (Beedie, 2003; Cordell & Betz, 2002).

There is great public interest in having trails created (Janmaat & VanBlarcom, 2009; R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services, 1999). LDT development in the form of national trails is growing, and is based on two factors: first, economic benefits for regional and local development via tourism, rural diversification and job creation, and urban regeneration (Moore & Barthlow, 1998; Vaughan et el., 2000) and second, health and other societal benefits associated with non-motorized recreation promotion (Blair & Brodney, 1999).

3.3.5 LONG-DISTANCE TRAILS: BENEFITS

The associated benefits of trails are well documented in government (Nova Scotia Department of Health Promotion and Protection, 2006; Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion, 2005) and trail organization literature (ARPA, 2008; Canadian Parks/ Recreation Association, 1997; Hike Ontario, 2008). Scientific literature suggests that a community trail can be part of a relatively low-cost intervention to facilitate physical activity by reducing barriers including cost, inconvenience, and inaccessibility

34 (Brownson et al., 2000, 2005; in Eyler et al, 2008; Evenson et al., 2005; in Eyler et al., 2008). Selected economic, social, health, and environmental benefits of Canadian trails are listed in Appendix B and summarized below.

According to Moore and Barthlow's seminal study of LDTs, The Economic Impacts and Uses of Long-Distance Trails (1998) there is ample research that documents the benefits of LDTs to users, trail communities, and local landowners. The study concluded:

Although not without their costs, trails have been found to provide a wide variety of benefits. Users, nearby properties, neighboring communities, all enjoy various benefits from trails and trail use. These benefits can include public recreation opportunities, tourism and economic development, health and fitness, aesthetic beauty, preserving undeveloped open-spaces, community pride, access for disabled persons, public education about nature and the environment, traffic reduction, and transportation alternatives, among others (Moore and Barthlow, 1998, p. 63).

Economic benefits include increased user expenditure, increased tax revenues, increased property values, sales of trail-related equipment, corporate relations, job creation, and reduced health costs (Bowker & Gill, 2004; Cook & Harrison, 2002; Moore & Barthlow, 1998). Trails also create a destination (Eyler et al., 2008). According to Moore and Barthlow

The economic impacts of trails and trail use are varied and can be substantial. Past research indicates that these economic benefits can be of several types: increased user expenditures, increased tax revenues, increased nearby property values, purchase of trail-related equipment, corporate relocation, job creation, reduced health costs, and others. Past studies show that the economic effects of trails can be quite significant - often measured in the tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars (1998, p. 63).

Newfoundland's ECT is having a positive impact on the provincial economy (D.W. Knight Associates Team, 2005). Economic and other ECT benefits are summarized in Appendix C.

35 3.3.6 LONG-DISTANCE TRAILS: COSTS

A primary purpose of a trail is to attract users to an area, and this inevitably leads to physical impacts (Goeft & Alder, 2001). One major concern surrounding trails is soil erosion, which has environmental, user-safety, and maintenance cost impacts. Highest environmental impacts are generally found in high-concentrated areas such as along the actual trail and at campsites/shelters, while proximate areas are relatively undisturbed (Cole, 1995; in Bennett et al., 2003). Other user-induced impacts include: trail extension and widening, muddiness, tree and plant damage, fire rings, and pollution (Lynn & Brown, 2003). Impact can vary in severity with location, soil type, rainfall, use (Sun & Walsh, 1998; in Goeft & Alder, 2001) climate and slope (Goeft & Alder, 2001).

3.3.7 LONG-DISTANCE TRAILS: DEVELOPMENT AND HISTORY IN CANADA

It is important that the Canadian trail context be understood, and compared to other countries where LDTs exist. The USA and Great Britain have national trail programs and supporting legislation (R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services, 1999). Great Britain has a long tradition of land-access and right-of-ways (Aitchison, Macleod & Shaw, 2000; Bennett et al., 2003) including the 1949 creation of a national long-distance trail system (Glyptis, 1999). The United States government has the ability to create both National Scenic and National Historic Trails (Jensen, 1995). Under Section 92 (a) of the 1867 British North America Act (BNA Act) the Canadian federal government is not constitutionally empowered to carry out resource management and recreation roles similar to those available in the United States and Great Britain, resulting in inconsistent provincial and municipal trail leadership. As a result, there is no legislated Canadian national protocol supporting trail programs (R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services, 1999).

LDTs do exist in Canada and several examples will be highlighted. Arguably Canada's, most famous LDT is Ontario's Bruce Trail (McNamee, 1983). In Ontario, some of the

36 challenges encountered in new trail development include long-term route stability in the context of rapid land-use changes, public use of private lands without loss of landowner rights, trail-use ethics consistent with the protection of natural resources and property- rights, and equality of opportunity for all types of trail users (R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services, 1999).

A 1998 Ontario Trails Council report identified the following roles for the provincial government for successful future-trails developments: provincial coordination and cross- regional route planning; standards and policy development; facilitation to local and regional groups in the early stages of development; communications, marketing and networking (R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services, 1999). During the 2005 Ontario Trails Strategy process, trail proponents raised twelve common challenges outlined in Table 4.

Table 4: Twelve Challenges Facing the Ontario Trails Community.

Table 4: Twelve Challenges Facing the Ontario Trails Community.

1 - Coordination of trail groups 7 - Need for public trail benefits and etiquette education

2 - Need for easily accessible information 8 - Review of public policy

3 - Cost of liability insurance 9 - Increase trail user-ship

4 - Lack of funding and land resources 10 - Need for improved trail safety

5 - Inadequate trail access for OHVs 11 - Rural community challenges

6 - Access to private land 12 - Rail corridor challenges

Source: Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion (2005).

Public policy is critical in creating a trail-friendly atmosphere (R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services, 1999). New Brunswick's successful strategic planning process and Quebec's provincial mandated to support the trail development, as exemplified by the 4000 kilometer Route Verte' for cycling exemplify jurisdictions with trail-friendly public

37 policy (R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services, 1999). In addition to trail amenable public policy, both provinces are largely crown land (Richard, 2007).

The National Trail concept was never realized due to the challenges of catering to both national and regional interests, in addition to planning and organizational weaknesses (Campbell, 2000). Both cases illustrate the challenge of developing multi-provincial routes when jurisdictional powers over natural resources, including trail development, rest with the provinces (BNA Act, 1867). The TCT by contrast, will be the world's longest recreational LDT when completed. The TCT has been more successful than other LDTs because it fully embraced the multi-use concept, it received greater federal financial support associated with 'Canada 125', and it made use of existing trails and routes such as abandoned rail lines (R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services, 1999; Campbell, 2000).

3.4 SHELTER AND ACCOMMODATION

3.4.1 SHELTER AND ACCOMMODATION USE ON LONG-DISTANCE TRAILS

The nature of a LDT, according to both McNamee (1983) and Cook and Harrison's (2002) definitions, requires users to overnight at either designated or undesignated points. Typically, LDTs have designated overnighting areas which may involve the use of a tent transported by the user, or a fixed-roof accommodation, which are intended for recreationists, tourists, or both (Hugo, 1999).

Some LDTs employ the use of a purpose-built network of fixed-roof shelters, a design- concept which exists globally varying in location, purpose, and use. An example, using Cook and Harrison's LDT definition (2002) is New Zealand's Milford Track which allows the user to hike multiple days 'hut-to-hut' along a backcountry trail. Sutton and Cessford note "it would not be out of place to state that the hut and track (trail) network represents the backbone of New Zealand's outdoor recreation opportunity in protected areas" (2007, p.66). England's Pennine Way, which suits McNamee's LDT definition

38 (1983) allows the user to walk multiple days between commercial accommodations such as hostels and bed and breakfasts, along a countryside right-of-way path.

The backcountry/wilderness 'hut' concept for outdoor recreation was first developed in the Heidi high-country of Western Europe in the early 1800's where hikers, skiers, and Romantic poets traveled from refuge to refuge across the Alps, such as the Italian 'rifugi' (Reynolds, 2002). Wilderness huts "provide wonderful destinations and serve as centers to meet people, share stories, obtain information, and have shelter from the (elements)" (Shapins Associates, 2000, p. 8). The facilities are normally basic, providing only bunks, rudimentary furniture, and a pit toilet (Hugo, 1999).

Perhaps the first use of commercial accommodation for LDTs was in the United Kingdom, where after the First World War, rambling (walking) clubs proliferated in number and membership simultaneous to federations formed to address countryside access. As noted by Aitchison et al., (2000): "A practical and popular outcome of a special meeting of the Liverpool and District Federation in 1929 was the Youth Hostel Association, formed to widen opportunities for young hikers and others using the network of nearly 400 hostels throughout the United Kingdom by the late 1930s" (p. 60). The 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act proclaimed a new era in which public access for outdoor recreation and protection of special landscapes were seen as complimentary goals of public policy (Aitchison et al., 2000). Introducing the bill, First Minister of Town and Country Planning Lewis Silkin called it:

A people's charter for the open air, for the hikers and the ramblers, for everyone who loves to get out into the open air and enjoy the countryside. Without it they are fettered, deprived of their powers of access and facilities needed to make holidays enjoyable. With it, the countryside is theirs to preserve, to cherish, to enjoy and to make their own (Hansard, 31 March 1949, in Aitchison et al., 2000, p.46).

3.4.2 SHELTER AND ACCOMMODATION RANGE AND TERMINOLOGY

The term 'hut-to-hut' identifies linked wilderness shelters for outdoor recreation, and is commonly used in New Zealand, Norway, the European Alps, and in the western USA.

39 By contrast, there is minimal terminology that describes linked shelters that include commercial accommodations in more rural and urban locations. Some exceptions include the Superior Trail Hiking Trail Association which describes 'lodge-to-lodge hiking' (Superior Hiking Trail Association, 2009), the Bruce Trail's 'Home-to-Home Bed and Breakfast Network' (Home to Home Network, 2007) and the United Kingdom's 'Walkers are Welcome Towns Network' (Walkers are Welcome Towns Network, 2007).

Shelter and accommodation size and amenities depend on location, management, season and use. Basic shelter amenities are context dependent, and range from three walls and a roof, to a hut including a wood stove, bunks, a table and benches, an outhouse and a nearby water source. Basic shelters are typically in a wilderness setting and include bivy, bivouac, hut, cabin, bothie, shack, refuge, and cabin. Commercial accommodation may include on-site staff, food, bedding, lighting, and plumbing, and may occur in wilderness, rural, and urban settings. Commercial accommodations may include inns, pubs, hotels, motels, hostels, farm-stays, chalets, bed and breakfasts, lodges and tea-houses. The range shelters associated with an LDT are outlined on Figure 2.

There is no over-arching/term which encompasses the concept and the range of shelter possibilities. The term 'shelter' is the broadest and in the case of an LDT, can range from the basic wilderness/backcountry shelter to the full-service lodging of commercial accommodation. This research will use the term 'shelter' when generically appropriate. The term 'hut' will be used to specifically denote wilderness/backcountry/remote shelters, and 'commercial accommodation' will denote rural and urban shelter locations unless otherwise noted. Commercial huts exist in the European Alps and New Hampshire, USA; however, given the Nova Scotia context, these arrangements are not likely to apply in the development of a LDT.

40 Range of Long-Distance Trail Shelters

Less'*' Amenities -*~More

f Simple Hut J Commercial Lean-to Staffed Lodge ^Accommodation^

B&B • Self-sufficient Inn • Own food and cookware Pub •Own bedding 1 Hotel / motel Hostel / bunkhouse Farm-stay 'Wilderness' backcountry * Location •*• Rural Urban remote

Figure 2: Range of Long-Distance Trail Shelters.

3.4.3 SHELTERS: LOCATIONS AND DESIGN

Broadly, there are two LDT designs that incorporate shelters. The first is to link existing shelters with a trail or route, as is the case between populated areas that offer commercial accommodation. The second is "the location of individual facilities deliberately planned to provide an integrated network" (Baud-Bovy & Lawson, 1998, p. 203) and is more typical in natural settings. LDTs can combine both designs. Location and design are typically motivated by outdoor recreation needs and / or tourism needs (Baud-Bovy & Lawson, 1998; Hugo, 1999). Distinction between the two categories is not always clear because sections of trail and shelters can be added to existing LDTs.

Wilderness hut-to-hut systems exist throughout Europe, with Norway and Italy offering the most extensive alpine-hut systems (Baud-Bovy & Lawson, 1998; Hugo, 1999). In the

41 USA, the AT uses lean-to's as well as mountain lodges in New Hampshire's White Mountains. Colorado's 10th Mountain Division operates three hike or ski hut-systems, while Utah's San Juan Hut System caters to mountain-bikers. South Africa's Amatola Trail, Chile's Torres del Paine Trail, Argentina's Fitz Roy region, and Australia's Great Bushwalks all use the wilderness hut-to-hut concept. Perhaps New Zealand has the most extensive hut-to-hut system, managed by the Department of Conservation (DOC) and including over 950 public huts (DOC, 2008).

The concept of traveling along a LDT shelter-to-shelter also exists in rural landscapes and typically incorporates commercial accommodation. England's National Trails, such as the Pennine Way, use a variety of shelters and accommodations including youth hostels, inns, hotels, bunkhouses, bunk accommodation, bed and breakfasts, and camping facilities. Scotland's West Highland Way is similar, with the addition of 'bothies' (stone shelter). Spain's Camino de Santiago de Compostela pilgrimage uses a blend of commercial accommodations. Nepal's many treks, such as the Annapurna Circuit, connect pre-existing trade routes with tea houses that provide accommodation to trekkers.

Shelters are utilized in Canada. Scott's Backcountry Huts and Lodges of the Rockies and Columbias (2001) notes over 120 commercial, private, and public shelters, such as the 28 operated by the Alpine Club of Canada (ACC) (ACC, 2008). Numerous provincial governments and Parks Canada operate a number of backcountry/wilderness shelters available to recreationists in parks and on crown land.

Few of these wilderness shelters, however, are connected to a greater network of wilderness shelters such as a hut-to-hut system. The province of Quebec is the exception with wilderness shelters in 24 parks and wildlife reserves, many arranged in a network or circuit, such as the 'refuges' in the Gaspe's Chic-Choc mountains and 'Le Traversee Charlevoix' (Sepaq, 2008). Alberta's 'Wapta Ice Fields Traverse' is the other exception, which links three ACC wilderness huts for backcountry ski-touring (ACC, 2008).

42 Canadian examples of LDTs that incorporate the use of commercial accommodations include Ontario's Bruce Trail, portions of Quebec's Route Verte, Prince Edward Island's Confederation Trail, New Brunswick's Fundy Footpath and Newfoundland's ECT. No regional shelter-endowed LDT exists in Nova Scotia.

3.4.5 EXISTING SHELTER-ASSOCIATED LONG-DISTANCE TRAILS

An examination of existing LDTs can provide some insight into key development factors. There is substantial diversity in existing LDTs based on their geographical and cultural contexts. As this thesis considers LDT development in Nova Scotia, Canada, only models from developed countries are examined. Selected LDTs that incorporate shelters are described in Appendix D.

3.4.6 SHELTERS: COMMON THEMES

The LDTs highlighted in Appendix D share general characteristics. The fundamental purpose is to provide an outdoor recreational service, intended to satisfy a social agenda more so than an economic one. Second, users employ pedestrian forms of transportation. Third, all LDTs receive aid from the state, including direct or in-kind funding and/or support. Shared geophysical characteristics include: an aesthetically appealing landscape, the appropriate shelter use-per context designation, namely existing commercial accommodation in rural areas, and a primary shelter purpose to provide refuge and a destination. As noted by Baud-Bovy and Lawson (1998) the interface between outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism is ambiguous. Highlighted LDTs are those that prioritized outdoor recreation because the C2C concept is envisioned primarily as an outdoor recreation opportunity.

3.4.7 SHELTERS: BENEFITS

The development of recreation facilities, such as wilderness shelters, can diminish and manage recreation-use impacts by focusing use away from sensitive areas (Jensen 1995;

43 Higham, 1998; Crowe & Reid, 1998; Vaske et al., 2000). Butler (2000) argued that the net-effect of providing accommodation in protected areas can be positive:

Well-designed lodging operating under the proper controls can be less intrusive than a poorly located and operated campsite. In many protected areas, there seems to be no ecological rationale for allowing camping over other forms of accommodation; the only justification being belief that people who camp are somehow more deserved of being able to overnight than those who would prefer more comfortable forms of shelter (p. 333).

The provision of shelters can increase accessibility because participation levels increase and social inequalities can be overcome by increased facility provision (Crowe & Reid, 1998; Hugo, 1999; Roberts, 1989, in Glyptis, 1993). New Zealand's DOC has concluded that most backpackers are 'backcountry comfort seeker', which means that most New Zealanders, and especially international visitors, want facilities such as huts as part of their backcountry/wilderness experience (Higham, 1998).

There is much psychological research related to 'place attachment' and 'place dependence' in nature (Davenport & Anderson, 2005; Fredrickson & Anderson, 1999; Kyle, Graefe, Manning, & Bacon, 2004). The place attachment construct examines the meaning places pose on people, representing a bond between an individual and a specific place (Guiliani & Feldman, 1993; Williams & Patterson, 1999). Place dependence represents the importance of a resource for providing amenities necessary for a coveted activity (Williams & Roggenbuck, 1989).

Place in an outdoor recreation context may also provide the venue for social interaction (Kyle et al., 2004). In New Zealand, backcountry/wilderness huts provide "more than a roof over your head"; they embody a cultural ethos with meanings associated through personal and communal experience and interpretation (Quigg, 1993. p.i). In a 2006 study conducted in New Zealand's Mt Aspiring National Park of mountain climbers using the Todd Hut, the majority of users had positive experiences because other hut-users were viewed as having similar sets of values and engaged in similar activities, which spurred friendship through the sharing of information and experiences (Squires, 2008). Harmony

44 among outdoor recreationists is facilitated by shared user characteristics (Cessford, 1997; Manning, 1999; Trauer & Ryan, 2004).

Using existing commercial accommodation reduces the need to build shelters in wilderness settings, which in itself is an impact, and would be context and motive dependent.

3.4.8 SHELTERS: COSTS AND ISSUES

A measure of environmental impact is unavoidable at any overnight site where a group of people is concentrated (Hugo, 1999). While wilderness shelters can reduce ecological damages, some have been shown to have negative ecological impacts, including waste management and ground trampling around the shelter (Higham, Kearsley, & Kliskey, 2000; Cole, 1995; in Bennett et al., 2003).

Backcountry shelters can dramatically affect experiential components by removing some of the wilderness by attracting greater use (Higham, 1998; Jensen, 1995; Vaske et al., 2000). Crowding in wilderness huts can diminish the wilderness experience for the user (Kearsley & Coughlan, 1999) may lead to competition for 'good' spots (Higham et al., 2000) and may introduce additional development and management costs (Hugo, 1999).

While discussing the Scottish mountain bothies, Crowe and Reid (1998) highlighted issues associate with increased shelter use: vandalism, pollution, conflict with private landowners, and conflict with conservation groups. It should be noted that Scotland is not representative of all LDT shelter scenarios, however, certain themes are common and can be anticipated.

3.5 KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEVELOPING A LONG-DISTANCE TRAIL

'Key considerations' are those elements necessary to make a LDT feasible and sustainable over time. LDTs must be planned with economic, ecological and social considerations in mind (Hugo, 1999; Cook & Harrison, 2002). Providing economically, ecologically and socially sustainable trails is much more than providing paths for people

45 to walk in the countryside: they must be "financially viable, community friendly, educationally enlightening, psychologically satisfying and environmentally sustainable" (Hugo, 1999, p. 140).

Eight studies identified generic criteria and characteristics for LDT development. Table 5 identifies the key considerations in a hierarchical order determined by the number of sources which identified them. These 13 key considerations will be described below. There is no literature specific to developing LDTs in Nova Scotia.

Table 5: Literature Summary of the Key Considerations for Developing a LDT.

Table 5: Literature Summary of the Key Considerations for Developing a LDT.

SOURCE

13 KEY CONSIDERATIONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 - Establish vision with common goal and objectives • • • • •

2 - Create a management plan • • • •

3 - Plan for and don't underestimate maintenance • • •

4 - Develop diverse partnerships • • • •

5 - Acquire public and private funding and support • • •

6 - Market and promote the trail and associated benefits • •

7 - Smart design and minimal amount of infrastructure •

8 - Must include and benefit local communities • •

9 - Private landowner support and consent • •

10 - Have liability documentation on outset •

11 - Transparent communication with stakeholders *

12 - Consider services, accommodation and amenities •

13 - Minimize user conflicts • •

Sources: (1) ARPA (20021. (2) Economic Planning Group (2003V (3) Eyler et al. (2008). (4)Hugo (1999). (5) National Wayward Way Advisory Committee (2006). (6) R..T Irvine Recreation Planning Services (1999). (7) Scottish National Heritage (1997). and (8) Vamedoe (1994V

46 The 13 key considerations for developing a LDT are further described below. Additional literature is also referenced that supports claims made in the above eight LDT development-specific studies.

3.5.1 VISION

The literature suggests that establishing a common vision is fundamental to developing a sustainable LDT, yet is often overlooked (Eyler at al., 2008; Hugo, 1999). Hugo's (1999) 'Comprehensive Trail Development Model' illustrates developing a common goal and objectives as part of the assessment stage, as outlined in Appendix E. R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services (1999) argues that creating a vision early is fundamental, and advocate that proponents move past the technical issues so that the big-picture surfaces, and then return to develop a comprehensive trail systems plan using strategic planning techniques. Alberta Recreation and Parks Association (ARPA) notes the following questions need to be addressed as part of the visioning process: what is the purpose of the IDT; who will do what and with what commitment; what are the costs and where will the money come from; who makes decisions and who is accountable; and what is expected of landowners, municipalities, and the provincial government (2002).

3.5.2 MANAGEMENT PLAN

Strategic planning is a fundamental and critical component of a sustainable LDT (ARPA, 2002; McLean, Bannon & Gray, 1998). Foresight through the master planning process is a critical component of successful trail development (Eyler et al., 2008). McLean et al. (1998) advocate for the 'capability to implement' strategic planning phase which involves the first focused look at the organization's ability and potential to accomplish a specific task or group of tasks within a strategic plan. In addition, the organization should develop an analysis looking internally at the strengths and weaknesses of the organization, and externally at opportunities and threats in the operating environment (SWOT analysis) (McLean et al., 1998). Hugo notes that prior to LDT implementation, proponents must first pursue assessment, planning and evaluation (Hugo, 1999).

47 According to the Economic Planning Group, the management plan should develop a "rational system that clarifies roles for community groups, departments and agencies, provides funding and support for mechanisms, and incentives for volunteer groups" (2003, p.8). Furthermore, the master plan should determine the following costs: feasibility study, expert consultation, and construction and maintenance (Hugo, 1999; NWWAC, 2006; R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services, 1999).

3.5.3 MAINTENANCE

Maintenance is a key element of a sustainable LDT. Initial planning should simultaneously plan for maintenance (Varnedoe, 1994). A 2000 report produced for the Colorado State Trails Committee stated: "If trails are initially well planned, designed, and constructed, long-term maintenance and management will be reduced. In addition, if trails are well managed to lessen impacts, the trail will remain more successful" (Shapins Associates, p. 16). Maintenance can be particularly challenging for community-managed LDTs (Economic Planning Group, 2003; NWWAC, 2006). Up-front needs for trail maintenance should not be underestimated because securing long-term funding is challenging and often overlooked (ARPA, 2002; Shapins Associates, 2000).

3.5.4 PARTNERSHIPS

Partnerships are critical to LDT development. Partnership diversity is important, and partners should include government, private, and not-for-profit organizations (Eyler et al., 2008). Partners should also include user groups, the tourism industry, youth leadership organizations, existing trail organizations, local communities and conservation groups (Harrison et al., in Cook and Harrison, 2002; R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services (1999). According to Shapins Associates (2000)

All trails are generally managed by a variety of partnership arrangements. While partnerships are essential to creating a community-based resource that contributes to the long term success of the project, typically one organization become the 'enduring' management and maintenance entity. Therefore, it is critical that

48 maintenance responsibilities, both labour and financial, be determined when selecting partner-sponsors (p. 16).

Common ground should be sought because partnerships can be complex and common ground will help develop collaboration (Economos et al., 2001; Eyler et al., 2008). Eyler et al. (2008, p.422) note that "Partnership diversity adds a complexity to reaching compromises and understanding priorities. Successful collaboration requires committed leaders, effectiveness in consensus building, multiple group meetings, and most important, perseverance".

In addition, proponents should seek political and community leadership to help find and capitalize on opportunities for development, collaboration across groups, and the location of funding sources (Eyler et al., 2008). Furthermore, proponents should engage with advocacy and community groups to utilize existing experience and expertise, and to sell overall LDT-related community improvements (Eyler et al., 2008)

The state must be a partner in a sustainable LDT and provide leadership in the areas of technical support and advice, facilitation, funding, management (Economic Planning Group, 2003), and provide expertise and instituted programs of incentives to encourage good landowner stewardship of trails (McNamee, 1983). R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services (1999) state that governments should empower LDT proponents. Furthermore, the role of regional and local authorities in outdoor recreation is vital when agreements between neighboring municipalities are required (Baud-Bovy & Lawson, 1998). One of the major challenges facing the ECT, for example, was inconsistent and non-supportive municipal zoning issues (D.W. Knight Associates Team, 2005).

Governments need to support LDT development via legislation, appropriation, and organizational support (McNamee, 1983; NSDHPP, 2005). Bureaucratic processes, permits, inspections, and meeting requirements add time to the already long LDT development process, as well as mixed government signals which have led to proponent frustration and burn-out (Eyler et al., 2008). The development of the IAT was relatively

49 smooth in New Brunswick and Quebec because both provincial governments were partners (Richard, 1997).

3.5.5 FUNDING

Funding is a key LDT development consideration (Economic Planning Group, 2003; NWWAC, 2006). Proponents must understand funding guidelines and processes necessary to acquiring private and public funds (NSDHPP, 2005; R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services, 1999). NSDHPP (2005) notes that government commitment to support trail development and management is critical in Nova Scotia.

3.5.6 MARKETING AND PROMOTION

LDTs need to be marketed and promoted to increase project support and user-ship. Marketing should consider what the trail offers, who the trail is targeting and by what means (NWWAC, 2006). Marketing is critical if a tourism-demand generator is desired (Economic Planning Group, 2003).

Moore and Barthlow (1998) note trail-related benefits are.not generally recognized by the general public or even most trail users and that documenting benefits can be a valuable tool for a better-informed and more supportive public. Fostering public appreciation of associated trail benefits is a challenge facing the Ontario trail community (Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion, 2005).

3.5.7 INFRASTRUCTURE

Trail proponents must carefully consider the costs and benefits of trail infrastructure needs (NWWAC, 2006). Hugo (1999) and Varnedoe (1994) note infrastructure quality and quantity is directly proportional to maintenance requirements. Baud-Bovy and Lawson (1998) and Hugo (1999) note that key planning principles must consider accessibility, define character, avoid over-design, minimize environmental impact, develop multiple use facilities, and avoid high maintenance costs.

50 3.5.8 LOCAL COMMUNITIES

Broad stakeholder consultation and community involvement in LDT development is critical (Eyler et al., 2008; NWWAC, 2006; Sutton & Cessford, 2007). According to Eyler et al. (2008) "In addition to leadership and community-group involvement, input from community residents in the plans and making citizens aware of the policies can facilitate trail development and helps to make the process an integrated initiative" (p. 423). McLean et al. (1998) argue that excluding citizen-involvement from the planning process is a common error in recreation planning. McLean et al. (1998) state:

As recreation planners, we often commit the offense of perceiving those we serve as citizens who should be delighted and responsive to what (planners) decide to offer them with a 'Professional-knows-best' arrogance... planners must systematically determine what the recreation needs and desires of a community's residents are (p. 193).

The planning process must be open and inclusive and "respond to locally-based needs, values and conditions" (Mertes & Hall, 1996, in McLean et al., 1998, p. 154) because local people live with the decisions of the trail corridor (McNamee, 1983). The strength of the ECT is that communities want and take pride in the trail because they are involved (D.W. Knight Associates Team, 2005).

3.5.9 PRIVATE LANDOWNERS

Land access for trail-use is generally a challenge because of competing public and private interests (Economic Planning Group, 2003; Eyler et al., 2008; NWWAC, 2006; Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion, 2005). LDT organizations generally do not predict the level of private landowner opposition and seldom take effective steps to placate concerns (McNamee, 1983). Jensen (1995) notes one challenge in developing LDTs is due to long study periods and difficulty in obtaining trail access easements over private lands, which results in the sentiment that development is moving too slow.

Involving landowners in the development process is a key LDT development consideration (McNamee, 1983). The AT demonstrated that an open planning process is

51 required to avoid consequences that alienate landowners (McNamee, 1983). Landowner involvement will help create precedent which is fundamental given the high number of individual and commercial landowners. The UBoFBI failed partly because proponents did not adequately engage the community or landowners (Canning, 2005).

Cordell et al. (1990) and Jensen (1995) note that many private landowners are reluctant to provide access to their land for public use for fear of infringements on their property rights, especially without economic incentives or protection of their original land-use rights. Other issues include land valuation change, safety surrounding strangers in the community, detailed access requirements and maintenance (Eyler et al., 2008). Glyptis (1989) notes many landowners are opposed to any increase in public access to their private lands, even with financial incentives.

3.5.10 LIABILITY

Liability is a key component to LDT development (Jensen, 1995; NWWAC, 2006). Trail proponents should secure liability documentation during initial development stages (ARPA, 2002) and should understand and communicate issues surrounding liability to LDT stakeholders (Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion, 2005).

3.5.11 COMMUNICATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS

Comprehensive stakeholder communication is critical particularly during initial LDT planning (Economic Planning Group, 2003). Trail proponents need to address how trail programs and projects will be implemented (R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services, 1999), and need to provide easy access to relevant information (Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion, 2005; NSDHPP, 2005). Public safety and potential for crime on trails are issues commonly raised in LDT public meetings and consultations (R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services, 1999).

52 3.5.12 CONSIDER SERVICES, ACCOMMODATION AND AMENITIES

Given Cook and Harrison's (2002) LDT definition of a trail requiring at least one overnight stop, rural and urban LDTs require access to accommodation, services and amenities. Access to local services such as food, accommodation and transportation is a positive trail feature (NWWAC, 2006) and will facilitate community support (Economic Planning Group, 2003). Access to local services often requires multiple access points (Potter & Manning, 1984). Scotland's West Highland Way LDT use of the 'Walkers are Welcome Towns Network' is a successful example (Economic Planning Group, 2003).

3.5.13 USER-CONFLICTS

Trails can have multiple recreational uses and often different activities may be interpreted as incompatible leading to potential conflict. Thapa and Graefe (2003) suggest conflicts are most likely to happen between motorized and non-motorized recreationists. One challenge facing the Ontario trails community is proper use of OHVs on designated trails (Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion, 2005). OHVs are often a source of conflict within the Nova Scotian outdoor recreation community (Janmaat & VanBlarcom, 2009; Nova Scotia Voluntary Planning, 2004). Conflict between hikers and cyclists is also common on trails (Goeft & Alder, 2001; Jensen, 1995).

ARPA (2002) notes that: "Trail proponents need a comprehensive long-term trail management plan to mitigate potential conflicts between user-groups, trail operators, landowners, wildlife, and hosting communities" (p.3). McNamee (1983) argues that LDT proponents should understand conflict management. R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services (1999) note that it is not uncommon that trail developers are expected to 'share the trail', and that trail proponents should anticipate the multiple-use trail management trend. Moore and Bartlow (1998) suggest trail proponents should avoid alienating different trail users because conflict can weaken the entire trail development movement.

53 3.6 CONCLUSION

In recent years there has been a growth in the popularity of trail-related outdoor recreation activities including hiking. LDTs benefit society in the economic, social, health and environmental sectors. A review of the outdoor recreation and LDT planning literature suggests that developing a LDT involves much more than simply building a trail. There is consensus in the literature that a variety of criteria must be considered to develop a sustainable LDT. Thirteen key considerations were identified and described, including developing a common vision, creating a management plan, preparing for long- term maintenance, developing a diverse partnership, public and private funding sources, marketing and promoting the LDT and the associated benefits, and other considerations. Many of these are fundamental aspects of all recreation-project developments.

No attention is given in the LDT literature to current changes in outdoor recreation patterns. While walking and hiking are still among the most popular forms of outdoor recreation, there is a growing trend towards single-day/high-adrenaline forms of activities. While this may be beyond the scope of proximate LDT development considerations, it does beg the more fundamental question of whether the LDT should be built in the first place. Glyptis (1993), however, notes that LDTs are necessary for there to be trail-related outdoor recreationists. Furthermore, there are residual benefits reported from LDT (Go for Green, 2005).

The body of literature in which the key considerations for developing LDTs are described does not contain examples of particular case studies. Case studies provide the potential to assess the similarities and differences between general considerations recommended in the literature with those being utilized by proponents on the ground. They can elucidate differences in considerations based on specific economic, biogeographical, social and cultural contexts. A case study of the C2C provides an opportunity to compare the key considerations identified in the literature with those specific to developing a LDT in this region of Nova Scotia. The C2C is proposed as Nova Scotia's first LDT for non- motorized users and may serve as a precedent for future LDT developments in the

54 province. Consequently, an examination of C2C will provide for case-specific comparisons with the key considerations as described in the literature, as well as timely and useful information for trail development in the C2C context as well as in Nova Scotia more generally. The findings may also be of more general scholarly and practical interest among LDT and outdoor recreation scholars and practitioners elsewhere in Canada and beyond, where similar conditions may exist.

55 CHAPTER 4 - METHODS

Key-informants participated in semi-formal recorded interviews surrounding the key considerations for developing the C2C. Quantitative content analysis was conducted to elucidate the major themes from the interview. This chapter will summarize and justify the methods used.

4.1 CASE STUDY

This study's goal was to describe the key considerations for developing a LDT, while focusing on Nova Scotia and using the C2C as a case study. A case study involves "the study of an example - a case - of the phenomenon being researched, aimed at understanding the phenomenon by studying single examples" (Veal p.75). McLean et al. (1998) state:

A case study is an intensive gathering of information on a single or narrowly focussed area of concern. The intent is to investigate thoroughly the history, development, and current status of a particular issue in order to put together a comprehensive picture or story. A carefully researched and documented case study can help planners to better understand the evolution of relevant problems and issues, including their inherent dynamics, important interrelationships, and potential implications for the present planning process (p. 314).

4.2 STUDY AREA

The geographic study area includes the following Nova Scotia counties: Antigonish, Pictou, Colchester, and Cumberland. The proposed C2C is intended to cross all four counties. The socioeconomic study area will be province-wide as many stake-holding individuals and organizations are provincial.

4.3 PURPOSE OF STUDY

Studies may have multiple purposes, but one is generally dominant (Neuman, 2004). This study is primarily descriptive, and secondarily exploratory. Descriptive research aims to describe, as far as possible, what is, while exploratory research seeks to discover

56 (Veal, 1997). Neuman (2004) notes that: "Descriptive and exploratory research often blur together in practice. In descriptive research, a researcher begins with a well-defined subject and conducts a study to describe it accurately and the outcome is a detailed picture of the subject" (p. 16).

4.4 BASIC AND APPLIED RESEARCH

Basic and applied research adopt different methodological approaches. Basic research emphasizes high methodological standards, whereas applied research places research into the constraints of an applied setting and balances rigor against practical needs (Neuman, 2004). Veal (1997) notes that applied research is generally "designed to find solutions to problems which arise in particular policy, planning, or management situations" (p. 28). The practical and theoretical nature of this topic requires both approaches to gain a comprehensive view. Furthermore, this study's goal of describing the key considerations for developing the C2C LDT is an exercise of providing answers to a pressing problem, which is applied research (Mitra & Lankford, 1999).

4.5 SELECTION OF METHODS

This research employed open-ended semi-structured interviews of C2C key-informants. In order to achieve this study's goal, certain people needed to be approached to provide insight. Interviewing was selected over surveying because LDTs are not well-established or understood in Nova Scotia, and at the time this research began, the C2C as a concept was not yet 'public'. Interviews are "purposeful conversations conducted in a disciplined manner" (Mitra & Lankford, 1999, p. 56) and as such can provide data on topics that might possibly be missed in a survey. A semi-structured process allows flexibility, which allows the interviewer latitude to ask further questions in response to what are seen as significant replies, and allows the interviewee to frame how they understand issues and events (Bryman, 2004). The researcher prompts the conversation so that the respondent's perspectives unfold unconstrained by the researcher's preconceived classifications (Sullivan, 2001). Bryman (2004) describes a semi-structured interview as

57 a term that covers a wide range of instances. It typically refers to a context in which the interviewer has a series of questions that are in general form of an interview schedule but is able to vary the sequence of questions. The questions are frequently somewhat more general in their frame of reference from that typically found in a structured interview schedule (p. 113).

Leech (2002) describes semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions as opportunities where "one can provide detail, depth, and an insider's perspective, while at the same time allow hypothesis testing and the quantitative analysis of interview responses" (p. 665). Furthermore, semi-structured interviews allow respondents the opportunity to be the experts and to inform the research (Leech, 2002).

According to Mitra and Lankford (1999) structured interviews are considered a quantitative method but note this distinction is based on a fine line: "If the questions contain pre-determined response categories, the method is leaning towards being quantitative or structured. However, if the questions are open-ended, the method may be categorized as qualitative or unstructured" (p. 56). Semi-structured questions were chosen to facilitate an open-ended interview.

Key-informants are persons who are particularly close to and knowledgeable about a topic or issue (Sullivan, 2001). McLean et al. (1998) note that

The use of key informants is a rather common technique for gathering important and sensitive community information, but it is not always recognized as an assessment tool in the planning process. Input in the form if recommendation, advice, or insight is sought from authoritative individuals in the community, such as members of established advisory boards or committees, blue ribbon task forces, neighbourhood councils, recognized experts in their field etc. The information provided to park and recreation planners by such individuals is usually up-to-date and in-touch with specific issues, technical requirements, and professional concerns facing the community (p. 312).

4.6 SAMPLING AND INTERVIEWING

Key-informants were identified through 'snowball' sampling whereby initial subjects generate additional subjects (Dewalt, 2002). Sampling is 'purposive', a non-probability sampling technique, where investigators use judgment and prior knowledge to select

58 people suitable for the study needs (Monette, Sullivan, & DeJong, 1998). All recruited research participants were familiar with or aware of the C2C, LDTs, or both. The snowball technique is often used by planners, because "planners often do not know who all interested parties or individuals may be in the initial stages of a community survey or project" (McLean et al., 1998, p. 310). In this study, key-informants were first identified by snowball sampling. These informants recommended additional informants. They include C2C proponents, trail and hiking organization representatives, trail-development professionals, and representatives from key government departments: NSE, NSDNR, and NSDHPP. The researcher was asked by C2C proponents not to contact private landowners.

Participants were recruited by the researcher through email and by telephone. Introduction letters (see Appendix F: Interview Request Letter) were sent via email concurrent with initial communication, or after prior phone or personal conversation. Consent forms (see Appendix G: Formal Interview Consent Form) were signed prior to the interview; in the case of phone interviews, verbal consent was given. Interview times and locations were subsequently arranged.

To ensure all participants had a basic and common understanding of the use of shelters along a LDT, a utility sheet (see Appendix H: The Hut-to-Hut Concept Explained) was prepared and sent to all participants prior to interviews. In addition, a diagram illustrating the range of possible LDT shelters was provided during the interview (see Figure 2: Range of Long-Distance Trail Shelters, Chapter 2).

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eighteen key-informants between September 2007 and April 2008. Semi-structured interviews followed an interview- schedule (Bryman, 2004) (see Appendix I: Interview Schedule). Interview questions were designed in consideration with the academic and applied literature, noted below, and in an exploratory system that focused on teasing out what key-informants identified as the key considerations to developing the C2C LDT. Interviews were audio-recorded and field notes were taken, both with permission, to allow a more methodical and complete

59 analysis of results (Veal, 1997). Interviews were transcribed, reviewed and organized according to the interview schedule (Yin, 1994). Key-informants were then able to review transcripts. Interviews were assigned a number code to maintain anonymity.

Data was then organized using 'mind mapping', a "visual form of brainstorming" (Veal, 1997, p. 46) and a visual aid that helps the user to grasp and depict the essence of data (Mento, Martinelli, & Jones, 1999) in which the major categories radiate from a central image and lesser categories are portrayed as branches of larger branches (Budd, 2004). Multiple mind mapping programs are available for free or for purchase. This researcher used Mind Jet software (Mind Jet, 2009).

Mind mapping assisted in organizing the raw data into loosely anticipated general thematic concepts, based on themes identified in the LDT academic literature (Baud- Bovy & Lawson, 1998; Bowker & Gill, 2004; Cook & Harrison, 2002; Crowe & Reid, 1998; Eyler et al., 2008; Hugo, 1999; Moore & Barthlow, 1998; Morrow, 2005) and LDT applied literature (Alaska Mountain and Wilderness Huts Association, 2004; Alberta Recreation and Parks Association, 2002; Alta Planning and Design, 2005; D.W. Knight Associates Team, 2005; Economic Planning Group, 2003; National Wayward Way Advisory Committee, 2006; New Zealand Department of Conservation, 2004; R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services, 1999; Scottish National Heritage, 1997; Synergy Management Group & Chris Roddan, 2000; Tasmania Department of Tourism, Arts and Education, 2007; Varnedoe, 1994).

Mind-mapping enables the researcher to place the semi-structured interview data into a series of consistent frameworks (Barry, 1998). The data is matched under a pre-ascribed interview data structure, which is based on initial data scanning and the trail-development interview structure developed by Eyler et al., (2008) and selected because it was the only one found in the LDT-development literature. All individual transcript data were placed into the Interview Data Structure as a mind-map foundation (see Figure 3). Eighteen individual data structures were created to organize the transcripts under one consistent format, which facilitated the process of content analysis.

60 1 - VISION AND PURPOSE 3 - PLANNING PROCESS

INTERVIEW DATA STRUCTURE

2 - ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT 4- LONG-DISTANCE TRAIL DEVELOPMENT

Figure 3: Interview Data Structure.

Below is an example of key considerations derived from the coding of one key- informant's transcript, as organized according to the Interview Data Structure (see Figure 4). Some codes, such as 'Address role of OHV Users', are consistent across interview data structures for all 18 key informants.

Create common vision of C2C Incorporate commercial accommodation 1 - VISION AND PURPOSE H 1 Address role of OHV users , Most nikers don,t mind Snarinfl

Clarify role and accountability

Must be community led -Y~f 2 - ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT}- INTERVIEW DATA STRUCTURE: Necessary proponent characteristic Key-Informant #16 (Key considerations for developing the C2C LDT) Long-term planning Maintenance Community trail development model: Improve 3 - PLANNING PROCESS Liability: confirmation and clarification Private landowner support

Understand existing LDT models 4 - LONC-DISTANCE TRAIL DEVELOPMENT^ New 'wilderness' shelter development: pick a pil

Figure 4: Example of Interview Data Structure in Practice.

4.7 DATA ANALYSIS

Interview transcripts were initially scanned for common sub-themes and organized with the pre-existing themes situated in the literature. Sub-themes were placed into the pre­ determined themes highlighted above in Figure 4, as derived from the literature. Re- occurring sub-themes were grouped, synthesized, and collapsed in an iterative fashion. Under each sub-theme, all relevant data identified in the transcripts were organized in accordance with the coding manual, and the number of occurrences was quantified.

61 Mind-mapping was used instead of spreadsheets, which are more commonly used (Veal, 1997) because the researcher found it to be more efficient for the iterative process of continually adding and sorting data, and because it achieves the same purpose of visually displaying results.

The contents of the transcripts were systematically analyzed using content analysis. The purpose of content analysis is to describe the messages embedded in the data (Mitra & Lankford, 1999). Krippendorff (1980) described content analysis as a method of transforming the symbolic content of a document or medium from a qualitative, unsystematic form into a quantitative, systematic form (Sullivan, 2001). Content analysis is a form of coding, which refers to categorizing behaviors or elements into a limited number of categories (Sullivan, 2001). The aim of content analysis is to reveal the information that is not situated at the surface of the transcripts (De Wever, Schellens, Valcke, & Van Keer, 2006).

Content analysis is a highly quantified technique (Veal, 1997) generally utilized for the quantified analysis of secondary texts and documents (Mitra & Lankford, 1999), and often used for descriptive research (Mitra & Lankford, 1999; Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 2000). Content analysis is flexible and can be applied to a wide range of phenomena including semi-structured interviews (Bryman, 2004), however there are no consistent principles or standards to content analysis (De Wever et al., 2006).

The term 'content analysis' generally denotes quantitative analysis and is sometimes labeled 'quantitative content analysis' (Bryman, 2004) but can also be used in qualitative analysis (Mitra & Lankford, 1999). Content analysis can be deductive in that the quantification of frequencies occurs in the tabulation (Mitra & Lankford, 1999). This research will use the term content analysis to denote a deductive and quantitative form.

Existing coding schemes can be used, though if not available new ones must be developed (Sullivan, 2001). A coding scheme is a measure, or operational definition, of the content of a document, and must be exhaustive and mutually exclusive (Sullivan,

62 2001). Categories are 'exhaustive' when a category is available for every relevant element in a document and 'mutually exclusive' when each coded item can only fall into one category (Monette et al., 1998). Furthermore, dimensions should have no conceptual or empirical overlap, dimensions should have clear instructions, and the unit of analysis should be clear (Bryman, 2004).

Categories require a unit of analysis and are generally a word, theme, major character, sentence or paragraph (Sullivan, 2001). This research will use a thematic, or subject unit of analysis, which refers to the major subject matter, or part, of a document (Sullivan, 2001). The creation of themes is essentially a categorization of the phenomenon or phenomena of interest, and requires a more interpretive approach (Bryman, 2004). Establishing categories is difficult but necessary in order to code or scan the data (Mitra & Lankford, 1999). Initially, coders should skim the data to identify major and reoccurring themes (Mitra & Lankford, 1999). Once categories are defined, the process is one of locating words, phrases, ideas or meanings that fit into codes (Adams & Schvaneveldt, 1991; in Mitra & Lankford).

Berelson (1952) notes that 'manifest coding' is concerned with "uncovering the apparent content of the item in question: what it is clearly about" (Bryman, 2004, p. 183). According to Holsti (1969), 'manifest coding' refers to coding the more objective or surface content (Sullivan, 2001). 'Latent coding' involves some inference whereby the coder has to decide whether the representation in the text is an occurrence of some broader or more abstract phenomenon (Sullivan, 2001). A thematic unit of analysis requires the researcher to seek both manifest and latent content in order to ask deeper questions about what is happening beneath the surface (Bryman, 2004). Manifest coding is generally more reliable than latent coding, however the latter can be a more effective way to gather complex and theoretically critical social processes and characteristics (Monette et al, 1998). This research will identify manifest coding.

Validity denotes whether the categories developed and the aspects of the content coded are significant indicators of what was intended to be measured (Sullivan, 2001). The

63 development of coding schemes that are valid indicators can be challenging (Monette et al., 1998). Reliability denotes the ability of a measure to yield consistent results, and depends on the skill of the coder, the nature of the categories, the rules guiding the use of the categories, and the degree of clarity or ambiguity in the documents (Holsti, 1969; in Sullivan, 2001). The inevitably subjective nature of a thematic unit of analysis creates a certain tension between validity and reliability in content analysis.

Content analysis requires the creation of a coding manual which is a set of instructions for coders, and includes:

A list of all dimensions, the different categories subsumed under each dimension, the numbers (i.e., codes) that correspond to each category, and guidance on what each dimension is concerned with and any factors that should be taken into account in deciding how to allocate any particular code to each dimension...(and) includes all the dimensions that would be employed in a coding process, indication of guidance order, and the kinds of lists of categories that were created for each dimension (Bryan, 2004, p. 190).

The coding manual is critical because it provides the complete list of all categories for each dimension being coded and direction about interpretation (Bryman, 2004). The development of this study's coding manual was an iterative process that involved the pre­ selection of certain terms (codes) found in the literature, and a preliminary scan of the transcripts for other emerging or unanticipated codes. An iterative process allows for the listing of all codes and sub-codes, categories determination, and collapsing items into similar categories (Mitra & Lankford, 1999).

A coding schedule was also used. A coding schedule is a form where all data relevant to an item being coded will be entered (Bryan, 2004). A 'Presence/Absence' metric was used and is a level of measurement whereby the user notes all elements that emerge for a particular theme (Sullivan, 2001). Existence was noted with a tick under the 'presence column'. The coding manual is available in Appendix J and the coding schedule available in Appendix K.

64 4.8 WEAKNESSES AND JUSTIFICATIONS

Qualitative and quantitative research consist of different avenues for investigation and are associated with important epistemological and ontological considerations. Epistemologically, qualitative inquiry is based in 'interpretivism', while quantitative inquiry utilizes the positivist approach of 'realism' (Bryman, 2004). Interpretivism is founded in the notion that interpretation of social action is subjective (Bryman, 2004). Realism "acknowledges a reality independent of the senses that is accessible to the researcher's tools and theoretical speculation, and implies that the categories created by scientists refer to real objects in the natural or social worlds" (Bryman, 2004, p. 542).

The deductive approach is usually associated with quantitative research but does not always follow the traditional sequence of deductive process (Bryman, 2004). 'Theory' may be little more than the literature on a certain topic in the form of the accumulated knowledge extracted from books and articles, and when theory can be determined explicit hypotheses are not always deduced (Bryman, 2004). In other words, hypothesis specification is not always necessary, and instead theory can act as a loose set of concerns in relation to which data is collected (Bryman, 2004).

This research design is a hybrid of qualitative and quantitative approaches to research, which is unconventional in scientific research. This study utilized non-probability sampling techniques and purposive sampling because of the need to interview C2C proponents, and snowball sampling to discover other key-informants. Non-probablistic sampling is founded in qualitative research and denotes when the probability of each population element being included in the sample is unknown (Sullivan, 2001). However, the interview schedule and the assumptions fundamental to its creation were based in the traditional realist perspective of positivism, which generally denotes a quantitative perspective. Quantitative content analysis can be utilized as a tool of analysis for structured interviews developed from a deductive approach, but not semi-structured interviews which is a study weakness.

65 Because the epistemological perspectives of qualitative and quantitative research differ; the two approaches are often considered to not be combinable. This study, however, utilizes and combines qualitative and quantitative methods. Nonetheless, epistemological purists may consider this to be a weakness while applied research might consider methodological approach acceptable. Furthermore, non-probablistic sampling is founded in qualitative research and is not pliant to the circumstances required for most statistical analysis of quantitative research. In addition, as a quantitative perspective was selected, qualitative analysis was implausible, and would result in weak and flawed results with questionable validity.

However, a non-purposeful sampling approach was necessary given the research objectives and a general lack of knowledge of LDTs in Nova Scotia. Content analysis is the most basic form of quantitative data analysis, and therefore, as an approach, has the least conflict with a non-probablistic sampling approach. Furthermore, content analysis fundamentally is a collection of frequencies (Neuman 2004) and does not necessitate the properties of probablistic sampling, required by most statistical tests (Bryman, 2004).

Ideally, in content analysis the sample would be non-purposive, and interviews would have been structured. Key-informants, however, were already picked through non- purposive means and interviews utilized semi-structured interviews. Therefore, this hybrid thesis is a quantified content analysis of interview transcripts formulated in a quantitative epistemological approach, yet of a sample identified through means conventional of qualitative research.

4.9 LIMITATIONS OF CONTENT ANALYSIS

Content analysis suffers from five limitations (Bryman, 2004). First, content analysis can only be as good as the documents. Second, it is near impossible to create a coding manual which does not allow some degree of interpretation. Third, manifest coding does not account for any deeper meaning that may be embedded in interview transcripts.

66 Fourth, content analysis does not easily allow the researcher to ask 'why'. Finally, studies which utilize content analysis have been criticized as being atheoretical meaning.

4.10 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The researcher submitted and received ethics approval for this study from the Dalhousie University Social Science and Humanities Human Research Ethics Board. Only the researcher and his thesis committee have access to the original data, which will be stored for five years post-publication as per Dalhousie University Policy and Research Integrity protocol. Participation was voluntary and all amassed information collected will remain confidential. Consent was requested for the use of real names and direct quotes; anonymity was ensured where consent not granted. Due to the small participant sample, additional effort has been made to disguise identity-revealing details where appropriate. A number system was used to anonymously identify participants.

4.11 TERMINOLOGY CHANGE

The terminology used in this research evolved over the course of the interviewing process. The term 'hut-to-hut' was initially used to describe the all shelters associated with LDTs. During the interview process interviewees suggested the term was misleading. 'Hut', for example, does not accurately describe a bed-and-breakfast. This led to the adoption of the umbrella term, 'shelter', mid-way through the interviews. While the term hut-to-hut is used on the introductory letter, consent form, utility sheet, and C2C interview template the researcher has taken the liberty of using the term 'shelter' where appropriate.

67 CHAPTER 5 - RESULTS

One objective of this study was to describe the key considerations for developing the C2C LDT based on the content analysis of 18 key-informant interview transcripts. This chapter will first describe the comprehensive results, followed by detailed results for each of the 24 key codes.

5.1 COMPREHENSIVE RESULTS

All 18 Interview Data Structures, or coding schedules, were layered into one comprehensive Interview Data Structure which was converted into one comprehensive table (see Table 6). This table follows the same theme, code, and sub-code format as the individual Interview Data Structures. All possible codes and sub-codes are presented, which key-informant said what as identified by a numerical code to ensure anonymity, and the total number and percentage of key informants (n=18) who expressed the idea represented by the code. Each key-informant represents one unit.

This chapter will discuss the 24 major codes mentioned by at least five of the 18 informants, representing 28% or greater of the sample, and provided responses. Below is a summary table of these key results as identified by coding analysis (see Table 7)

Further explanation must be given to the two shelter-related codes situated under the 'Vision and Purpose' theme. During interviews, key-informants were presented with the 'Shelter Range Diagram' (see Figure 2: Range of Long-Distance Trail Shelters, Chapter 2) because the concept is not commonly known in Nova Scotia, as described in Chapter 2 - Nova Scotia and Cape to Cape Trail Context. Had the interviewer not presented the Shelter Range Diagram, these shelter-related codes may not have scored so highly. According to one key-informant, "There hasn't been a lot of discussion on accommodation. Not yet. We're still struggling with how to get the trail developed" (5). However, other key-informants stated that previous to the interview, proponents had considered linking to existing commercial accommodation.

68 Table 6: Comprehensive Results (n=18).

Table 6: Comprehensive Results (n=18).

Major code Sub-code Sub-Sub-code Key-informant Sample % 24 major identity number n=x/18 codes X>5

1-VISION AND PI7RPOSF

Create common vision 1,3,4,5,7,8,10,11,13,1 14 78% V 4, 15,16,17,18,

Clarify if 'footpath' 15 1 6% only

Clarify if actual 'cape- 15 1 6% to-cape'

Clarify if purpose 15 1 6% outdoor recreation

Must not prioritize 17 1 6% economic development

Balance local, regional, 4,7,13, 3 17% provincial needs

Embrace what it is 9,15,17, . 3 17%

Incorporate commercial 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,12,1 16 89% < accommodation 3,14, 15,16,17,18,

Incorporate basic 1,3,4,5,6,8,9,11,12,14, 13 72% V wilderness shelter 15,17,18,

Address role of OH V 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 18 100% V users ,12,13,14,15,16,17,18

Yes, share with 2,3,7, 3 17% OHVs

Don't want to 3 1 6% alienate OHV-users

No, share with 1,4,5,6,10,11,12,14,15 10 56% OHV ,18,

Different cultures 6,18, 2 11%

Different 1 1 6% experience

Private landowner 9 1 6% concern

Need pedestrian- 15,17,18, 3 17% only LDT

Maybe share with 2,8,9,14,17, 5 28% OHVs

May have no choice 8,14,17, 3 17%

69 Table 6: Comprehensive Results (n=18).

Major code Sub-code Sub-Sub-code Key-informant Sample % 24 major identity number n=x/lH codes X>5

OHV mechanism 2,8, 2 11% for maintenance

Snowmobiles only 9, 1 6%

Snowmobilers now 9 1 6% have huts

Most hikers don't 6 1 6% mind OHV-sharing

Depends on 5,9,10,11,13,15, 6 33% vision

2 - ORGANIZATION AND MANAC.FMFNT

Clarify roles 2,4,12,15,16, 5 28% V

Must be community led 5,6,14,16,17, 5 28% V

Address volunteer 1,16, 2 11% challenges

Identify and support 9,17, 2 11% 'champions'

Need paid staff 1 1 6%

Process: staged or 8 1 6% concurrent?

Necessary proponent Will 16 1 6% characteristics

Experience 11 1 6%

Patience 2,6,8,13,17, 5 28% V

Flexible 5,10, 2 11%

Creative 5 1 6%

% - PLANNING PROCF.SS

Long-term planning 1,2,5,7,8,10,13,16,18, 9 50% V

Address changing 10 1 6% land-use pattern

Maintenance 1,5,7,8,10,13,16,18, 8 44% V

Develop Partnerships 1,3,11,13,14,15,17, 7 39% V

Determine funding 1,2,3,7,18, 5 28% V sources

Wide public support 3,13,17, 3 17%

70 Table 6: Comprehensive Results (n=18).

Major code Sub-code Sub-Sub-code Key-informant Sample % 24 major identity number n=x/18 codes X>5

Market LDT associated 1,2,3,6,7,8,11,13,17, 9 50% V benefits

Communication: 4,9,10,12,13,14,15,17 8 44% V transparent

Strategic timing and 5,6,10,13,15, 5 28% •4 context understanding

Trail promotion 2,5,6,8,11, 5 28% •4

Phased approach 11,13,17, 3 17%

Evaluate community 1,4,5,7,8,11,13,15,16, 9 50% V trail development model

Develop stronger hiking 3,10, 2 11% community and culture

Determine whether 10,15, 2 11% there is a market for C2C

Connect with existing 15 1 6% tourism demand generators

Involve Youth 17 1 6%

Divide and delegate 18 1 6% tasks

Educate users in 'Leave 2 1 6% No Trace' principles

Liability: confirmation 1,2,3,5,6,8,11,13,15,1 11 61% V and clarification 6,17,

Private landowners 2,3,4,5,6,8,9,12,13,14 13 72% V support ,15,16,17,

Address 9,16,17, 3 17% landowner concerns

Proximate community 3,5,6,9,10,11,12,13,15 9 50% V support

ID economic 5 1 6% spin-off

County-Municipality 1,5,6,9,12,14,15, 7 39% V government support

Cumberland 5,6,12,14, 4 22%

Provincial government 3,11,12,15,17, 5 28% V support

71 Table 6: Comprehensive Results (n=18).

Major code Sub-code Sub-Sub-code Key-informant Sample % 24 major identity number n^x/18 codes X>5

Departmental 3,12, 2 11% cooperation

Tourism industry 1,3,11, 3 17% support

4 - 1 .ONfi-niSTANrF TR All. DF.VF.I OPMFNT

Understand existing 8,10,11,13,15,18, 6 33% V LDT models

New trail development Design 10,13,17, 3 17%

Do not overbuild 3,5,10,11,17, 5 28% V

Low-impact 2,13, 2 11%

Proper signage 11,18, 2 11%

Max hydrological 1,6, 2 11% features

Connect with 1,17,18, 3 17% communities

Multiple access 1,18, 2 11% points

Access to amenities 1 1 6% and services

Use of existing OHV Yes 9,14,18, 3 17% trails?

No 4,9,15, 3 17%

May have no 5,9,17,18, 4 22% choice

Vision dependent 5,9,10,11,13,15, 6 33%

Incorporate existing 1,4,18, 3 17% shelters

Blend of shelters 1,6,11,17, 4 22%

New wilderness shelter Pick a pilot: 5,8,9,11,18, 5 28% development design Economy

Design 2,3,4,5,8,9,10,11,13,1 10 56% ' V 7,

Do not overbuild 3,4,5,8,9,11,13,17, 8 44%

Safety standards 10,11,17, 1 17%

Low-impact design 2,8,13, 3 17%

Fire management 2,5,6,13, 4 22%

72 Table 6: Comprehensive Results (n=18).

Major code Sub-code Sub-Sub-code Key-informant Sample % 24 major identity number n=x/lS codes X>5

Proper 2 1 6% management

73 Table 7: Summary of Key Results (n=18).

Table 7: Summary of Key Results (n=18).

Code # of informants (n = 18) %

VISION AND PIIRPOSF

Address role of OHV users 18 100%

Incorporate commercial accommodation 16 89%

Create common vision 14 78%

Incorporate basic wilderness shelter 13 72%

ORGANIZATION ANI> MANAfiF.MF.NT

Clarify roles 5 28%

Proponents must be patient 5 28%

Must be community led 5 28%

PLANNING PROCESS

Acquire private landowners' support 13 72%

Confirm and clarify liability coverage 11 61%

Evaluate community trail development model 9 50%

Planning 9 50%

Market LDT associated benefits 9 50%

Acquire proximate community support 9 50%

Early and transparent communication 8 44%

Maintenance 8 44%

Develop partnerships 7 39%

County-municipality government support 7 39%

Determine funding sources 5 28%

Strategic timing and context understanding 5 28%

Trail promotion 5 28%

Provincial government support 5 28%

LONG-DISTANCE TRAIT. nF.VFT.OPMF.NT

New wilderness shelter development design 10 56%

Understand existing LDT models 6 33%

New trail development design 5 28%

74 5.2 VISION AND PURPOSE

The theme 'Vision and Purpose' denotes the plan and intention of the C2C. Creating a vision is the articulation of a common idea of what the C2C should be. Four major codes were identified by five or more key informants. Each will be described in the following sections.

5.2.1 ADDRESS ROLE OF OHV USERS

All key-informants noted that OHVs had to be addressed. OHV-associated issues are a fundamental component of the C2C vision. As one government representative articulated: "Draw people together for a vision that everyone buys into; it may be even a vision to allow motorized use on some sections. Fry that fish because if you don't, it's going to haunt you the whole way" (15).

While discussing the Nova Scotian context, one informant said: "In rural areas, the reality is we wouldn't have those trails if it weren't for ATV'ers and snowmobilers, because they're the ones who build it and maintain it" (18). Another informant stated that one Nova Scotian in 12 owns an OHV (17). A third informant observed that OHVs are more common with rural-residents, that half of Nova Scotia is rural, and that the C2C would require rural support (11). Regarding increasing OHV popularity, the same individual stated: "You can't fight technology and you can't fight human laziness" (11). One government representative articulated the need to address the OHV reality:

The people who will ultimately manage (the C2C) will have to ask that question: do we want to share it? A lot will depend on how you design it and how you build it. It is relatively possible to build a trail and a hut that are hard to access by motorized users. At the same time, that limits your ability to maintain it; generally, these things are going to be somewhat accessible. There's going to be a road close by...part of the vision of the C2C, if you 're going to build a trail of this size and in a reasonable amount of time, you're going to have take advantage of existing opportunities on the ground. That may mean, in places, an access road, a forestry road, an abandoned K-road; all these kinds of things are pretty accessible (16).

75 Five informants suggested that OHVs diminish the hiking trail experience, as voiced by one informant:

/ hear people complaining all the time about the Rails to Trail because it is a multi-user trail. Now I use the Rails to Trail because I have a stroller and a child that I don't want to carry in a backpack. Every time I go out there I see an ATV. They're polite, they slow down, they're fine. I have absolutely no problems with them, except I know what an environmental nuisance they are at the same time. And it does take away from your walk on the trail...it changes the hike, it changes everything when you can hear them coming for two kilometers and passing for another two kilometers ...Having motorized vehicles in these beautiful places takes away from the whole experience (1).

The C2C could potentially link with existing OHV trails and create a total or partly shared-use C2C. Key-informants expressed different opinions on incorporating OHV trails. The corridor intended for the C2C has many exiting trails and roads, as identified by one informant:

You could connect the C2C today if you wanted to. It could be road connections, it could be fire roads, it could be old logging roads from the thirties and forties, depending on what you want. If we want to just say we connected the C2C, we can do it. I know there's all sorts of old snowmobile trails out there, and some of them are quite nice, old ones that they've abandoned. You could grab a snowmobile map and hike from Konome to Cape George tomorrow. But how do you bridge the gap with motorized users? Do we want to? I don't know. I think we're going to have to sometimes (5).

One informant added: "Someone once told me that you can never be a few kilometers from some kind of access, either being used now or historically ...that would help maintenance" (3). Another key-informants noted

The C2C is for self-propelled users, but a lot of the trail will be on old roads, to get that 400 kilometers. There's going to be lots of properties they aren't going to get to, and they'll have to look at the nearest gravel road, country road, woods road or whatever, just to get by while the negotiations continue on (14).

One government representative stated: "Much of the proposed C2C route is along snowmobile trail, which is not the greatest walking trail" (15). This individual articulated the need for a single-use trail, as noted by ten key-informants:

76 Inevitably there are going to be intersecting dedicated ATV trails with dedicated walking trails. There will be a lot of sections, possibly large sections or the whole trail, (which will) also be OHV trails, which generally, from the view of the OHV community, will be 'we're happy to share, it's a multi-use trail, everybody is welcome to use if. And from the view of dedicated hikers it's: 'Can't we please have a hiking trail somewhere that we don't have to call multi-use, because it's no longer multi-use when there's a vehicle on it, because I'm no longer interested in it'(15).

One NSE representative noted that OHVs are not compatible with Wilderness Areas, four of which are planned to be connected by the C2C (10). Two informants pointed out that many self-propelled trail users are dead against OHVs on hiking trails and that private land-owners are generally reluctant to allow OHVs on their land. One informant noted that if you make the C2C a cross-country ski trail, OHVs cannot be prevented (5). The individual added, however, that trails can be built to prevent OHV users:

How do you keep the motorized user out of there? Try to do a lot of side-hill work; work with your slope, don't make it easy for (a motorized user) trying to use it. A lot of land-owners are, like 'well how do you keep the machines out?' Well I can guarantee you won't have a machine on it... (side-hills) are a nightmare...and it's the easiest trail construction you can possibly have. You work with the contours (5).

Three informants were open to the idea of a multi-use C2C trail, because there already exists a shared-use trail culture and OHV users are becoming more organized and responsible (18). As noted by one government representative, "I see responsible-use growing for motorized-users, especially with recent legislation...There's always going to be rednecks, but I think a culture of respect is growing. It requires smart planning, good signage" (2). It was suggested that ATVers could use it in the summer and snowmobiles in the winter, and that OHVs can facilitate maintenance (2,8).

Ten interviewees thought that wilderness hiking shelters shared with OHV should be discouraged, as expressed by one informant: "/ think it's inadvisable; they're different cultures ...Existing OHV club houses are like bars and restaurants" (11). One noted the present conflicts between hikers and ATV operators along the Quebec sections of the IAT (18). Another concern expressed was that OHVs users have the ability to carry more

77 waste and alcohol (4,15). One government representative suggested that: "Once you get a culture of 12 ATVs parked outside the hut, the hikers won't come in...You will have a range of ATV huts that will be located on a hiking trail"(15). Another participant highlighted different OHV and hiking cultures: "I think it would be a difficult partnership... we're different cultures, and I don't know if we (hikers) mix with OHV users...I just can't see sharing afire with an OHV user, I don't think their stories would interest me as much as a hiker's " (6).

Four key-informants expressed some support for shared-use wilderness shelters. One government representative noted that it would be inadvisable to alienate motorized-users, especially because relatively speaking, hikers lack political clout (3). An informant suggested that perhaps hikers and snowmobilers could use the same shelters but in different seasons because the C2C would likely need to use existing snowmobile trails (6). Another informant noted: "There will certainly be partnerships with snowmobilers... snowmobilers have shelters" (9). One government representative suggested that self- propelled C2C users may simply have to put up with OHVs: "I think it would be challenging for some non-motorized enthusiasts to share with a snowmobile club... but if that's the only thing provided, maybe you put up with it for the night" (8). Another informant noted:

/ wouldn't recommend a snowmobile-ATV-hiker partnership. I see this as a hiking trail, and in the wintertime, as a potential snowmobile trail. But not ATVs. It takes away a lot, in my opinion, from the experience if you have ATVs on the trail. I would see it as a narrower trail that in the winter time it might be wider for snowmobiles in some places. In other places you might not follow the snowmobile route and have hiking only, but not ATVs. Snowmobiles aren't keen on ATVers either, because sometimes they'll go on their snow and really mess it up; they have a groomer go through there. I recommend making a deal with the ATVers that this is going to be hiking only, and please respect that, and I think they will as long as they have other trails they can go on (18).

One government representative said that most C2C users would not mind shared shelters:

On a user side, will there be conflicts? You know, if a snowmobile shows up and someone has been snowshoeing or cross-country skiing, my experience tells me

78 there's a diversity of people out there along a continuum, from 'I don't want to see anyone in my wilderness, I want a solo experience' to being fairly open to compromise, 'I'm just out there sharing with whoever'. There's that continuum... In the middle there's a whole bunch of people who if you let them know ahead of time what kind of experience they can expect, they will be accepting of that. With a little education and knowledge, and being open to compromise ...that culture can be developed. A lot of people probably fit into that middle category (16).

5.2.2 CREATE COMMON VISION

Fourteen key-informants identified the need for a common vision of the C2C as a key consideration. As illustrated by one proponent: "I just hope we're all on the same page on how (the C2C is) going to look" (5). One government representative asked

What is the purpose of the trail system being developed? That would help define the type of experience which you want the hikers to enjoy and would influence some of your choices. There needs to be some understanding of what sort of expectation there is of the trail, and then you'd look at the experiences you want to provide and the actual ground you are going over, and do an inventory of what exists. Then, you look at where constraints exist. This is critical (7).

Proponents must also address whether the C2C will be end-to-end, as voiced by one government representative:

If the concept is to hike from one Cape to the other, deal with the land-use stuff up front because if it's full of blanks, the whole advantage of having an end-to-end trail is gone. Sure it can be staged if there is a missing champion, or funding. But if old Mr McTavish has 500 acres, and that's the only way you can go, go to Mr. McTavish upfront (15).

Similarly, the question of what the actual trail will resemble needs to be addressed. Along the New Brunswick portion of the IAT, for example, hikers complained that portions of the route were simply connected forestry roads, and not the same trail quality experience as the AT. Commenting on this point, one government representative asked: "Will the C2C become a real walking trail or a series of chunks connected by roads" (15)? Part of this vision must address which type(s) of recreation activities the C2C will cater to:

79 I'm just as excited as everyone else, but people that keep going on, 'oh we want cross-country skiing'. I'm, like, wait a minute. You can't design a cross-country ski trail that's going to be the C2C trail. Can't do it. Maybe backcountry skiing, yes, but you don't go out of your way to design it for skiers as well as walkers. It'll ruin that whole experience (5).

5.2.3 INCORPORATE COMMERCIAL ACCOMMODATION AND BASIC WILDERNESS SHELTER

Sixteen and fourteen key-informants stated that the C2C should incorporate commercial accommodations and wilderness shelters, respectively. One government representative articulated the notion of increased accessibility:

Having a hut, where you don't have to carry a tent, for example, is much more appealing to people who don't want to carry a heavy weight. You can go pretty light if you've got a hut at the other end of the 15 kilometers. So I think that will open the door to more people who might entertain the thought. If it was just barren all the way through, without any support in whatever form, it would be much less appealing to people. If you have a bed and breakfast in spots, it opens up the ball game even more...With (shelters), you've got your soft-core adventurers. Without them, you've only got your hard-core adventurers (17).

Another informant expressed the notion of greater comfort in a wilderness setting:

It comes to safety and having a place where users are going to feel comfortable. You 're going to have your gurus who are going to set their little bivy sack up and sleep under a log, but there's not an abundance of them. So to get more users on the C2C, you have to have the roofing system because there's people out there that want to do it but don't feel that security because they're not so familiar with the woods (14).

Specific shelter criteria as identified by key-informants will be further discussed in the 'Shelter Integration and Development' theme.

5.3 ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

The theme 'Organization and Management' denotes the clarification of proponent roles, identifying necessary characteristics, and community leadership. Three major codes were

80 identified by five or more key informants. Each will be described in the following sections.

5.3.1 CLARIFY ROLES

Five informants stated that clarifying roles was critical. One informant noted:

One of the questions for me when you're talking about this is, ultimately, who is going to support this system, and what level of support would the system require. Working with the community and the volunteer-based model, often the management of the trail alone is fairly taxing and time consuming (16).

Commenting on the lack of role-definition, one proponent noted: "I thought: 'OK, let's help the County out', and I truly thought I was just helping out, but at the same time I've been the organizer...[the government] doesn't want to lead the charge...I really didn't think I'd be in charge of creating the trail" (12).

One key-informant noted that government department roles and responsibilities need to be better defined:

Government process and bureaucracies are not always helpful for volunteers and there are many overlapping jurisdictions so communities are not sure who is responsible for what. Community groups can be shuffled from one department to another wasting time and energy and contributing to cynicism, burn-out and apathy. Government needs a system to respond to volunteers more readily. All too often there are expectations that volunteers will attend long meetings on their own time and money while government officials are paid to be there. While they 're being paid, they don't mind taking a long time to consult about a problem. In the meantime, volunteers are juggling many commitments including their own work (14).

5.3.2 PROPONENTS MUST BE PATIENT

Five informants stated that C2C proponents would require patience, as elucidated by one government representative:

/ think it's a good idea, but it's the scale of the C2C that's the challenge. A trail of this size for any province, not to mention little Nova Scotia, it's going to take a

81 long time. I think if we have a really strong concept and vision, and I think the will is there, it will be developed. But we need to be patient (8).

5.3.3 MUST BE COMMUNITY-LED

Currently in Nova Scotia, trails are led and developed by the community. The latter was identified as a key component of the C2C, as noted by one proponent: "If you say let's build this with the people, the students of (the) County, you're going to get a lot of support" (6). One government representative elaborated the meaning of 'community':

It really needs to be in the hands of the people, and that community doesn 't need to be from right around the trail, whether it's scout groups, 4H clubs, Boys and Girls clubs...Families need to be involved. Halifax, HRMpeople need to be involved with it. It almost needs to be like an adopt-a-trailprogram (17).

5.4 PLANNING PROCESS

'Planning and Development Process' denotes the steps taken to create the C2C concept. Fourteen major codes were identified by five or more key informants. Each will be described in the following sections.

5.4.1 ACQUIRE PRIVATE LANDOWNERS' SUPPORT

Due to the high volume of private land along the proposed C2C corridor, private landowner support was viewed by a majority of informants as a key consideration. As one government representative noted:

In Nova Scotia we have 400 hundred years of a European style of settling the land. A good portion of the land base is in private hands, and a good chunk of it is cut up in small pieces. So it's not like other remote areas where you have huge blocks of crown land where you can just engage a couple of landowners, and with their support get a trail (16).

The result, as summed up by one trail proponent, is that "The whole C2C concept rests on the goodwill of the landowners " (14). In addition, current trends have diminished the public's ability to recreate on private lands, as noted by one government representative:

82 The demographics of the province have grown in particular in urban areas; as well there are more people settling in a semi-rural setting that used to be rural... that land has become restricted in terms of hunting or walking because of a greater distribution of houses. There are a whole bunch of factors that are taking the available land-base for outdoor recreation in the past and shrinking it. So the land-base is shrinking, but not the demand (7).

The latter informant continued by describing a changing sentiment about public use of private lands:

In Nova Scotia right now the pressure on the use of the land has changed from what it was. In general people used to be able to go almost anywhere, whether it was private or crown land, and hunt, fish, and recreate in a variety of ways. In the last decade I'd say, more and more private landowners are restricting or eliminating the type of activities they're willing to have on their property. That has to do with liability, and that has to do with people wanting to use the land themselves - wood collection, hunting. Many more 'no trespassing' signs, more 'no hunting without permission', signs that never existed (7).

Many landowners have a variety of concerns that C2C proponents need to address, as identified by one informant:

The smaller average person out there with a little wood-lot will probably have some concerns that we need to adequately address; issues around liability, forest fire prevention, people overnighting on their property, straying off the trail. Those are all things the C2C group will have to nail down before they go to the public. This is one of the reason why they haven't yet, because they really want to be able to answer some of those key questions (16).

One proponent noted: "A lot of (private landowners) are worried that with a trail the ATVers will take control" (12). Another, reflecting on past trail development, stated:

The landowner said 'yes, you can use my land for a hiking trail, non-mechanized, no fires, no camping, if it's built safely'. Liability was an issue...which was later solved. 'If I'm happy, you can continue to use it. If I'm not happy, here's the reason why, and I'm going to give the organization a reasonable amount of time to fix it, but if it isn't fix, I can walk. I can also sell the land. There will be no easement, no legal hold of it, and I can log it, I can do whatever I like' (14).

Corporate private landowners may be an easier sell, as noted by the following informant:

We've had those types of discussions with forestry companies, and they've been quite receptive in playing a role. And they like the infrastructure because it gives

83 them a chance to build something good for recreation users...They could be huge supporters, giving back to the community in a very green and sustainable way (15).

One aspect worth considering is differentiating trail and shelter development, as articulated by another informant:

Some like Neenah Paper will say: 'Look, what we don't know won't hurt us.' So basically they're saying go ahead and do it, but they're not going to sign anything. But with the shelters you'll want to promote it, want people to know it's there, get a map, so that might not work on corporate properties (5).

Similarly, four key-informants stated that private landowners needed to be party to the C2C development process, as articulated by one government representative: "Meet with different interests, make sure they understand what you are up to, what any implications are, send a message that you want to work together, and that you respect their interests (otherwise) secrets and rumors will start, and perception becomes reality" (13). C2C supportive landowners can become an asset, as noted by one informant: "Funders are going to be upset because you can't get a term on private land...and my response is we've done better than that. We've got unlimited time, so long as the landowner is happy"" (14). Reflecting on recent local history, one informant summed up:

/ don't know if you knew this, but they want to turn the Bay (of Fundy) into a Biosphere (UBoFBI). Well holy crap, some of the worst people that were involved (in the protests) were from Economy (Shore). They were out threatening people because they didn't want change. Even though the (UBoFBI) didn't really mean anything, they got on the Internet, you can always find something, and they found all this jargon and bull-shit. But it scared people. Nova Scotia's mostly private property...(The proponents) didn't get people involved at the start, locals just heard about it when it was almost done so jumped up and started screaming (5).

5.4.2 CONFIRM AND CLARIFY LIABILITY COVERAGE

Most key informants noted the critical importance of confirming and clarifying liability, especially because "Liability is the sticking point. Landowner's need a high comfort level that liability will be taken on by third party" (3). The C2C has liability coverage under the NSTF as articulated by a representative:

84 We can put the (C2C) under the NSTF insurance program, and then the landowner is protected, and we designated this as one of our managed trails and they 're covered for insurance. The landowner then feels more comfortable: "We've got a responsible group, it's going to be well managed, and I'm not going to have problems as a result of this ". If an ATVer goes onto an unauthorized trail for ATV use and injures someone, it's covered. That's one of the good things; there's no exclusions. We cover everything; there's no worries (18).

Part of the key requirement of confirming and clarifying C2C coverage is making landowners comfortable, as noted by the NSTF representative:

That's the big hurdle you gotta get over, to get the landowner to sign over. Many people in the past in Nova Scotia have said no, we don't want a written agreement because the landowner...might decide not to do it, 'Let's just go with verbal.' Landowners feel if I don't sign something, then nobody can ever come back against me, but that's not true because if a trail is used regularly, and something happens you knew about it, you can't say you didn 't know about it, they can sue you. It's far better to get a written agreement, because then you have an obligation from the C2C, or whoever, that we're providing insurance so you're protected (18).

Another informant added:

The landowner has a much-reduced liability exposure for use of a recreational trail posted as such and he/she will enjoy some protection from the insurance policy. Truthfully, has the landowner increased his/her liability exposure by allowing us on their land? Yes, but to a small degree but by us carrying the big insurance policy we will be the primary target of a claim (9).

Yet as one proponent postulated:

How do you convince a landowner that they're 100% covered? The lawyer will say 'you're not, don't sign it' and the (corporate landowners) know that. Most little guys we can pull the wool over their eyes, and say 'don't worry about it' and never get involved. But you know what it's like when somebody gets hurt. They pull everybody in on it. Luckily I don't think it's happened too often in Nova Scotia (5).

Not all key-informants were aware of the NSTF liability insurance prior to the interview.

85 5.4.3 EVALUATE COMMUNITY TRAIL DEVELOPMENT MODEL

Nova Scotian trails are developed primarily by the community, with the exception of provincial and national parks. As articulated by one C2C proponent:

The province is pretty hands off which is good in some ways because it won't work unless the communities are totally involved. I don't agree with the way Quebec and New Brunswick work... they'11 throw money at it, and then try and get buy in from the community. That approach has been problematic (5).

Yet, half of informants noted that the community trail development model requires some evaluation, as articulated by one informant "The model has proven itself to work well... but there are issues too" (15). Another informant noted: "Something that I have seen is: community trail receives funding, trail gets built, people get out and there's all this great energy behind it, and then three years later it's grown over, the signs are gone, and nobody's using it anymore" (I).

One identified weakness with the model is the over-dependence on volunteers. Highlighted weaknesses with a volunteer-led approach include a minimal supply or volunteers, burn-out, ineffective Boards, lack of follow-through, aging, and only wanting to do the 'fun' tasks. As articulated by one informant:

The province has modeled itself so that communities have to want it basically, to form an association and get their Board together and start planning and develop. But usually requires a lot of work, a lot of volunteer time, and they also have insurance issues and all that goes with it. A lot of people get burnt out...and that might be with a little hiking trail. The big picture stuff can get pretty scary for your Board. That's a lot of work (5).

Another noted weakness was that the process was too ad hoc, as one informant noted: "The way the C2C is going, it's going to take a long time unless we get a lot more involvement from the province. There needs to be a better balance" (5).

Many informants felt the community-based trail model is too local-community focused, as noted by one informant: "In Nova Scotia, they think small and regional, community by community. Ideally the trails of Nova Scotia should be treated like highways, in that they

86 would be viewed as a provincial necessity" (4). One government representative voiced a similar concern: "What happens is if you don't have someone there with authority, someone keeping in mind the provincial interests, it becomes a local area trying to meet as many local needs as possible. Local needs are important, but they 're not the only things we should be thinking about" (13). A government representative added:

One of the concerns I have is how overall in Nova Scotia trail development and planning is occurring, and whether it is too ad hoc. Individuals come up with a proposal and move along the various decision makers and get some momentum to have it developed. Whether that trail is built into the larger context...(and) what benefits it provides, and how it connects to existing trail systems and the larger provincial overview. That is one of our major concerns as a Parks division is that we are provincial is scope, whereas many of the individuals we deal with are very regional or local in their scope. Sometimes one of the challenges is getting up from a local interest to a provincial interest and seeing how the two match (7).

5.4.4 PLANNING

Planning for the C2C was viewed as a critical consideration especially by government representatives. While discussing planning process, one key-informant noted: "You have to contact the landowners first, then go get the funding. You have to do the paper work before you actually build the trail" (18). One government representative argued that proper planning required a feasibility study: "New grandiose ideas need to be thoroughly thought out...Isee so many trails change over the long-term" (10). As one key-informant put it:

Developing the trail is not the hard part, planning it is. How do you approach the landowner? We can do it, but every case is different. You have to be creative, and you have to have the right people with the right personalities involved. Some people say all you need is a pair of clippers and away you go. I don't agree; that can be a recipe for a lot more volunteer work in the long-run. Some people like that it's really loosy-goosy, that everyone just kind of does it, but I'm still not convinced with the approach yet (5).

One government representative remarked:

It's a struggle always to follow those same rules, to follow that process, because many people want to jump ahead from the idea to the end product...the planning

87 and the considering in between, or you're going to run into problems when it comes down to the end product. And we're dealing with that all the time. We had a lot of partnerships with communities and groups wanting to build trails, and often they get the money to build trails before they've actually designed the trail and you end up with people actually out there building the trail, and you tell them to stop because it wasn't planned, and so they're running into issues they never should have run into if you had spent a couple months doing the planning and considering. You're still going to have adjustments at the fine scale when you're on the ground, but in terms of big issues they're going to be eliminated if you do some of that preparatory work (7).

The high-percentage of private land in Nova Scotia is a challenge for C2C planning because of the changing nature of private land, as noted by one government representative: "If there's an expectation that the trail corridor will be preserved, this may become an issue, especially on private land" (7).

5.4.5 MARKET LDT ASSOCIATED BENEFITS

Nine key-informants noted that a key consideration was to market and promote all LDT- associated benefits. One government representative suggested: "The dollars are there, but the long-term benefits are hard to see. There just has to be more linkages between the hiking trail-related benefits" (4). According to one government representative "Health is the number one issue driving politics" (8). Regarding health, a NSDHPP representative stated: "From a personal physical activity stand-point and health stand-point, getting Nova Scotians hiking; that makes a whole ton of sense to me, and there's economic spin­ off around greater public health" (17).

Another identified benefit that needs promoting is the provision of a missing niche in Nova Scotia. Speaking about Economy Wilderness Area, which allows overnighting, one informant noted: "The parking lot is always full and it's not even advertised. I know people would use the C2C, there's no doubt of that. People want to connect everything together and do multi-day trips, but Nova Scotia just doesn 't offer anything like that" (5).

Informants did, however, warn not to inflate LDT-associated benefits as articulated by one key-informant:

88 The (C2C) needs to be rationalized against realistic purposes. People can't sell it as something it isn't. Understand who is going to use. Don't sell it as something that is going to bring millions of dollars, because it isn't. If it's mainly a regional recreational, getting people out, healthy lifestyles project, that has enough benefits in of itself to rationalize it (15).

5.4.6 ACQUIRE PROXIMATE COMMUNITY SUPPORT

Many key-informants noted that attaining support from the communities proximate to the C2C was a key consideration. Put bluntly, one government representative said "In Nova Scotia there is a mentality that the woodland is community resource. You can have money, you can have the landscape, but if you don't have the community, you don't have anything" (3). One informant remarked that "Rural pockets like Economy Shore are going to be a harder sell. They're more traditional: farming, forestry, mining...that's going to take time" (5). In terms of process, one informant noted:

/ think (the C2C) needs to draw on local interest, and not be done in spite of communities, but because communities want it. And that's going to require a lot of upfront communication. Door-to-door, coffee shop discussion level, not a floated down glossy brochure saying this is what it is, coming to a community near you soon. I mean that's okay, but that has to be paired with local people too (15).

A number of key-informants made reference to the development of the TCT in Nova Scotia as a LDT precedent worth avoiding

The TCT just showed up, broke down the cost, and said here is the standard we want. And that's just not right, the community has to be involved at all levels... You can't just shove (a trail) down their throat. You're (researcher) not from Nova Scotia but when the TCT came along, the NSTF went to Ottawa and shook hands...and they started shoving the TCT down their throat at the top. 'It's gotta be done by 2010', and all these deadlines. Well you can't put a deadline on a LDT. I'm seeing a lot of the same trends again (5).

While discussing the TCT, another informant noted: "Trails are only as good as the communities that support them " (4). Another key-informant said that the primary reason the TCT was supported in Nova Scotia was because: "Large amounts of federal funding was available to communities, something the C2C will not have " (11).

89 Furthermore, gaining community support will help physically connect the trail to communities, as elucidated by one key-informant: "You gotta have access to (the C2C) for the majority of people, but the bottom line is you have to have communities physically connected to it in some way" (17). One informant highlighted the ECT as a successful model due to community buy-in:

The ECT in Newfoundland is amazing. You just have to come off that trail and one of the locals stops. If you have a backpack on and coming off the trail, the local will stop and ask you where you'd like to go? Is there a place to eat, yeah I'll just drive you...It's pretty powerful because the communities are very supportive of the Trail and the users too, and that just adds to the experience (I).

Four key-informants noted that involving the community during the C2C development process was key to gaining support, as articulated by one informant: "The community must be involved from the very beginning. The people that are doing this right now are visionaries and hikers in this province, who appreciate its landscape. But that vision has to be tested by communities, and worked out at that level" (14). In terms of process, one informant stated: "Develop the proposal at the concept stage, roll that out to the community, and provide an opportunity for the community to respond" (9). Similarly a government representative suggested that C2C proponents:

Allow people to come forward...there are always a few people who are concerned, you know, you are going to kick me out of my hunting grounds ...people naturally have questions so it's a chance to clarify. Nine times out often, or even more than that those questions that people have are easily aligned...people want to be respected and heard and they also want to learn about the project. Sometimes people who started opposing a project will become advocates for it (13).

5.4.7 EARLY AND TRANSPARENT COMMUNICATION

Effective and transparent communication was identified as a key C2C development consideration. Communication requires that information and intentions be delivered quickly, as articulated by one informant: "You need to get to the people before they form an opinion" (6). Several government representatives noted the precedence of the proposed Polletts Cove hiking trail, which failed partly due to poor communication:

90 "Polletts Cove got shut down before it started" (15). In terms of being transparent, one proponent said "Lay it all out on the table because if the landowner doesn't hear about it, they get damn cranky when they do hear about it" (14).

5.4.8 MAINTENANCE

Maintenance was identified as a key consideration. According to one government representative "Generally the resources to build it will come, both human and financial, and the land-base is here, that shouldn't be a problem. It ultimately comes down to maintenance; is it sustainable, is it realistic" (16). Another informant added "There's no problem building; the problem is the maintenance, that's the big one" (5). One challenge is securing maintenance funding, as noted by one government representative: "It's often easy to get money to develop a trail. It's next to impossible to get money to maintain a trail" (7). Maintenance is a particular challenge for trails which are community- managed, as explained by one informant: "With community groups and volunteers, it's difficult because things don't get maintained" (I). Reflecting on other trail jurisdictions, another key-informant noted that "Maintenance really comes from local club interest, and that hasn't really been part of the Nova Scotian culture. We don't really have a huge volunteer base compared to other jurisdictions" (10).

5.4.9 DEVELOP PARTNERSHIPS

Numerous key informants noted that community-run trails require partnerships, as articulated by one government representative:

/ think for it to be sustainable, it can't rely on the fickleness of government funding. I always get worried when government tries to get too involved in things, because as soon as their budget shrinks, which they always do, there's a pendulum. Now, should the government be there to support? You bet - all levels. Should the corporate sector be there to support? You bet (17).

One trail expert suggested that the C2C: "Partner with Katimavik or adopt-a-highway program so there is a commitment to maintenance " (11).

91 5.4.10 COUNTY-MUNICIPALITY GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

The intended C2C routing will cross four counties. Several key-informants noted that greater municipal support and long-term commitment was necessary for a number of reasons. As articulated by one informant: "That's the thing about getting the municipality involved. There's no problem building the trail, that's never a problem, the province will throw money. The problem is the maintenance, that's the big one, and that's where we need municipal commitment" (5). One C2C proponent recounted that more government visibility would give proponents credibility: "One landowner said: 'I don't want to have a couple of guys that want to build a trail on my property. I want to know that the province or the county is on board'. So he didn't say yes to us on leasing" (12).

Furthermore, a number of informants felt that greater inter-county collaboration is required, as articulated by one informant: "Cumberland county; I haven't heard anything from them yet, but everyone else seems to be on board" (5). Another informant noted the challenge of such an arrangement: "Logistically, I'm waiting to see what comes out in the wash because it's always a challenge for regional groups to pull something together" (15).

5.4.11 DETERMINE FUNDING SOURCES

A number of key-informants stated that funding was a key consideration. Currently, the C2C receives funding from NSDHPP, as noted by one representative: "Every good trail project has gotten funding. And the C2C is a good project. We've got more resources and money going into these types of things" (17). Another government representative, articulating the need to determine long-term funding sources, stated "A successful C2C may very well demand major resources over the long term to secure an enduring, quality experience, primarily due to the preponderance of private land along the potential trail corridor" (13).

92 5.4.12 STRATEGIC TIMING AND CONTEXT UNDERSTANDING

Strategy with regard to timing and understanding the context and history was viewed as a fundamental consideration, as noted by one informant: "We don't want another (UBoFBI) to happen. We have to be very smart about how we sell this sucker" (5). Reflecting on the failed Pollett's Cove hiking trail initiative, one government representative noted "The lesson here is be careful and aware of what else is going on, and think strategically in terms of timing...are there any other issues that could confuse the project...and link unrelated pains. If they link it you are in trouble" (13).

Decisions regarding land-use are sensitive in Nova Scotia, as voiced by one government representative: "People are very passionate about the land; there's a lot of interest in the land" (13). One informant highlighted a legacy from Nova Scotia's Scottish heritage of territorial settlers who fiercely defend their private land, having lost land in the United Kingdom, a legacy which remains (16).

5.4.13 TRAIL PROMOTION

Four informants stated that trail promotion was critical, as articulated by one informant:

Trails people never appear to understand the need for marketing. It is essential that each trail head be marketed; people just don't appear. And if the trail does not appear to be a 'success', which itself is rarely well-defined, then the community becomes discouraged, as does the funder. In addition, hikers don't spend a lot of money, therefore, you need to advertise to get new users onboard (11).

Another key-informant argued the need for good trail signage, especially for local users:

Wouldn't it be great if outside every community there was a sign that marked the trail...when you get off the highway, there were signs helping you find the trail. Community groups can not afford this, and this is a good way for the government to off-load a huge cost to the community. Signage is necessary for safety, liability, and ease of finding the trail. Consistent trail heads would help everyone (14).

One informant from the tourism industry noted that a market exists:

/ have received requests from people over the last ten years looking for backcountry routes, where they can spend a week hiking along a trail such as the

93 AT. They do it on the ECT in Newfoundland...percentage-wise they're small, a handful of people looking for that experience, but there are people in the world looking for that experience. Obviously it works in other places. If we develop something here, people will come, but people have to know about it first (I).

5.4.14 PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

A number of key-informants noted that greater provincial support was a key consideration. As one informant put it: "There has to be some role of the government: This is Atlantic Canada. Everyone looks to the government for the good and the bad" (15).

While the province has embraced the community development trail model, many key- informants noted that the provincial government needed to change its approach and participation. One informant said that "Often government expectations are too complex or confusing for volunteers and communities to understand or respond to, or not timely enough, so the project dies" (14). A number of informants articulated that the government was not necessarily trail-friendly, as articulated by one key-informant: "It may be years until (proponents) get signed off on the C2C because (government is) just nit-picking it all the time" (5). One government representative noted: "In my experience (NSDNR) doesn't have a mandate to deliver trails on crown land...they're open to talking with groups about it, but they have to consider other uses of the land" (16). Another government representative stated:

We have to make sure that the people who are most passionate about building the trail don't get bogged down in crap. We have a way of bogging people down; we being all kinds of agencies and departments. The builders end up getting stuck doing stuff they really don't want to do...Embrace the people for what they are, and diversify so that you get all the bases covered (17).

One area where government could play a productive role is in providing expertise, because as suggested by one informant: "(C2C proponents) have done a marvelous job; however, they are the first to attempt a project of this type, and with people from a small and inexperienced area of the province " (11).

94 Finally, in the context of a high private-land ownership, the government can help C2C proponents with land security on crown land, as noted by one representative:

"Parks or protected areas offer secure, long-term tenure. These are areas where you can confidently plan, build, and operate a trail knowing it will be there...you can potentially guarantee a certain type of experience, something you can't guarantee on private lands " (13).

5.5 LONG-DISTANCE TRAIL DEVELOPMENT

'Long-Distance Trail Development' denotes the steps taken to develop the physical LDT. Three major codes were identified by five or more key informants. Each will be described in the following sections.

5.5.1 NEW WILDERNESS SHELTER DEVELOPMENT DESIGN

Many key-informants identified wilderness shelter design in general as a key consideration. Maintenance was a key concern, as described by one government representative who noted that "When infrastructure starts to fail, and eventually maintenance costs and user demands go up, that's when community groups really struggle" (7). Another government representative described New Zealand's hut-to-hut model as one that illustrates the direct relationship between complexity and maintenance:

In New Zealand, some of the trails I was on originally had used wood but had switched to coal burning stoves, and were flying in the coal in bags by helicopter because it was just too hard on the landscape to provide wood for that many users going through an area. So first of all there is a lot of effort to cut fire wood, but also the ecological impact of that is significant. So they converted their stoves and fly in coal. Think of the expenses and effort there. If you have less people using a remote area, and they 're more self-reliant, carrying their own propane, white gas, and perhaps a small campfire to keep warm, the impact of that is much less. And the cost, the management cost is much less, than if you have five times as many who are now cozying up in these cabins with a wood stove that they 're going to run while they 're there (13).

Four key-informants suggested that C2C proponents should design a wilderness shelter pilot around the Economy Wilderness Area region.

95 5.5.2 UNDERSTAND EXISTING LDT MODELS

A third of key-informants noted that understanding existing LDT models was a key consideration, especially because as one informant put it "We don't really have a LDT in Nova Scotia so we don't really know the issues" (4), The informant continued: "The AT is the Grand Daddy of them all, and is perfect for learning how to do things wrong...just go to the 100 Mile Wilderness section, from Mt Katahdin to Muse, Maine" (4). For commercial accommodation LDTs, informants cited Newfoundland's ECT, Ontario's Bruce Trail, and the UK's footpath systems. For wilderness shelter models, informants cited the AT's lean-to model and the IAT's use of Quebec's Chic Choc hut system. One key informant said the C2C should model itself after the ECT:

My wife just hiked B&B to B&B on the ECT in Newfoundland, and there was nine of them, all retired and older folks, and they had a ball. The key for them was they didn't mind pushing it hard during the day because they knew they had a home- cooked super and a bed...it's extremely appealing. If it had been a (wilderness) hut, my wife probably wouldn't have gone, if there was nothing, a whole bunch of people wouldn't have gone...the B&Bs drew them out. They were already hikers, but it drew them to a whole new area because of that whole B&B thing. And it was all organized for them, the shuttle and the whole thing (17).

5.5.3 NEW TRAIL DEVELOPMENT DESIGN

Five key informants identified good LDT design as a key consideration, as articulated by one government representative:

Design is everything. It makes all the difference between a good trail and a bad trail. With the same piece of land, you can build a trail that really works well, or does not. It's like designing good clothing. You can take the same material and do a lousy job and produce something that doesn't really work well, or, this is where creativity, ingenuity, and good planning come in, you can do a good job (13).

Five informants stated that trails should not be overbuilt because more infrastructure would equate to more maintenance requirements. One informant cautioned that there will be pressure to overbuild because while initial funding is often available, long-term funding for maintenance seldom is (15). One informant highlighted Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency's job-creation trail initiatives in Newfoundland during the 1990s as

96 examples of overbuilt trails that failed to take long-term maintenance into account. In Nova Scotia, the Man-a-Diew Trail in Cape Breton and Cape Chignecto Provincial Park were highlighted where maintenance challenges related to over-building infrastructure have emerged (11). Another informant warned that some government departments become over-zealous:

/ think the Crown over-engineers ...they think it cuts back on community groups in the long-term, but it kind of ruins the experience. You take a beautiful trail that's got a beautiful crown over it that's been closed for thirty-forty years, and they expect you to clear-cut a thirty foot wide, twelve foot wide, crushed gravel path. They probably could have just mowed it and clipped a few limbs off it (5).

Similarly, a simple LDT system helps keep the wilderness aesthetic intact as articulated by one government representative:

On a small scale there's a temptation to try and do everything, and what you end up doing is turning backcountry into front country...I think it's important that we are able to offer a range of opportunities, especially the more specialized, high capability, rugged, and self-reliant experience (13).

5.6 CONCLUSION

The use of content analysis on interview transcripts identified a variety of issues that key- informants expressed as key considerations for developing the C2C LDT. Tabulation of codes allowed the most frequently noted codes to be identified. The results will be discussed in the following chapter, wherein the key considerations identified by key- informants will be compared and contrasted with the literature.

97 CHAPTER 6 - COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

6.1 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF STUDY GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of this research was to describe the key considerations for developing the C2C in Nova Scotia, and identify those that may be relevant for LDT development in other locations where conditions may be similar. The study's objectives were to describe the key considerations of LDT development derived from the literature and from C2C key- informant interviews, to compare and contrast the key considerations identified from the literature and interviews, and to provide recommendations to the proponents on how to move the C2C concept forward.

This chapter will first compare and contrast the key considerations identified from the literature with those from key-informants. The chapter will then discuss the meaning of these results and the implications for the C2C, scholars, and other LDT practitioners. The limitations of this research will also be discussed.

6.2 COMPARISON OF KEY CONSIDERATIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE LITERATURE AND BY KEY-INFORMANTS

C2C key-informants identified many of the same key considerations for developing a LDT as those derived from the literature. Table 8 summarizes the 13 key considerations derived from the literature (from Table 5, Chapter 3) and the 24 key considerations identified by at least five key informants (from Table 7, Chapter 5). Six of the key considerations determined from the literature encapsulate 16 key-informant considerations. For example, one of the considerations from the literature is 'market the LDT', whereas key-informants identified two specific considerations for marketing: 'market LDT associated benefits' and 'trail promotion'. The 'develop a plan' key consideration determined from the literature encapsulates six distinct key considerations as identified by key-informants, and is used under both the 'Organization and Management' and 'Planning Process' themes delineated in the Interview Data Structure (see Figure 3: Interview Data Structure).

98 Table 8: Key Considerations for Developing a LDT as identified by C2C key-informants and the literature. (Associated bracketed-numbers indicates the number of informants or literature sources that identified each consideration).

Table 8: Key Considerations for Developing a LDT as identified by C2C Key-Informants and the Literature.

13 codes identified by planning and outdoor recreation literature (n=8) 24 key considerations identified by C2C key-informants (n=18)

VISION AND PURPOSE

Minimize user-conflicts (3) Address the role of OHVs (18)

Consider infrastructure (3) Incorporate commercial accommodation (16)

Incorporate basic wilderness shelters (13)

Establish a vision (7) Create a common vision (14)

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

Develop a plan (6) Clarify roles (5)

Proponents must be patient (5)

Must be community-led (5)

PLANNING PROCESS

Gain landowner support (3) Acquire private landowner support (13)

Ensure liability (3) Confirm and clarify liability (11)

Develop a plan (6) Planning (9)

Evaluate community trail development model (9)

Strategic timing and context understanding (5)

Market the LDT (4) Market LDT associated benefits (9)

Trail promotion (5)

Include local communities (3) Acquire community support (9)

Stakeholder communication (3) Early and transparent communication (8)

Consider maintenance (5) Consider maintenance (8)

Form partnerships (5) Develop partnerships (7)

County-municipality government support (7)

Provincial government support (5)

Acquire funding (4) Determine funding source (5)

LONG-DISTANCE TRAIL DEVELOPMENT

99 Table 8: Key Considerations for Developing a LDT as identified by C2C Key-Informants and the Literature.

Contemplate design (3) Consider new wilderness shelter design (10)

Consider new wilderness shelter design (10)

Understand existing LDTs (6)

Similarities among the key considerations identified by key-informants and those determined from a review of the literature have two likely explanations. First, the key- informants represent a knowledgeable and experienced sample of individuals: trail experts, proponents, tourism representatives, and provincial and municipal planners. Second, the key considerations for developing a LDT are in many ways universal to general project development. The successful implementation of a plan requires that proponents follow a certain series of steps. For example, when a group of individuals intends to implement a plan, the articulation of a common vision is critical. Regardless, the details around the rationale for identifying key considerations are informative for C2C proponents, as well as to LDT planners, practitioners and scholars in general. The similar considerations are each described below, with reference to the key informant interviews and the literature. The considerations mentioned most often are described first.

Certain key considerations identified by key-informants were not predominant in the LDT development-specific literature. However, most are referenced in the more general literature on planning and outdoor recreation. This phenomenon suggests that regional particularities need to be accounted for in LDT development.

6.3 SIMILARITIES

The twenty-four key considerations identified by key-informants will be discussed in conjunction with the supporting literature.

6.3.1 VISION AND PURPOSE

Minimize user-conflicts - All key-informants raised the issue of OHV use because there are many variables to consider and it is a potential source of conflict. OHVs can

100 facilitate trail and shelter maintenance; however, by legislation, they are not allowed in Wilderness Areas, which are hoped will provide C2C trail-anchors. If the C2C incorporates existing OHV trails, proponents need to consider how OHVs would be prevented from using hiker-only designated trails and means of policing. Further, there is the issue of whether to restrict all OHVs, or to differentiate between snowmobile and all- terrain vehicle use. At the same time, OHVs are a predominant part of the recreation culture in Nova Scotia (Janmaat & VanBlarcom, 2009; Nova Scotia Voluntary Planning, 2004). To alienate such a large constituency of trail users may have serious political implications for C2C and for support of other future LDT proposals in Nova Scotia. The issue of motorized and non-motorized mixed use of LDTs is predominant in the literature, most often addressed as important to consider in minimizing user conflict. Motorized and non-motorized recreationists are often in conflict where there is weak regulation and few trail opportunities (Cordell & Betz, 2002; Jensen, 1995; Thapa & Graefe, 2003). Proponents will have to discuss OHVs and the potential implications on the C2C, and develop processes for negotiating and decision making around OHV uses or limitations associated with the trail. The decision of whether to incorporate OHVs is critical to defining the Vision of the C2C, whether as a self-propelled hiking trail, or as a multi-use trail incorporating motorized recreationists.

Consider infrastructure - Sixteen key-informants stated that incorporating commercial accommodation would be necessary for the C2C because users need shelter and local businesses would be more inclined to support the C2C if commercial accommodations were incorporated. Proponents will have to decide how the C2C will connect to commercial accommodation: either directly or via spur trail or road. Proponents should anticipate pressure from small business owners to route the C2C close to their commercial accommodation. Actual trail routing will depend on the vision. The issue of considering LDT-associated infrastructure, including shelters, is predominant in the literature. The incorporation of local services, accommodation, and amenities can be a positive trail feature and potential avenue for acquiring community support (Baud-Bovy & Lawson, 1998; R.J. Irvine Recreational Planning Services, 1999; Superior Hiking Trail

101 Association, 2009). Proponents will have to consider the role of commercial accommodation in the C2C.

Thirteen key-informants expressed that wilderness shelters should be developed because non-tenting users require shelter and not all regions would have practical access to commercial accommodation. Furthermore, the provision of wilderness shelters was viewed as a way to increase accessibility for more users seeking a multi-day wilderness experience and to give the C2C regional cache. Proponents will have to consider shelter possibilities on both crown land and private land and consult with NSE, NSDNR, and corporate and individual landowners. Wilderness shelters can increase LDT-user safety, comfort and accessibility (Baud-Bovy & Lawson, 1998; Roberts, 1989, in Glyptis, 1993; Higham, 1998), and must be designed to minimize environmental impact (Hugo, 1999).

Establish a vision - Fourteen key-informants said that creating a common vision of the C2C is a fundamental consideration. While it is clear that informants believe the creation of a common vision is a key consideration, it was not clear what that vision is. Proponents need to meet and communicate a common vision. Proponents will have to determine whether the vision is one of a continuous end-to-end Cape George to Cape Chignecto trail, and whether the C2C will be a footpath only or incorporate existing roads, OHV trails and other routes, which could hasten route development. Determining a desired timeframe for opening of the LDT will help answer the latter question; if the goal is to connect the Capes relatively quickly, proponents may have to utilize a higher proportion of existing trails, routes, and roads. As previously mentioned, whether to incorporate or limit OHV use is critical to the vision and has implications for visions of the trail's routes, infrastructure and character. Establishing a common vision is a key consideration predominant in the literature. The development of a common vision is fundamental to the success of a LDT because it helps articulate the purpose and any goals and objectives outlined by proponents (ARPA, 2002; Eyler et al., 2008; Hugo, 1999).

102 6.3.2 ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

Develop a plan - Five key-informants said clarifying proponent and stakeholder roles and responsibilities was an important consideration. The latter is especially important given the loose and organic structure of the community trail development model, and underlines the need to establish a common vision, a management plan, and an evaluation of the community trail development model. Trail group coordination was found to be a problem in Ontario (Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion, 2005). C2C Proponents felt that municipal and provincial government interests, roles, and responsibilities need to be clarified and that there should be greater inter-government and departmental communication and collaboration.

Five key-informants stated that C2C proponents must be patient. LDT trail development can be a lengthy process; some trails took over a decade to complete because of funding, opposition, and roadblocks in the form of design standard policies (Eyler et al., 2008; McNamee 1983). Jensen (1995) notes the trail development challenge is long study periods and difficulty in obtaining trail access easements over private lands, which results in the sentiment that development is moving too slow. Given the private land and lack of LDT precedent in Nova Scotia, the development of the C2C will require time and patience.

Five key-informants insisted that the C2C be a community-led initiative to ensure local support and use. The notion was that passionate individuals and organizations would have a greater interest in a long-term C2C than would the government. Furthermore, Nova Scotia's history of land expropriation and the high percentage of private land suggest that community support of the C2C will require that the project be community inspired and led. Communities have to lead local trails for long-term sustainability (Hugo, 1999). According to the Scottish National Heritage (1997), it is critical that local communities are leaders in trail development because government policies and priorities can change rapidly.

103 6.3.3 PLANNING PROCESS

Gain landowner support - Thirteen key-informants noted that acquiring private landowner support is a key consideration because the majority of the potential land-base is privately owned. Involving private landowners in the development process was identified as critical in gaining support. Proponents may be able to mitigate this challenge depending on the vision and to what extent pre-existing trails and public routes will be incorporated, however this may compromise the desired trail experience. Key- informants noted potential landowner concerns including liability, unwanted OHV activity, fire, vandalism, unwanted overnighting, and possible effects of C2C users straying from the trail corridor.

Gaining landowner support is a predominant consideration noted in the literature, with potential landowner concerns cited as including land valuation change, safety issues arising from strangers in the community, detailed access requirements, maintenance (Eyler et al., 2008), and fear of property right infringements without economic incentives or protection of their original land-use rights (Cordell et al., 1990; Jensen, 1995). McNamee (1983) notes that LDT organizations generally do not predict the level of landowner opposition and seldom take effective steps to placate concerns, and that an open planning process is required to avoid landowner alienation. The UBoFBI failed partly because proponents did not initially approach private landowners (Canning, 2005). C2C proponents have not yet taken sufficient steps to engage and build support of private landowners, yet they recognize the need to do so.

Ensure liability - Confirming and clarifying liability was noted by 11 key-informants as a key consideration. Specifically, what is and is not covered by existing coverage needs verification by proponents, such as vandalism, fire, overnighting, shelters, search and rescue costs, and potential actions caused by users to private property off the trail. Furthermore, liability coverage needs to be publicized and promoted by NSTF and the provincial government, which holds the coverage. Ensuring liability coverage is predominant in the literature. Resolving issues of liability is a key component of LDT

104 development and trail proponents must clearly understand and communicate issues surrounding liability to stakeholders (NWWAC, 2006; Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion, 2005).

Develop a plan - Nine key-informants articulated that planning was a fundamental consideration for a sustainable C2C. Proponents must create development and management plans based on a common C2C vision. Connecting a patchwork of independent trails and naming the results the C2C may not be the desired outcome. In addition, proponents need to develop a common strategy for approaching landowners. Developing a plan is a predominant consideration noted in the literature. Strategic planning is a fundamental and critical component of any successful leisure resource (Eyler et al., 2008; McLean et al., 1998) and should commence prior to meeting with landowners and trail routing (ARPA, 2002).

Nine key-informants identified an evaluation of Nova Scotia's currently predominant model of community-led trail development. One concern is that volunteer-led initiatives can fail due to their inexperience and heavy LDT-requirements. Community-led trail initiatives are common (Eyler et al., 2008), however because there are few LDTs in Nova Scotia (Haynes, 1995), the Nova Scotian structure is relatively untested.

According to Eyler et al., "The reliance of many community projects on unpaid helpers, resources and volunteers can be problematic (because) community-group priorities can change, creating challenges for trail development, and at times, the end of progress" (2008, p. 421). Government off-loading was also expressed by key-informants as a weakness of the community development model. Many informants thought that the government was not fulfilling its part in creating and maintaining trails. The development of the IAT in New Brunswick and Quebec was relatively straight forward because both provincial governments were active partners of the community development model, and crown land was made available for trail location (Richard, 1997). Finally, there was a concern that the community development model is not equipped to incorporate the regional-provincial trails needs.

105 Five key-informants stated that C2C proponents should be strategic with regards to timing and understanding the local context. Land-use decisions were deemed sensitive in Nova Scotia, especially given the high proportion of privately-owed land. Many Nova Scotians are suspicious of new government land-use initiatives given the legacy of land- expropriation on behalf of Parks Canada; this suspicion is exemplified in the failed Polletts Cove hiking trail initiative. In addition, there is an idea that new land-based initiatives will restrict more traditional uses, namely resources extraction, and this fear is exemplified by the failed UBoFBI (Canning, 2005). Much of the C2C will pass the same regions in Cumberland and Colchester Counties as those proposed under the UBoFBI. Proponents must be strategic with respect to timing and be aware of any contextual issues that may hinder C2C development.

Marketing the LDT - Nine key-informants noted that marketing LDT-associated benefits was critical. For example, marketing trail-related health benefits could help secure additional funding, and marketing rural economic and community development benefits could stimulate community support for the C2C. The C2C could be marketed as filling a missing niche in the suite of Nova Scotian hiking trails by providing an inland multi-day hiking trail that follows the Cobequid Mountains. LDT marketing is predominant in the literature, and one of the 13 key considerations identified in the literature review. LDT marketing is critical in gaining user-ship and support (Economic Planning Group, 2003; Eyler et al, 2008).

Five key-informants remarked that trail promotion is a key marketing consideration. Trail promotion could help the C2C increase usership, community interest, partnership, and future funding. Proponents should partner with the tourism industry because tourism organizations have effective means of promotion. LDT marketing is predominant in the literature, and one of the 13 key considerations identified in the literature review. Trail promotion is required to attract users (NWWAC, 2006; R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Servies, 1999) and to generate tourism demand (Economic Planning Group, 2003).

106 Include local communities - Nine key-informants identified proximate or local community support for the C2C as essential. Involving neighboring communities in the development process is essential in establishing community ownership of the C2C. Proponents should develop a forum which allows community members to respond to the concept, ask questions and address possible concerns. Furthermore, involving the community in the development process will allow proponents the opportunity to clarify intentions, and will help create new C2C proponents. Including local communities is a key considerations identified in the literature. The LDT planning process must be open, inclusive and incorporate broad stakeholder consultation (McNamee, 1983; NWWAC, 2006). One strength of the ECT is that communities take pride in the trail because they were involved in the development process (D.W. Knight Associates Team, 2005).

Stakeholder communication - Eight key-informants stated that early and transparent communication of the C2C was required. Informants felt that rumors can start and have negative impacts namely in rural areas. The C2C concept could be jeopardized if C2C stakeholders hear about the concept indirectly. Two Nova Scotian precedents which informants highlighted that failed primarily due to inadequate community and stakeholder support were the UBoFBI and the Polletts Cove hiking trail initiative. The UBoFBI (Canning, 2005) and PC-AFWA hiking trail initiative failed in part due to poor communication of intentions. The need for stakeholder communication is a predominant theme in the literature, and one of the 13 key considerations identified in the literature review. LDT developers must communicate with stakeholders early in the development process (Aitchison et al., 2000; Eyler et al., 2008)

Maintenance - Eight key-informants noted that maintenance was key for C2C sustainability. Financial and human mechanisms required for maintenance must be considered. Informants noted that securing maintenance funding is more difficult than initial funding. Cape Chignecto Provincial Park was cited as an example where over­ building has led to maintenance challenges due to minimal available funding. In addition, C2C proponents must determine whether NSE and NSDNR will aid in trail

107 maintenance in Wilderness Areas and crown land. Maintenance considerations are predominant in the literature, and one of the 13 key considerations identified in the literature review. Up-front needs for trail maintenance should not be underestimated (ARPA, 2002; Varnedoe, 1994). Shapins Associates (2000) note maintenance funding is often over-looked and vital for LDT success.

Form partnerships - Seven key-informants cited partnership development as critical because it draws in broader interest and diversifies the resource pool available for initial development and long-term ownership. Informants suggested partnerships be developed with hiking and trail associations, tourism, conservation groups, municipalities and provincial departments. Whether C2C proponents partner with motorized recreationists will be vision dependent. Partnership formation is predominant in the literature, and one of the 13 key considerations identified in the literature review. Partnerships are critical for sustainable community-led trail initiatives (Economic Planning Group, 2003; R..J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services, 1999) and should include community leaders (Eyler et al., 2008).

Seven key-informants remarked that gaining support from the county-municipalities was a key consideration because a LDT connecting Cape George to Cape Chignecto will pass four counties. Municipal support would help give the trail legitimacy, the proponents credibility, and potentially aid trail maintenance. Furthermore, proponents stated that municipalities should play a more active role in facilitating trail development, such as by communicating zoning regulations and promotion. Highlighting greater county- municipality support stems from a sentiment that C2C proponents, who are volunteers, are doing all the work.

According to Baud-Bovy and Lawson (1998) the role of regional and local authorities in outdoor recreation is vital when agreements between neighboring municipalities are required. There is currently no representation from Cumberland county, which is critical if the trail is to reach Cape Chignecto. Eyler et al. (2008) note that a lack of space and unfavorable zoning policies can hinder trail development. According to D.W. Knight

108 Associates Team (2005), one of the major challenges facing the ECT is inconsistent and non-supportive municipal zoning issues.

Five key-informants articulated the need for provincial support. Informants identified a need for the province to play a greater role in the community trail development model, and suggested that the province should create processes which facilitate trail development. NSE administers the four Wilderness Areas that the C2C will pass through. There has already been collaboration in developing a trail in the Gully Lake Wilderness Area. Proponents noted that NSDNR, which administers the rest of the province's crown land, has not been particularly cooperative in supporting the C2C effort. On the other hand, one NSDNR representative noted that at the time of the interview he was not aware of the C2C proposal. The latter suggests a need for greater C2C promotion and inter­ departmental communication. Overall, NSDNR and NSE must better communicate their crown-land use policies with respect to additional C2C trail and wilderness shelter development.

Bureaucratic processes, permits, inspections, and meeting requirements add time to the already long LDT development process, and mixed government signals can lead to proponent frustration and burn-out (Eyler et al., 2008). Trails need public investment (Economic Planning Group, 2003). Provincial government hurdles are a common problem as exemplified by the Ontario trails community calling for more trail-friendly policy (Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion, 2005). According to NSDHPP (2005) government commitment to support trail development and management is critical in Nova Scotia. Key-informants note that the current levels of support are inadequate for the C2C.

Acquire Funding - Five key-informants noted that funding was a key consideration for a sustainable C2C. Nova Scotia trails receive funding through NSDHPP, however key- informants noted that C2C proponents need to plan for a broadened long-term funding strategy. One key-informant suggested that C2C proponents seek an Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency grant similar to the one received by the ECT and the TCT.

109 Proponents might consider requesting financial or in-kind support from forestry corporations, as much of the C2C will cross their lands. Funding acquisition from diverse sources is predominant in the literature, and one of the 13 key considerations identified in the literature review. All LDTs require funding (ARPA, 2002; NWWAC, 2006) and should budget for an additional 15-20% for contingencies (Economic Planning Group, 2003). Recreation and tourism planners, Baud-Bovy and Lawson (1998), argue that forested lands provide minimal cost trail routing opportunities for LDTs:

In many countries forests, even privately owned, are open to the public and their use for outdoor recreation is encouraged, particularly where forestry operations are no longer profitable. Indeed, the relevant public authority may impose public access as a condition of grant aid and other advantages for the forest owners (p. 126).

Douglas (1982) notes, "If recreation planning information were available to the forester far enough in advance, possible recreation sites could be saved, specially cut, or cut far in advance of the time when they will be needed for recreation" (in Baud-Bovy & Lawson, 1998, p. 126). C2C proponents should seek partnerships with forestry corporations whereby pre-determined trail access is granted to the C2C in return for good corporate- citizenship publicity. Forestry companies may also provide machinery and wood for infrastructure.

6.3.4 LONG-DISTANCE TRAIL DEVELOPMENT

Contemplate design - Ten key-informants stated that new wilderness shelters need careful design consideration, and specifically that shelter design should be kept basic to facilitate long-term maintenance and sustainability. For example, proponents should consider the costs and benefits of providing the ability for users to build an open fire or use a wood stove because, while fire adds a pleasant aesthetic and warmth, it also requires additional management and adds liability concerns. Key-informants suggested that proponents run a shelter pilot study in the Economy Wilderness Area because the Wilderness Area currently allows overnight tenting. Contemplating design is a predominant consideration in the literature. Trail proponents should carefully consider

110 the costs and benefits of trail infrastructure needs (NWWAC, 2006) and keep the design simple (Hugo, 1999).

Five key-informants said trail design was fundamental and should assess long-term infrastructure maintenance requirements such as bridges which will add financial and maintenance requirements. Key-informants stated that proponents must resist the temptation to over-build the trail in consideration of long-term maintenance. The C2C vision and management plan should dictate trail design. Trail design is critical in delivering the desired user-experience, conserving the environment (Varnedoe, 1994) and minimizing long-term trail maintenance (Hugo, 1999).

Six key-informants noted that studying LDTs with similar characteristics to the C2C was crucial because there is no LDT precedent similar to the C2C in Nova Scotia. Proponents should consider regional LDTs such as the ECT, portions of the IAT and the Bruce Trail. Contemplating various LDT designs is predominant in the literature, and one of the 13 key considerations identified in the literature review. McNamee (1983) and R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services (1999) argue that trail proponents should examine previous LDT projects and the issues that made development challenging.

6.4 DIFFERENCES

Two primary differences emerged between the respective key considerations as derived from the literature and from key-informants. First, the relative frequency of the references to key considerations differed. Certain considerations were identified more frequently by key-informants than in the literature, and vice versa. This may be a consequence of the relatively small sample sizes for both the literature and the key informants, or, alternatively, it may reflect differences specific to the C2C context. Second, key-informants identified more specific or detailed considerations as compared with those that emerged from the literature review. This is likely due to case-specific considerations relevant to the C2C context, as contrasted with the more general considerations relevant to all LDT developments.

Ill The results suggest that OHVs are a primary consideration for developing a LDT in Nova Scotia. The latter is consistent with Janmaat and VanBlarcom (2009) who conducted a study on shared-use trails in Nova Scotia. The literature does note that mitigating user conflicts was a key consideration for developing a LDT, however there was less emphasis than was noted by C2C key-informants. This finding suggests that potential conflicts between motorized and non-motorized recreationists is proportionately a larger issue than in other jurisdictions, or that the repercussions of excluding OHVs from the C2C may be more problematic than in other jurisdictions. Possible reasons include a relatively high population density, weak regulations and enforcement, a small and/or unorganized hiking trail community, and the popularity and strong stakeholder groups associated with OHV useinNS.

The results also suggest key-informants view private landowner support as a particularly critical consideration. This emphasis as compared to the literature is likely because the proportion of private land in the province is relatively high compared to most Canadian provinces (Nova Scotia Public Lands Coalition, 2006). In addition, there is no LDT trail precedent across private lands in Nova Scotia; the TCT followes abandoned railway lines. As one informant noted "The whole C2C concept rests on the goodwill of the landowners " (14).

The literature emphasized four key considerations for LDT development more highly than did the key informants: creating a management plan, strategizing for maintenance, developing a diverse partnership base, and determining a mechanism for long term funding from both private and public sources. This is not surprising because there is no precedent of a LDT similar to the C2C in Nova Scotia and the trail-development community is inexperienced at LDT planning.

6.5 DISCUSSION

Overall, findings from the C2C support those in the literature. Both the literature and this study confirm that certain considerations are necessary for a sustainable LDT. However,

112 while these considerations were identified by key-informants, It seems quite clear that some have not been adequately considered or implemented to date in the C2C LDT development process.

Since key-informants identified the same key considerations as those derived from the literature, the question arises as to why they are not being incorporated in the development of the C2C. It is likely that C2C proponents are driven by the activity a trail will facilitate such as getting outside, trail-routing, trail-blazing, infrastructure creation, and, ultimately, hiking. What makes for a successful LDT development, however, is not rushing to the actual trail blazing. There are a number of processes and considerations that must be acknowledged and fulfilled beforehand. This is a particular challenge if the LDT's proponents are volunteers, as they are less likely to be driven by tasks such as drafting a management plan, researching liability and insurance requirements, and conducting stake-holder consultations. This phenomenon appears to have been at play in the C2C context, as six of the key-informants were C2C proponents associated only through volunteerism. According to the literature (Eyler et al, 2008; R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services, 1999) the C2C scenario is common, where a LDT- initiative is being led by inexperienced volunteers with lacking support from other stakeholders.

Given the numerous trail-benefits that the C2C could facilitate (Go for Green, 2005), there needs to be more proponent-support by other stake-holders. Provincial government departments, including NSE, NSDNR, NSDHPP and NSDTCH, as well as municipalities, all have mandates which the C2C could help fulfill. The government needs to play a more active role in supporting the proponents because volunteers can only do so much. However, prominent government planners from both NSE and NSDNR were unaware of the C2C prior to their interviews, which suggests a communication weakness in the C2C process.

The latter scenario highlights the need for all stake-holders to meet and create a common vision which will provide the foundation for a management plan. Both a government

113 planner and a C2C proponent need to initiate the latter as a joint process. Once Vision and Management Plans are in place, there should be support from the communities and land-owners, (since they should be part of this process). These provide foundational steps for developing a sustainable LDT.

The C2C has certain strengths including momentum, existing county trail organizations in three of the four counties, the Cobequids Mountains as a geographic feature which ties into the IAT vision, four wilderness areas and a provincial park with existing trails as physical anchors, the two Capes as attractive origin and destination points, and a LDT driven by local communities. The C2C also has several weaknesses: the length of the C2C is ambitious given the lack of provincial precedent; much of the region is owned by multiple private landowners, which could cause slow progress in reaching access agreements; it is proposed as a linear LDT, which is less popular than circular LDTs; and there is no trail organization or other representation in Cumberland County. On balance, continuing with the C2C LDT as a concept is justified as it holds some promise and is still in the initial stages of development. While many key considerations are in place, other key considerations are not. Proponents must plan the C2C according to the key considerations derived from the literature and identified by key-informants, so that sustainability is ensured and that proponents' hard work is rewarded.

6.6 KEY FINDINGS

The results of this study confirm those reported in the literature, suggesting that certain processes and criteria are necessary to successfully develop a LDT. Simply put, a successful, sustainable LDT requires more than the actual trail. It requires that proponents develop a common vision, that all stakeholders be consulted, that local communities and land-owner(s) support the LDT, and that a management plan be developed that outlines roles and responsibilities and considers long-term funding and maintenance.

114 While C2C key-informants identified similar key considerations as those identified in the literature, not all key considerations were being followed by proponents. Based on the lack of adherence to some key considerations, the C2C as it is currently being developed may not come to fruition, and, if it does, may not prove sustainable over time.

6.7 IMPLICATIONS

This study has implications for C2C proponents, LDT practitioners, and planning and outdoor recreation scholars. The results suggest that C2C proponents must follow certain procedures if the C2C is to be successfully developed as a sustainable LDT. A series of recommendations are provided in the following chapter - Conclusion and Recommendations. This research provides LDT scholars and practitioners with a case study that supports the findings reported in the literature with respect to key considerations for developing a LDT. It also highlights more detailed considerations that have application in jurisdictions with characteristics similar to those in the C2C, including a high percentage of private land, a strong OHV presence, and a lack of provincial LDT precedent.

6.8 LIMITATIONS

Several limitations are apparent in this thesis. The first limitation pertains to the literature review. There is minimal Canadian LDT development literature (ARPA, 2002; McNamee, 1983; R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services, 1999). While literature sources describing other countries are plentiful and were considered, their applicability to Canada may be questionable.

The second limitation is founded in the methodological approach. First, while the quantitative-qualitative hybrid approach to scholarship was justified in the methods chapter, particularly as applied research, the approach may weaken the caliber of the study's results. The quantification of a non-probable sample is potentially problematic, as statistical analyses cannot be conducted and the significance of results cannot be measured. Second, the key-informants selected via snowball sampling do not represent a

115 comprehensive sample of knowledgeable LDTs experts and outdoor recreation planning professionals. Third, the researcher was asked not to contact private landowners for strategic reasons and they were therefore not included as key-informants. Finally, shelter-associated LDTs are generally unknown in Nova Scotia, which necessitated that the researcher provide a schematic illustrating the range shelter possibilities (see Figure 2: Range of Long-Distance Trail Shelters, Chapter 2) which may have biased interviewee response.

Given these limitations, there is still value in this study. A wide range of LDT proponents, practitioners and scholars were interviewed in depth about key considerations for developing a LDT. This represents a strong balance between the number of participants and the depth and range of their responses, and achieved a practical sample size and data set for analysis within the time limitations associated with a master's thesis. It integrates qualitative insights with the quantitative aspects of content analysis. The results provide timely and concrete direction for C2C application, consistent with applied research. It provides results from a specific case study, explicitly focused on key considerations, and a comparison to those identified in the literature.

116 CHAPTER 7 - CONCLUSION

This chapter provides recommendations, discusses research implications and contributions, and identifies future research areas.

7.1 RESEARCH SUMMARY

This study's goal was to describe the key considerations for developing the C2C, and to identify those that may be relevant to other LDTs. This study's objectives were to determine the key considerations for developing LDTs as derived from the literature and as identified by C2C key-informants, to compare and contrast those derived from the LDT literature with those identified by C2C key-informants, and to provide guidance to proponents, based on the findings, on whether and/or how to move the C2C forward.

Sustainable LDT development requires that proponents consider certain key elements. Overall, the results from the literature review and the key-informant interviews highlight similar key considerations as particularly critical for LDT development in general and specifically in the C2C context. However, the results indicate that the current C2C development process does not currently address many of these key considerations required to develop a sustainable LDT, potentially threatening its feasibility and viability. Below are a series of recommendations for C2C proponents to improve their chances of successfully implementing a LDT that will be sustainable over time.

7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE C2C

C2C key-informants concur with the planning and outdoor recreation literature that a sustainable LDT requires the consideration of certain elements. The current development of the C2C, however, has not addressed many of these key considerations and focuses instead on physical trail implementation.

Hugo's (1999) Comprehensive Trail Development Model, available in Appendix E, outlines five trail development stages: assessment, planning, evaluation, implementation,

117 and monitoring/auditing. The key considerations identified by the literature and key- informants are housed within the first three stages articulated by Hugo (1999). LDT practitioners often start trail implementation before prior assessment, planning and evaluation, and this is especially true with volunteer-led LDTs (Eyler et al., 2008; Hugo, 1999).

This study suggests that the LDT for C2C should only be further pursued under specific conditions: that the proponents cease physical trail implementation and commence LDT assessment, planning and evaluation. Proponents should use Hugo's model as a framework within which this study's findings and recommendations can be situated. The following are steps that C2C proponents should pursue to develop a sustainable LDT.

7.2.1 ESTABLISH C2C LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE

C2C proponents should self-identify so that other proponents are clear who else is involved. Other potential proponents should be identified and invited from other trail and recreation organizations and from provincial departments that are actively involved in the C2C, including NSDHPP, NSE, NSDNR and NSDTCH. Relevant municipal employees should be identified and invited as well. The outcome should be the establishment of a C2C committee to lead the LDT assessment, planning and evaluation processes.

7.2.2 CREATE A COMMON VISION

Proponents should meet with relevant communities and stakeholders to define a common vision and purpose of the C2C. Goals and objectives should be defined and assessed. A visioning workshop should be organized and include a professional facilitator. NSDHPP should finance this session because the department already funds trail development and has already supported the C2C. The workshop should focus on consensus, avoid details, and establish a macro-scale vision. Aspects that should be addressed include whether the C2C should be end-to-end, to what degree it will be a footpath, to what degree it will use existing roads, what timeline proponents envision, and whether the C2C will be inclusive of motorized and other non-motorized (e.g., mountain-biking, cross-country skiing, and

118 horse-back riding) activities. Proponents must address the role of OHVs and the use of existing OHV trails in conjunction with the C2C. The outcome should be the articulation of a common vision.

C2C proponents must take care to avoid common recreation planning pitfalls. Four of the most common pifalls, identified by McLean et al. (1998), are taking criticism personally, carrying grudges against other stakeholders, being rigid and conservative in identifying problems and evaluating alternative strategies and policies, and failing to be enthusiastic about the process and the possibilities it creates for building a quality and desirable community. Instead, differences of opinion should be anticipated and embraced, and skills and processes should be fostered for dealing with these, such as those for conflict resolution and negotiation.

Lucas (1970) questions the value of LDTs: "I think we should resist an over-fascination with LDTs running on for hundreds of thousands of miles. These trails have a monumental aura about them, and are impressive on a map. They are an interesting part, but only a small part, of the diverse system needed" (in McNamee, 1983, p. 38). C2C must determine whether a LDT extending the entire distance from Cape George to Cape Chignecto is the desired vision, and if so, whether a smaller LDT should first be developed as a pilot project or a first phase.

7.2.3 ASSESS THE COMMUNITY TRAIL MODEL AND DEVELOP A MANAGEMENT PLAN

Roles, responsibilities and accountability of volunteers and governments should be articulated by C2C Committee members in consultation or collaboration with relevant government, stakeholder and community groups. It is critical that the proponent team be diverse and include expertise in project development. A management component of the C2C Committee should be developed, and measures should be taken to review the Vision to determine whether it is still accepted by all proponents. The Committee should

119 identify political and community leaders to spearhead greater county-collaboration and possibly create a 'Cobequid Council' with the C2C as a symbol of county partnership.

According to McNamee (1983), provincial governments should establish an over-viewing LDT secretariat, develop policy on easements on crown land for LDTs (provided trail associations can provide stewardship or maintenance plans), and explain in writing to all relevant departments the purpose of supporting LDTs. These suggestions all apply to C2C relevant provincial departments and county-municipalities.

7.2.4 CONFIRM LIABILITY COVERAGE, AND DETERMINE FUNDING SOURCES AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS

The C2C Committee must confirm liability coverage under NSTF and communicate and clarify to private landowners what is and is not covered. Long-term private and public funding sources should be identified. Maintenance requirements should not be underestimated, and should be determined on the basis of the C2C vision and what is realistically feasible of a community-led LDT.

7.2.5 CONDUCT LOCAL COMMUNITY, PRIVATE LANDOWNER AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS

The C2C concept must be communicated to and tested by proximate communities, private landowners, and other stakeholders. McLean et al. (1998) state that avoiding citizen involvement in the planning process is one of the most common recreation planning pitfalls. Proponents must be transparent, well prepared, and anticipate and address concerns. LDT-associated benefits should be marketed by showcasing the ECT, the Bruce Trail, the IAT, and the AT as regional LDT success stories. In addition, C2C proponents should identify past LDT development errors and provide avoidance or mitigation plans for the C2C with respect to these. Community champions and leaders should be invited to join the C2C Committee.

120 7.2.6 DEVELOP PARTNERSHIPS

Proponents should develop partnerships with a diverse group of provincial and local organizations. Potential organizations should include other recreation groups, youth organizations, universities and colleges, conservation organizations, and the tourism industry. In addition, C2C proponents should establish a high profile mechanism for volunteer recognition and study other LDT models to understand, and subsequently foster, factors that motivate volunteer-membership (McNamee, 1983).

7.2.7 ASSESS C2C ANTHROPOGENIC AND BIOPHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS

The C2C vision must address commercial accommodation and/or wilderness shelters, and whether shelters be connected/developed concurrent to the physical trail or after trail completion. Furthermore, proponents should identify which biophysical and anthropogenic features the C2C will connect. Proponents must conduct environmental, services, amenities and shelter assessments.

C2C proponents could lobby for various greenbelt or greenway designations to gain support and recognition of C2C as a concept, designation, and LDT. One example is the Cabot Trail's 'Scenic Travelway' designation. According to Eyler et al. (2008) proponents should make the LDT fit into existing policies and plans, unless a right-of- way is required, because policies are hard to change. Appropriate policies will both depend upon and influence the C2C vision.

'Hiking Greenways' are linear 'open' or 'green' spaces within more developed areas that, when associated with streams, can "act as a vegetated buffer to protect water quality and fragile natural ecosystems such as wetlands and function as wildlife corridors" (Flournoy, 1989, in Baud-Bovy & Lawson, 1998). Linear waterways provide opportunities for footpaths often separated from traffic, and which can be attractive links between towns (Baud-Bovy & Lawson, 1998). The North Saskatchewan River Park is one example. C2C proponents should consider lobbying for hiking greenway designation on crown land.

121 Shapins Associates (2000) identify three innovative trail options for the State of Colorado which have potential application on the C2C depending on the vision. The first option is the development of thematic trails that include natural, cultural and historic resources. The C2C could potentially incorporate a Mi'kmaq and/or Acadian component. The second option is a historic structure shelter-to-shelter system which could link historic towns, bed and breakfasts and/or farm-stays. The last option is to tie a non-motorized trail system to the Scenic Byways Program (roads). For example, the C2C could be routed along Nova Scotia's Glooscap and Sunrise Scenic Travelways which are situated along the belt of land extending from Cape George to Cape Chignecto.

7.2.8 DEVELOP A G2C PROPOSAL

The C2C Committee and all relevant stakeholders should develop a C2C proposal and decide to either re-plan, abandon or implement the proposal. Hugo's (1999) Comprehensive Trail Development Model should guide implementation and monitoring/ auditing stages and is available in Appendix E.

7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LONG-DISTANCE TRAIL PRACTITIONERS AND SCHOLARS

This study supports those key considerations for developing a LDT derived from the literature. However, practitioners and scholars should be aware of regional particularities that may change or add requisite considerations. This C2C study highlighted more- specific variables which require consideration including provincial LDT precedent, level of experience among LDT proponents, strength of OHV culture and established infrastructure, percentage of private land, whether the prevailing trail development model is community, industry or government led, and the particularly sensitive contexts and history, such as those illustrated by the failed UBoFBI and PC-AFWA processes.

122 7.4 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS

This study made two original research contributions to the planning and outdoor recreation field. First, a Nova Scotian case-study was added to the range of those already studied, as described in the LDT development literature. Second, this study provides practitioners, especially C2C proponents and stakeholders, with an appraisal of the key considerations required for C2C development, including a compilation of key-informant views and opinions, a comparison with key considerations derived from the LDT development literature, and a set of recommendations based on the findings.

7.5 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Five research topics emerged from this study in conjunction with the literature, that need future analysis:

- Why backcountry shelter provision is a normal part of the wilderness experience in some parts of the world, like New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and Europe (Cook & Harrison, 2002; Crowe & Reid, 1998; Hugo, 1999; Quigg, 1993) but not in other places such as Canada;

- Canadian LDT systems planning, economic impacts, and users (R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services, 1999);

- the costs and benefits of the community trail model in Nova Scotia; and

- differences in ethos provided by wilderness shelters and commercial accommodation as part of a LDT.

Further, the concept of wilderness or commercial accommodation shelters linked by a trail or route, for multi-day self-propelled outdoor recreation, has no standard or consistent terminology and no dedicated or focused body of literature. Recreation and tourism experts Baud-Bovy and Lawson (1998) use the term "integrated network" (p. 96). In collaboration with Nova Scotia hiking expert Michael Haynes and Nova Scotia

123 Protected Areas expert Peter Labor, this study proposed the term 'shelter network'. Future research surrounding an 'integrated shelter network' should be considered.

7.6 CONCLUSION

LDT development is a procedurally and physically long and large undertaking. This research supports the literature's assessment that developing a sustainable LDT requires more than building the physical trail and illustrates that the C2C is no exception. Proponents might feel disillusioned about the study's assessment of and recommendations for the C2C. However, the C2C is still in its infancy and has the opportunity to learn from the mistakes and successes of other LDTs, and the potential to become a successful and sustainable LDT, should the key considerations outlined here be addressed.

In a 1999 report on trail systems planning for the British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, R.J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services concludes "Do not give up on moving the goal of a province-wide trail systems plan, as the benefits of such actions will be extraordinary" (p. 31). A sustainable C2C has the same potential and will invariably benefit the people of Nova Scotia.

124 REFERENCES

Alaska Mountain and Wilderness Huts Association. (2004). Mills Creek - Iditarod Trail hut-to-hut system. Anchorage, Alaska.

Alpine Club of Canada. (2008). Clubhouse and mountain huts. Retrieved 3 April 2008. http://www.alpineclubofcanada.ca/facility/index.html

Alta Planning and Design. (2005). Mauna Loa Trail system feasibility study: Trail demand and economic analysis. For Nature Conservancy of Hawaii. Honolulu, Hawaii.

Aitchison, C, Macleod, N. E., & Shaw, S. J. (2000). Leisure and tourism landscapes: Social and cultural geographies. New York: Routledge Advances in Tourism

Alberta Recreation and Parks Association. (2002). Trail development position paper. Calgary. Accessed 26 February 2009. http://www.arpaonline.ca/ad/pp/TrailsPolicy.pdf

Anne Robinson and Associates. (2004). Leisure trends monitor, 1 (1), 1-16.

Barry, C. A. (1998). Choosing qualitative data analysis software: Atlas/ti and Nudist Compared. Sociological Research Online, 3(3), no p.

Baud-Bovy, M., & Lawson, F. (1998). Tourism and recreation: Handbook of planning and design. Boston: Architectural Press.

Beaumont, N. (2001). Ecotourism and the conservation ethic: Recruiting the uninitiated or preaching to the converted? Journal or Sustainable Tourism, 9 (4), 317-339.

Beedie, P. (2003). Adventure tourism. In S. Hudson (Ed.), Sports and adventure tourism. New York, New York: Routledge.

Bennett, M. A., Kriwoken, L. K., & Fallon, L. D. (2003). Managing bushwalker impacts in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, Australia. International Journal of Wilderness, 9(1), 14-18.

Bennett, R. M., Tranter, R. B., & Blaney, R. J. P. (2003). The value of countryside access: A contingent valuation survey of visitors to the ridgeway national trail in the United Kingdom. Journal or Environmental Planning and Management, 46(5), 659-671.

Blair, S. N. & Brodney, S. (1999). Effects of physical inactivity and obesity on morbidity and mortality: current evidence and research. Medicine Science Sports Exercise, 31, 646-662.

Boulding, K.E. (1966). The economics of the coming spaceship earth. In Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy, H. Jarret (ed.). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

125 Bowker, J. M., & Gill, J. K. (2004). The Virginia Creeper Trail: An assessment of user demographics, preferences, and economics. Virginia Department of Conservation.

Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Budd, J. W. (2004). Mind maps as classroom exercises. Journal of Economic Education, 55(1), 35-46.

Butler, R. (1989). The future. In G. Wall (Ed.), Outdoor Recreation in Canada. Toronto, Ontario: John Wiley and Sons.

Butler, R., Hall, C. M., & Jenkins, J. (1998). (Eds.) Tourism and recreation in rural- areas. Chichester: Wiley.

Butler, R. (2000). Tourism and national parks in the twentieth century. In R. Butler & S. Boyd (Eds.), Tourism and national parks: Issues and implications. New York: John Wiley & Sons, LTD.

Butler, R., & Boyd, S. (2000). Tourism and national parks: Issues and implications. New York: John Wiley & Sons, LTD.

Campbell, D. (2000). A short history of the National Trail: The first 25 ¥ears. Sentier National Trail.

Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute. (1998). Physical activity benchmarks. Accessed 6 March 2009 http://www.cflri.ca/pdf/e/95pam.pdf

Canadian Institute of Planners. (2009). Planning. Accessed 11 August 2009. http:// www.cip-icu.ca/web/la/en/pa/3FC2AFA9F72245C4B8D2E709990D58C3/template.asp

Canadian Parks/Recreation Association. (1997). The benefits catalogue. Gloucester, Ontario: Bonanza Printing and Copying Centre Inc.

Canning, C. (2005). Conservation and local communities: Exploring the uUpper Bay of Fundy Biosphere Reserve Initiative in Nova Scotia. Unpublished Masters Thesis. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Dalhousie University.

Catanese, A. & Snyder, J. (1988). Urban planning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cessford, G. (1997). Visitor satisfactions, impact perceptions, and attitudes towards management options on the Kepler Track. Science of Conservation, (p. 70). Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.

126 Chavez, D. J. (2000). Wilderness visitors in the 21st century. InternationalJournal of Wilderness, 6(2), 10-11.

Clark, R., & Stankey, G. (1979). The recreation opportunity spectrum: a framework for planning, management, and research. USA Department of Agriculture-Forest Service Research Paper, PNW 98.

Cobham, R. (1990). Amenity landscape management. New York: E. & F.N. Spon.

Colton, J. & Bissex, G. (2005). Developing agritourism in Nova Scotia: Issues and challenges. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 2 7(1),91-112.

Cook, A., & Harrison, S. (2002). Economic evaluation of proposed long-distance walking tracks in the wet tropics of Queensland. Economic Analysis and Policy, 32(2), 113-129.

Cordell, H. K; Bergstrom, J. C, Hartmann, L. A., & English, D. B. K. (1990). An analysis of the outdoor recreation and wilderness situation in the United States: 1989-2040. United States Department of Agriculture - Forest Service. General Technical Report RM-189.

Cordell, H. K., Lewis, B., & McDonald, B. L. (1995). Long-term outdoor recreation participation trends. In: Thompson, J., Gartner, B., Lime, D.W., & Sames, W.N. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Outdoor Recreation Tourism Trends Symposium and the 1995 National Recreation Resource Planning Conference. University of Minnesota, pp. 35-38.

Cordell, H. K. & Betz, G. T. (2002). Recreation and the environment as cultural dimensions in contemporary american society". Leisure Sciences, 24, 13-41.

Crowe, L., & Reid, L. (1998). The increasing commercialization of countryside recreation facilities: The case of Scottish mountain bothies. Managing Leisure, 3, 204-212.

Croy, W. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Backcountry. In Jenkins, J., & Pigram, J. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of leisure and outdoor recreation (p. 28). New York: Routledge.

(DOC) Department of Conservation, New Zealand. (2008). Backcountry huts information: North and south islands. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Conservation.

D.W Knight Associates Team. (2005). The East Coast Trail economic benefits analysis executive study. Submitted to the East Coast Trail Association Steering Committee. St John's.

127 Davenport, M. A., & Anderson, D. H. (2005). Getting from sense of place to place- based management: An interpretive investigation of place meanings and perceptions of landscape change. Society andNatural Resources, 18, 625-641.

De Wever, B. D., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(2006), 6-28.

Deeg, B. (2008). The Acadian Trail. The Canadian encyclopedia. Accessed 3 April 2008. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm? PgNm=TCE&Params=AlARTA0000021

Driver, B.L., & Brown, P.J. (1978). The opportunities spectrum concept and behaviour information in outdoor recreation resource supply inventories: a rationale. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Economic Planning Group. (2003). A 'trails for tourism'strategy for Cape Breton. Prepared for Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. Halifax.

Economic Planning Group. (2005). A guide to starting and operating an adventure tourism business in Nova Scotia. Halifax, Nova Scotia.

East Coast Trail Association. (2006). Study shows the East Coast Trail is a success: Governments to fund additional construction - News release. Accessed 5 February 2008. http://www.eastcoasttrail.com/pdf/news_release_2006-07-25.pdf

Enviro Nova Management and Consulting. (2000). Report on potential development of the Polletts Cove-Aspy Fault hiking trail. Sydney, Nova Scotia.

Environics. (1998). 1998 National survey on active transportation - Summary report. Ottawa: Go for Green.

Environment Canada. (2000). The importance of nature to Canadians: The economic significance of nature-related activities. Ottawa, Ontario.

Ewert, A. W. (2000). Trends in adventure recreation: Programs, experiences, and issues. Proceedings of the 5th outdoor recreation and tourism trends symposium (pp. 327-335). East Lansing, Michigan.

Ewert. A. W., & Hollenhorst, S.J. (1997). Adventure recreation and its implications for wilderness. InternationalJournal of Wilderness, 5(2), 21-27.

Eyler, A. A., Brownson, R. C, Evenson, K. R., Levinger, D., Maddock, J. E., Pluto, D., Troped, P. J., Schmid, T. L., Carnoske, C, Richards, K. L., & Steinman, L. E. (2008).

128 Policy influences on community trail development. Journal of Health, Politics, Policy and Law, 53(3), 407-427.

Fennell, D. (2003). Ecotourism (2nd Ed.). London: Routledge.

Foot, D. (1990). The age of outdoor recreation in Canada. Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 15(3), 159-178.

Fredrickson, L. & Anderson, D. (1999). A qualitative exploration of the wilderness experience as a source of spiritual inspiration. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 21-39.

Freimund, W. A. (2005). Wilderness. In Jenkins, J., & Pigram, J. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of leisure and outdoor recreation (pp. 550-554). New York: Routledge.

Gardner Pinfold Consulting Economists Limited. (1999). A survey on Nova Scotia Hiking Trail Users. Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Gartner, W. C, & Lime, D. W. (2000). (Eds.) Trends in outdoor recreation, leisure, and tourism. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

Glyptis, S. (1989). Recreation resource management. In C.P. Cooper (Ed.), Progress in tourism, recreation and hospitality management (Vol 1). New York: Belhaven Press.

Glyptis, S. (1993). Leisure and the environment. New York: Belhaven Press.

Glyptis, S. (1999). Countryside recreation. London: Longman.

Go for Green. (2005). Trail monitor. Ottawa, Ontario.

Goeft, U., & Alder, J. (2001). Sustainable mountain biking: a case study from southwest of Western Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9(3), 193-211.

Gratton C & Taylor, P. (2000). Economics of sport and recreation. New York: Spon Press.

Guiliani, M. & Feldman, R. (1993). Place attachment in a developmental and cultural Context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 261-21 A.

Hall, C. M. (2000). Tourism planning: Policies, processes, and relationships. Harlow: Pearson.

Hall, C. M., & Page, S. J. (2002). The geography of tourism and recreation: environment, place, and space (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

129 Hall, C. M., & Boyd, S. (2005). (Eds.) Nature-based tourism in peripheral areas: Development or disaster? Clevedon: Channel View.

Halpenny, E. (2005). Trails. In Jenkins, J., & Pigram, J. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of leisure and outdoor recreation (pp. 509-10). New York: Routledge.

Hammitt, W. E., & Schuster, R. M. (2000). Wilderness use in the next 100 years. InternationalJournal of Wilderness, 6(2), 12-13.

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243-8.

Hartleib, R. (2006). Nova Scotia pathways for people - Framework for action. Prepared for the Nova Scotia Department of Health Promotion and Protection. Halifax, Nova Scotia. Accessed 6 March 2009. http://www.gov.ns.ca/hpp/publications/ P4PFramework.pdf

Haynes, M. (1995), Hiking trails of Nova Scotia (1 st Ed.). Fredericton, New Brunswick: Goose Lane Editions.

Haynes, M. (2002), Hiking trails of Nova Scotia (8th Ed.). Fredericton, New Brunswick: Goose Lane Editions.

Heberlein, A., Fredman, P., & Vuorio, T. (2002). Current tourism patterns in the Swedish mountain region. Mountain Research and Development, 22(2), 142-149.

Higham, J. (1998). Sustaining the physical and social dimensions of wilderness tourism: The perceptual approach to wilderness management in New Zealand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 6(1), 26-51.

Higham, J., Kearsley, G., & Kliskey, A. (2000). Wilderness perceptions scaling in New Zealand: An analysis of wilderness perceptions held by users, nonusers, and international visitors. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS, 15(2), 218-222.

Hike Ontario. (2008). Benefits of trails. Accessed 28 January 2008. http:// www.hikeontario.com/benefits/beneftisoftrails.htm

Holmes, F. P., & Hecox, W. E. (2004). Does wilderness impoverish rural regions? InternationalJournal of Wilderness, 10(3), 34-39.

Home to Home Network. (2007). Accessed 10 March 200p. http:// www.hometohomenetwork.ca/index.html

Hsu, S., & Roth, R. (1998). An assessment of environmental literacy and analysis of predictors and responsible environment behavior held by secondary teachers in the Hualien area of Taiwan. Environmental Education Research, 4(3), 229-249.

130 Hugo, M.L. (1999). A comprehensive approach towards the planning, grading, and auditing of hiking trails as ecotourism products. Current Issues in Tourism, 2(2&3), 138-173.

(IUCN) International Union for Conservation of Nature. (2008). Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland: IUCN Publications Services.

Jacob, G.R., & Schreyer, R. (1980). Conflict in outdoor recreation: A theoretical perspective. Journal ojLeisure Research, 12, 368-380.

Janmaat, J., & VanBlarcom, B. (2009). Impact of all terrain vehicles access on the demand for a proposed trail. Managing Leisure, 14,57-70.

Jenkins, J., & Pigram, J. (2005). Outdoor recreation. In Jenkins, J., & Pigram, J. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of leisure and outdoor recreation (pp. 349-52). New York: Routledge.

Jensen, C. (1995). Outdoor recreation in America (5th ed.). Windsor, Ontario: Human Kinetics.

Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kearsley, G. (1990). Tourism development and users' perceptions of wilderness in southern New Zealand. Australian Geographer, 21(2), 127-140.

Kearsley, G., & Coughlan, D. (1999). Coping with crowding: Tourist displacement in the New Zealand backcountry. Current Issues in Tourism, 2(2&3), 197-210.

Klein, J.K. (2003). Integrated environmental planning. Hong Kong: Blackwell Publishing.

Kyle, G., Graefe, A., Manning, R., & Bacon, J. (2004). Effects of place attachment on users' perceptions of social and environmental conditions in a natural setting. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24,213-225.

Leech, B. L. (2002). Asking questions: Techniques for semistructured interviews. Political Science and Politics 55(4), 665-668.

Loomis, J. B., & Walsh, R. G. (1997). Recreation economic decisions. Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing.

Lynn, N. A., & Brown, R. D. (2003). Effects of recreational use impacts on hiking experiences in natural areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64, 77-87.

McLean, D. D., Bannon, J. J., & Gray, H. R. (1998). Leisure resources: Its comprehensive planning (2nd Ed.). Champaign, II: Sagamore Publishing.

131 McNamee, K. A. (1983). Institutional arrangements to protect long-distance trails: An evaluation of the Appalachian and Bruce Trail experiences. Master's Thesis, Geography Department, University of Waterloo.

Manning, R. E. (1999). Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for satisfaction. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University Press.

Marsh, J. & Wall, G. (1982). Recreational land use. Ottawa: Carleton Library.

Marsh, J. (2004). Trent University Trail Studies Unit- Trail definitions. Accessed 2 March 2009. http://www.trentu.ca/academic/trailstudies/TrailDefinitions.html

Marshall, R. (1933). The Forest for recreation. In a national plan for American forestry: A report prepared by the Forest Service in response to senate resolution 175 (72nd Congress). Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.

Massey, D., & Jess, P. (1995). (Eds.) Aplace in the world? Places, cultures, and globalization. Oxfords: The Open University.

Mento, J. A., Martinelli, P., & Jones, R. M. (1999). Mind mapping in executive education: Applications and outcomes. The Journal of Management Development, 18(4), 390-416.

Mieczkowski, Z. (1995). Environmental issues of tourism and recreation. New York, New York: University Press of America, Inc.

Mind Jet. (2008). Accessed 10 August 2007. http://www.mindjet.com/

Mitra, A., & Lankford, S. (1999). Research methods in parks, recreation, and leisure services. Champaign, II: Sagamore Publishing.

Moore, R., & Barthlow, K. (1998). The Economic Impacts and Users of Long-Distance Trails: Featuring a Case Study of the Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina State University.

Monette, D. R., Sullivan, T. J., DeJong, C. R. (1998). Applied social research (4th Ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Morrow, S. (2005). Continuity and change: The planning and management of long distance walking routes in Scotland. Managing Leisure, 10, 237-250.

Murdy, J. J. (2005). Nature-based tourism. In Jenkins, J., & Pigram, J. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of leisure and outdoor recreation (p. 332). New York: Routledge.

National Waymarked Way Advisory Committee. (2006). A guide for planning and developing waymarked walking trails in Ireland. Dublin: Irish Sports Council.

132 Neirotti, L. (2003). An introduction to sport and adventure tourism. In S. Hudson (Ed.), Sports and adventure tourism. New York: Routledge.

Neuman, W. L. (2004). Basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Toronto: Pearson Education, Inc.

Nova Scotia Department of Health Promotion and Protection. (1987). Proceedings of the Trails for Tomorrow conference. Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Nova Scotia Department of Health Promotion and Protection. (2005). Creating a positive climate for trail development in Nova Scotia. Scrutton, T. Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources. (2006). Parks and recreation division. Retrieved 18 October 2007. http://gov.ns.ca/natr/renewable.asp#parks

Nova Scotia Department of Tourism, Culture, and Heritage. (1997). Nova Scotia nature tourism study. Accessed 8 January 2008. http://www.gov.ns.ca/dtc/tourism/ tourismstudies.asp

Nova Scotia Department of Tourism, Culture, and Heritage. (2008). Outdoor activities. Accessed 9 March 2008. http://novascotia.com/en/home/whattodo/outdooractivities/ default, aspx

Nova Scotia Environment. (1998). Polletts Cove - Aspy Fault Area and wilderness hiking trail system. Public participation newsletter. Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Nova Scotia Environment. (2006). Developing a hiking trail in a Wilderness Area. Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Nova Scotia Environment. (2008). Protected Areas - Recreation. Accessed 4 February 2008. http://www.gov.ns.ca/nse/protectedareas/recreation.asp

Nova Scotia Environment. (2009). Wilderness Areas. Accessed 14 August 2009. http:// www. gov.ns. ca/nse/protectedareas/wildernessareas. asp

Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture. (2008). Concise answers to legal questions on the environment and land use. Accessed 13 March 2009. http://www.nsfa-fane.ca/ Question7

Nova Scotia Public Lands Coalition. (2006). Public Lands. Accessed 1 February 2009. http://www.publicland.ca/publiclands/index.html

Nova Scotia Voluntary Planning. (2004). Off-Highway Vehicle Task Force. Accessed 5 February 2009. http://vp.gov.ns.ca/files/vp/shared/pubs/OHV_Final_Report.pdf

133 Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion. (2005). Ontario trails strategy. Toronto: Queen's Printer for Ontario.

Parks Canada. (2008). The Parks Canada charter. Accessed 5 February 2008. http:// www.pc.gc.ca/agen/chart/chartr_E.asp

Piagram, J., & Jenkins, J. (2006). Outdoor recreation management (2nd Ed.). London: Routledge.

Pictou County Trails Association. (2008). Accessed 9 July 2008. http:// www.capetocapetrail.ca

Pigram, J. (1983). Outdoor recreation and resource management. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Pollock, N., Chase, L. C, Ginger, C, & Kolodinsky, J. (2007). Methodological innovations for measuring economic impacts of long-distance recreation trails. Proceedings of the 2007 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NRS-P-23, 257-263.

Potter, F. I., & Manning, R. I. (1984). Application of the wilderness travel simulation model to the Appalachian Trail in Vermont. Environmental Management, 5(6), 543-550.

Quigg, R. (1993). Backcountry huts: More than a roof over your head: A question of values in cultural heritage management. Unpublished Master of Applied Science Dissertation. Lincoln University, New Zealand.

R. J. Irvine Recreation Planning Services. (1999). Trail systems planning. Public policy development and initiation: synthesis of the literature and identification of best practices. British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management: Victoria, British Columbia.

Reynolds, G. (October, 2002). 200 Miles to Moab. National Geographic Adventure. New York: National Geographic Society.

Richard, W. E. (1997). The International Appalachian Trail. The InternationalJournal of Wilderness, 3(1), 33-38.

Rose, A. & Kverndokk, S. (1999). Equity in environmental policy with an application to global warming. In Handbook of environmental and resource economics, J. van den Bergh (ed.). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 352-79.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2000). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 1-14.

134 Russell, R., & Faulkner, B. (1999). Movers and shakers: chaos makers in tourism development. Tourism Management, 20, 411-423.

Scott, J. (2001). Backcountry Huts and Lodges of the Rockies and Columbias. Calgary: Johnson Gorman Publishers.

Scottish National Heritage. (1997). Access to the countryside for open air recreation: Scottish National Heritage's advice to the government. Accessed 20 January 2009. http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/accessguide/tools_ref.asp

Seaborg, E., & Dudley, E. (1994). Hiking and backpacking. Windsor, Ontraio: Human Kinetics.

Selman, R (2000). Environmental planning: The Conservation and Development of Biophysical Resources. London: SAGE Publications.

Sepaq. (2008). Accessed 19 January 2008. http://www.sepaq.com

Shapins Associates. (2000). Innovative Non-Motorized Trail Projects and Ideas. Prepared for Colorado State Trails Committee. Boulder.

Sharpley, R., & Telfer, D. J. (2002). (Eds.) Tourism and development: Concepts and issues. Clevedon: Channel View.

Shultis, J. (1999). The duality of wilderness: comparing popular and political conceptions of wilderness in New Zealand. Society and Natural Resources, 12, 389-404.

Sixth Line Solutions. (2005). Research in support of a 3 year plan - Mountain Equipment Co-op. Vancouver, BC.

Sixth Line Solutions. (2006). Canadian participation in physical leisure activities - Mountain Equipment Co-op. Vancouver, BC.

Smith, D. (1987). Nova Scotia's Provincial Trails Act. Proceedings of the Trails for Tomorrow Conference. (Ed. Ted Scrutton). Halifax, Nova Scotia: Trails for Tomorrow.

Squires, C. (2008). Mount Aspiring National Park alpine climber survey 2006-07. Department of Conservation, New Zealand.

Sullivan, T. J. (2001). Methods of social research. New York: Harcourt College Publishers.

Superior Hiking Trail Association. (2009). Backpacking opportunities. Accessed 10 March 2009. http://www.shta.org/Trail/TrailGeneral.php

135 Sutton, S., & Cessford, G. (2007). Community involvement in planning and management for outdoor recreation in New Zealand protected areas. USD A Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-49, 65-73.

Synergy Management Group, & Roddan, C. (2000). Sunshine Coast Trail feasibility study and business plan. Nanaimo, British Columbia.

Tasmania Department of Tourism, Arts and Education & Instinct and Reason. (2007). Tasman National Park Three Capes Track feasibility study. Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

Thapa, B., & Graefe, A. (2001). Environmental attitude-behaviour correspondence between different types of forest recreationists. In Kyle, Gerard, & Comp (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2000 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. General Technical Report NE-2 76. Newton Square, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, 20-27.

Thapa, G., & Graefe, A. (2003). Post details: forest recreationists and environmentalism. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 27(1), 75-103.

Trauer, B., & Ryan, C. (2004). Destination image, romance and place experience - An application of intimacy theory in tourism. Tourism Management, 26(2005), 481-491.

Tuan, Y. F. (1990). Topophilia: A Study of environmental perceptions, attitudes, and values. New York: Columbia University Press.

Vail, D., & Heldt, T. (2004). Governing snowmobiles in multiple-use landscapes: Swedish and Maine (USA) cases. Ecological Economics, 48(4), 469-483.

Van Pelt, M., Kuyvenhoven, A., & Nijkamp, P. (1990). Project appraisal and sustainability: methodological challenges. Project Appraisal, 5(3), September, 139-58.

Varnedoe, Jr., L. (1994). Trail development. University of Georgia Extension Forest Resources Publication, FOR 94 066, 1-4.

Vaske, J., Donnelly, M., & Whittaker, D. (2000). Tourism, national parks, and impact management. In R. Butler & S. Boyd (Eds.), Tourism and National Parks: Issues and Implications. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons, LTD.

Vaughan, D. R., Farr, H. & Slee, R. W. (2000). Economic benefits of visitor spending. Leisure Studies, 19(2), 95-118.

Veal, A. J. (1997). Research methods for leisure and tourism: A practical guide (2nd ed.). London: Financial Times Pitman Publishing.

136 Wagner, J.A. (1966). Campgrounds formany tastes. USDA Forest Service paper. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest and Range Experimentation Station.

Walkers are Welcome Towns Network. (2007). Accessed 10 March 2009. http:// www.walkersarewelcome.org.uk/index.html

Wall, G., & Mathieson, A. (2006). Tourism: Change, impacts, and opportunities. Harlow: Pearson.

Wang, C, & Dawson, C. (2005). Recreation conflict along New York's Great Lakes coast. Coastal Management, 53(3), 297-314.

Warren, N. (2002). Developing recreation trails in Nova Scotia: planning, design, construction, and maintenance. Nova Scotia Trails Federation: Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Warzecha, C, Manning, R., Lime, D, & Freimund, W. (2001). Diversity in outdoor recreation: planning and managing a spectrum of visitor opportunities in and among parks. The George Wright Forum, 18(3), 99-112.

Wheeller, B. (1994). Implications of ecotourism. In C. Cooper & A. Lockwood (Eds.), Progress in tourism, recreation, and hospitality management volume 6. Toronto, Ontario: John Wiley and Sons.

Williams, D., & Patterson, M. (1999). Environmental psychology: Mapping landscape meanings for ecosystem management. In H. Cordell & J. Bergstrom (Eds.), Integrating Social Sciences and Ecosystem Management: Human Dimensions in Assessment, Policy, and Management. Champaign, Illinois: Sagamore.

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future ('Bruntland report'). New York: Oxford University Press.

137 APPENDIX A - Selected Nova Scotia Hiking Trail Findings

Selected Finding frnm A Siirvev nf Nova Scotia Hiking Trail Users

Future Trail Development Priorities: Prioritize ocean and scenic views

Connect existing trails and make loops where possible

Design trails to be loops rather than linear paths

More day and multi-day wilderness trails or varied lengths and difficulty

Top Trail Experiences Sought: Mental and physical health benefits (39%)

Experience wilderness (16%)

Explore new places (16%)

Nature appreciation / study (15%)

Wildlife (10%)

Increased Trail Use if: More Trail Information (68%)

More roadside trail location signs (61%)

More ocean view (57%)

More scenic views (53%)

Source: (Gardner Pinfold Consulting Economists Ltd. (1999)

138 APPENDIX B - Benefits of Trails in Canada

Economic, Social, Health, and Environmental Benefits of Trails in Canada

Revenue A 2004 study of Newfoundland's ECT found that 26 550 trips were made by out-of-province and local hikers, who contributed $2.3 million that year to the provincial economy (East Coast Trail Association, 2006).

A 1998 Nova Scotia Department of Economic Development and Tourism study found that the average per party spending of Non-Nova Scotian trail users was about $1210. Nova Scotian tourists, who travel more than 80 kilometers or who stay overnight as part of their visit, spend about $210 per party, of which $130 occurs beyond the 30 minute range of the trail (Go for Green, 2005).

A 1996 Canadian study broke down the total expenditure related to nature-based activities: 28.4% on equipment, 23.5% on transportation, 18.4% on food, 12.7% on accommodation, and 5.8% on other items such as permits (Environment Canada, 2000).

70% of all Bruce Trail users spent money on non-durable goods, of which the average daily expenditure per group (averaging 3.12 persons) was $60.99. Three-quarters of this expenditure was within a ten-kilometer corridor on either side of the trail (Go for Green, 2005).

User-ship During a twelve month 1994-5 study period, Ontario's Bruce Trail had over 410 000 visits, of which 70.3% felt the trail was the primary reason for visiting the region. 26.8% of users spent one night in the Bruce Trail region; 3.8 nights was the average number of nights spent along the trail (Go for Green, 2005).

A 1998 Velo Quebec study found that the Route Verte increased in domestic tourism in Quebec by 26 400 additional visits (Go for Green, 2005).

Landowners 70% of real estate agents use the Bruce Trail as a selling feature when advertising property close to the trail. 80% felt that the presence of the Bruce Trail would make a home easier to sell or have no effect at all (Go for Green, 2005).

The 2000 study, The Impact of Parks and Open Space on Property Values and the Property Tax Base, conducted a literature review of trails and found no negative impact on the resale of property or its value. Furthermore, the study found that people will pay a premium to live adjacent to parks and open spaces, which leads to higher property values, and so higher taxes paid to the municipality (Anne Robinson and Associates, 2004).

Job Creation A 1998 New Brunswick Trails Council study found that trails in New Brunswick have over 80 volunteer Local Trail Sponsor Groups and employ over 1500 people, at an average of 6 months per year (Go for Green, 2005).

139 Economic, Social, Health, and Environmental Benefits of Trails in Canada

Social The 1992 Royal Commission on the Future of Toronto's Waterfront found that community Greenways are accessible to all income groups, including those unable to afford a recreational home. Trails easily used as a route to the corner store or for commuting quickly become a part of the community's life (Go for Green, 2005).

Trails act as a catalyst in building partnerships between the private sector, landowners, proximate municipalities, local government, and advocacy groups. Community projects facilitate a greater connection to the community (Go for Green, 2005).

Over half of all adjacent landowners and three-quarters of actual landowners over which the Bruce Trail passes, use the trail. 70% of adjacent landowners felt that overall the Bruce Trail was a net positive, with impact including getting in touch with nature (64%), facilitating recreational activities (53%), and benefiting health (24%) (Go for Green, 2005).

Health Trail creation is one of the top local initiatives that foster spontaneous and unstructured physical activity (Anne Robinson and Associates, 2004).

A 1999 St. Louis University School of Public Health study found that 39% of people who had access to trails used them and walked more because of this access (Hike Ontario, 2008).

Walking has consistently ranked the most popular physical activity. According to a 1998 Canadian Fitness and Research Institute study, 85% of Canadians walk for leisure and recreational reasons, while 82% stated they would ideally walk more (Go for Green, 2005).

In 1994, the World Health Organization announced that physical inactivity as one of the four major risk factors in coronary heart disease, and that inactivity also contributed to type II diabetes, colon cancer, back pain, hypertension, obesity, osteoporosis, anxiety and stress (Anne Robinson and Associates, 2004).

A 1995 Ontario Ministry of Health report stated that a more active population can lead to reduced health costs to society: reduced medical care and sick leave, absenteeism in the workplace, health insurance claims, and maintaining the independence of seniors thereby reducing the costs in institutional care (Go for Green, 2005).

Environment Actual Bruce Trail landowners have developed a particularly high sense of stewardship (Go for Green, 2005).

Trails and green-ways contribute to maintaining a healthy environment because they: protect habitat for native animals and plants, raise environmental consciousness, help mitigate pollution caused by fossil fuels, reduce noise levels and provide visual diversity, protect biodiversity, and because they can be used as living laboratories to monitor changes to the environment over time (Go for Green, 2005.

140 APPENDIX C - East Coast Trail Economic Benefits Study Summary

Selected benefits from The East Coast Trail Economic Benefits Analysis Executive Study (2005), D.W. Knight Associates Team.

Current Economic Impact - The Numbers

- Provincial impact on GDP in 2004 was estimated at approx. $1M. with 37.42 person years of employment and S721.4K in personal income impact. This translates into a significant annual return on investment (ROI) on the initial 1997 government funding investment of $4.5M (22% annual return).

- Regional Impact on GDP is estimated at $416.7K with 15.49 person years of employment and $300.8K in personal income impact.

- Local Impact in 2004 was also significant; with non-resident hikers spending an estimated $459. IK in an area less than 30 minutes drive of the trail. Resident hikers are estimated to have spent $922.OK on both durable and non-durable goods within that same area.

Hiker Characteristics

- In 2004 an estimated 5000 non-resident tourists hiked the East Coast Trail, a 44.6% increase since 2001.

- 48.3% of those interviewed stated that hiking the East Coast Trail was their main reason for visiting the province.

- Demographically, these hikers are highly educated, upper income middle-age range or older (i.e. have significant disposable income to spend in Newfoundland and Labrador).

Tmpact on Tourism. St. John's to Cappahavden

- The Trail has been identified as one of two Destination Hiking Trails for the province in their recently completed Provincial Tourism Product Development Strategy.

- The Trail is being used as a marketing tool by many businesses in the area.

- The Trail is encouraging people to spend the night on the Irish Loop instead of returning to St. John's for accommodations

- The Trail is helping to develop a much needed shoulder season on the Irish Loop in spring and fall.

- The Trail is encouraging some local hikers to stay home and hike the trail rather than take vacations out of province.

141 - The trail has won many awards, and has been featured in articles in major national and international publications, as well as on national and local TV and Radio (a significant contribution to profile-raising for the Trail and the Avalon Region).

Other Benefits

- The trail is a public recreational resource serving the greater St John's urban region.

- The trail is helping to preserve local heritage and environment, and to build community pride.

Going Forward

- By 2011, the study estimates that the potential incremental annual economic contribution of the trail will approach $4.3 M.

- Many specialists believe that the East Coast Trail is still a long way from reaching its full economic potential. A national tour operator described the trail as "A miracle waiting to happen".

- Completion of the full 540 km of the trail will add diversity and appeal to its current offering, by adding communities with a different heritage character, a wider rage of more challenging wilderness experiences, the possibilities of loop hikes and additional packaged offerings for independent and group travelers.

- Assuming local use of the trail continues to grow, it will help improve wellness, and thus reduce public health expenses.

142 APPENDIX D - Selected Long-Distance Trails with Shelters

The 10th Mountain Huts consist of 350 km's of routes with 29 back-country huts. The shelter network is in three Colorado Rocky Mountains National Forests, and managed as a partnership between the 10th Mountain Division Hut Association and the United States Forest Service. The hut-to-hut was built as a tribute to the 10th Mountain Division which trained in the area as an elite alpine ski-division during World War Two (10th Mountain Division Hut Association, 2003). Users predominantly ski, but also hike during the summer. The network was built to facilitate multi-day back-country ski-touring in the Rocky Mountains.

The Alpine Club of Canada (ACC) manages 28 alpine huts. The Wapta Ice Fields, also known as 'Canada's Haute Route', is the only hut-to-hut managed by the ACC. Users hike or ski between ACC-managed huts under agreement with Parks Canada. The purpose of ACC huts is to provide refuge to outdoor recreationists in extreme alpine environments (Alpine Club of Canada, 2008).

South Africa's Amatola is a series of hiking circuits, and a main six-day 100 km linear trail. The Amatola passes a rich cultural geography: Hottentots and Xhosa grazing lands, and pioneers settlements. The Amatola escarpment is a natural fortress that was used by the Xhosa against the British during the Frontier Was of the 1800's (South African Hikes, 2006). Users travel by foot between a series of wilderness huts managed by the South African Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. The trail and huts were created for outdoor recreation and tourism.

The Appalachian Trail (AT) is the oldest and most famous long-distance trail in North America. The trail runs through fourteen states, and extends over 3200 kilometers. Users travel on foot and use the associated network of over 250 shelters, predominantly lean- to's. Users also use private accommodations in nearby population centers. The AT trail and shelters are maintained by thirty clubs such as the Appalachian Trail Conservancy and various public and private partnerships (Appalachian Trail Conservancy, 2008). The

143 Appalachian Mountain Club operates eight mountain lodges in New Hampshire's White Mountains. The purpose is primarily outdoor recreation, and incorporates tourism. The AT connects to the newer International Appalachian Trail (IAT) at Mt Katahdin, Maine, which extends into New Brunswick, Quebec and Newfoundland, Canada.

Ontario's 800 km Bruce Trail - the longest and oldest public footpath in Canada - follows the edge of the Niagara Escarpment, a UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve, and crosses crown, private, and non-profit Bruce Trail Conservancy (BTC) lands. The trail is maintained by the BTC, which depends on public and private funding, and volunteers (Bruce Trail Conservancy, 2008). The BTC has made landowner agreements when crossing private lands while other sections still use roads. Users travel by foot between camping locations and a network of private accommodations, such as the Bruce Peninsula's Home-to-Home Bed and Breakfast Network. The trail originated from the desire to create Canada's first long-distance foot path, and was started at the northern terminus in Tobermory in 1967, Canada's Centennial.

The Camino de Santiago de Compostela is a network of one-thousand-year-old pilgrimage routes across Europe. The Spanish Camino Frances and Camino del Norte, are the most popular routes and were listed as a World Heritage Site in 1993. Users travel by foot and use a blend of private 'refugios' (shelters), 'albergues' (hostels), and 'pensions' (small hotels or bed and breakfasts) (Turismo de Espana, 2008). The trail is managed by the Spanish state.

Prince Edward Island's (PEI) Confederation Trail was conceived from the abandonment of the railway in 1989. The 270 km trail is a shared-use walking and cycling trail, and forms PEI's portion of the TCT. Campsites and private accommodations are available from the villages proximate to the trail. The trail is managed by the non-profit Island Trails with support from the provincial government, and the TCT Foundation (Island Trails, 2008).

144 Newfoundland's East Coast Trail (ECT) is a 540 km Atlantic coastal hiking trail which links 30 communities that provide private accommodations and amenities. Users travel by foot. The ECT is maintained by the volunteer-based East Coast Trail Association, and depends on private donations and public support from organizations such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) (East Coast Trail Association, 2008). The ECT is intended for outdoor recreation and tourism.

The Norwegian Trekking Association (DNT) is a 140 year old organization mandated to "promote trekking and to improve conditions for all who enjoy the country's range of outdoor attractions," and comprises 210 000 members (Norwegian Trekking Association, 2008). The DNT manages over 440 cabins, and maintains over 20 000 km's of hiking and ski trails. DNT operations depend on revenue from it's tours and courses, state support, and volunteers. The primary intentions are outdoor recreation, education, and tourism (Norwegian Trekking Association, 2008).

The Overland Track is one of Australia's 'Great Bushwalks', and is located in Cradle Mountain - Lake St. Clair National Park, which is part of the Tasmania Wilderness World Heritage Area. Users hike the 65 km trail with six hut options (Department of Tourism, Arts and Education, 2008). The Overland is managed by the Parks and Wildlife Service, under the Tasmanian Department of Tourism, Arts and Education, and was built for outdoor recreation purposes. Private tourism operators also use the track.

Quebec's Sepaq runs the province's parks and recreational services which include several shelter networks. The Parque National de la Gaspesie's Chic Choc shelter network, for example, was created to facilitate multi-day hiking and skiing in the Gaspe Peninsula's mountains, and connects to the IAT (Parque National de la Gaspesie, 2006). The shelter network is managed by the state, however users may move their supplies via private snowmobile operators. Private tourism operators may also use to network.

The United Kingdom's National Trails are a series of designated routes that link existing footpaths, bridleways, and minor roads. Altogether there are almost 6500

145 kilometers of National Trails, England's Pennine Way being the most famous. Users walk, cycle, and horse-ride between privately operated accommodations (National Trails, 2008). Routes are managed by a partnership of National Trails, the Ramblers' Association, other outdoor recreation groups, and the English and Scottish governments, respectively. The routes' original purposes were transportation and trade, and have since been adapted for outdoor recreation and tourism.

Minnesota's Superior Hiking Trail is a 200 mile footpath designed for pedestrian use only, which connects seven state parks and many areas of the Superior National Forest together with rural communities. The trail is managed by the volunteer run Superior Hiking Trail Association which collects dues and provides maintenance. The trail is suited for day-hikers, long-distance backpackers, and 'lodge-to-lodge' hikers, and was designed primarily for outdoor recreation but supported locally with nature-based tourism.

New Zealand's Department of Conservation maintains over 950 public huts and 200 trails. Perhaps the most famous tracks include the Milford Track and the Routeburn Track. Huts and tracks are managed by the Department of Conservation, and are part of the conservation estate. Tracks and huts are purpose built primarily for outdoor recreation.

146 APPENDIX E - Comprehensive Trail Development Model

ASSESS GOALS & OBJECTIVES

ASSESSMENT T TRAIL REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS STAGE Envtronment/FacWties/Service&I PLANNING OF HIKING TRAIL CORRIDOR PHASES: 1 1.M hoc (tote PUNNING 2. Trail parameters -Ac 3. Ecological terrains STAGE A. Sensitive areas 5. Trail corridor (Ecotogkal/FtychotogicaUPhysical requirements

PROPOSAL

EVALUATION EVALUATE STAGE '..Kaplan..., DECISION • Abandon—-• YES

ROUTE ALIGNMENT

COMMUNITI Y PARTICIPATION I I ADMINI­ BROCHURES CONSTRUCTION STRATION &MAPS IMPLEMENTATION t Bookings • Gathering office data OVERNIGHT TRAIL OTHER STAGE • Publicity • Compilatior HUTS SURFACE FACILITIES campaign •Setwork * Design • Cut&Fiil • Stiles •Marketing • Photograph^ • Construc­ • Steps • Bridges strategy • Drawing tion • Clearing • Board .Maintenanc • Facilities . Water walks program barriers • Parking

OPENING

MONITOR/ MAINTENANCE/MONITORING AUDIT I Z AUDITING

Source: Hugo (1999)

147 APPENDIX F - Interview Request Letter

Sp DALHOUSIE \jg/UNIVERSITY Inspiring Minds Faculty of Management

2 November 2007

My name is John Glynn-Morris and I am a graduate student at the School for Resource and Environmental Studies, at Dalhousie University in Halifax. I am conducting research for my masters thesis on the hut-to-hut hiking concept, and how it might be developed in Nova Scotia. I have included an information sheet which further explains the hut-to-hut concept. I would like to invite you to participate in my research study.

The general goal of this study is to flesh out the necessary bio-physical and socio-economic considerations for developing a hut-to-hut hiking system in Nova Scotia. More specifically, I am using the intended 'Cape to Cape Trail' (CTC) as a case study. The CTC will run from Cape Chegnecto to Cape George, and serve as the first entirely self-propelled long-distance trail in Nova Scotia, and the Nova Scotian portion of the International Appalachian Trail.

This study is not intended to necessarily result in the development of a hut-to-hut system along the CTC. Its intent is merely to provide a foundation from which future hut-system could be potentially developed in Nova Scotia. The defining characteristics of the CTC make it a logical hypothetical case study.

I am seeking individuals to participate in interviews for this study. Through CTC and recreation- development background research and referrals, I have identified you as a 'Key-Informant' - a person who is particularly close to and knowledgeable about a topic or issue. I will be interviewing individuals with varying viewpoints regarding the potential development of the hut- to-hut concept in Nova Scotia, and am hoping you will agree to be interviewed. The interview will be approximately one hour in length, and can take place at a location and time of your choosing. I will also ask your permission to audio-tape the interview. I have included a copy of my consent form that further explains the focus of my research and outlines what you will be asked to do during the interview. Your participation in this study is voluntary.

Should you have any questions, or if you agree to participate in an interview, I can be reached by email [email protected], or by phone at 902 406 6721. All comments and questions will be welcome as your participation in this study is greatly valued. Thank you very much!

148 APPENDIX G - Formal Interview Consent Form WB DALHOUSIE \jg/UNIVERSITY Inspiring Minds Faculty of Management Title: Consideration for Developing a Hut-to-Hut Hiking System along the intended Cape to Cape Trail, Nova Scotia, Canada

Principal Investigator: John Glynn-Morris Masters of Environmental Studies, candidate School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University Kenneth C. Rowe Management Building 6100 University Ave, Suite 5010 Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada, B3H 3J5 Telephone: 902 406 6721 Email: johnglynnmorris(g).gmail.com

Degree Program: Master of Environmental Studies

Supervisor: Dr. Karen Beazley School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University Kenneth C. Rowe Management Building 6100 University Ave, Suite 5010 Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada, B3H 3J5 Telephone: 902 494 1383 Email: [email protected]

Contact Person: John Glynn-Morris or Dr. Karen Beazley. Please use these contacts to seek information or assistance about the study at any time.

1 - Introduction I, John Glynn-Morris, invite you to take part in a my research study, as part of my Masters of Environmental Studies degree program at Dalhousie University. Your participation in this study is voluntary and you may withdraw from the study at any time. The study is described below. The description tells you about the risks, inconvenience, or discomfort which you might experience. Participating in the study will not likely benefit you, but may benefit others and society in general. You should discuss any questions you have about this study with John Glynn-Morris.

2 - Purpose of the Study The intended Cape to Cape Trail (C2C) will run from Cape Chignecto to Cape George, Nova Scotia. The C2C will be an extension of the International Appalachian Trail (IAT), where variations of the hut-to-hut concept are in place. The purpose of this study is to explore the necessary biophysical and socioeconomic considerations for developing the hut-to-hut concept along the C2C.

3 - Study Design

149 The thesis will be based on a literature review and fieldwork, which involves focused interviews.

4 - Who can Participate in the Study You may participate in this study if you are 18 years and over, and have been identified as a Key Informant by me, the Principal Investigator.

5 - Who will be Conducting the Research The Principal Investigator in this research will be myself, John Glynn-Morris, a Masters student in the School for Environmental Studies at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

6 - What you will be asked to do You are being asked to participant in one in-depth interview of approximately one hour in length. This interview will occur at a place and time agreed upon by yourself and the Principal Investigator, and may be face-to-face or by telephone.

7 - Possible Risks and Discomforts Any potential risks and discomforts from participating in the study are minimal.

8 - Possible Benefits There are no anticipated direct personal benefits.

9 - Compensation/Expense Reimbursement There is no anticipated compensation/expense reimbursement.

10 -Anonymity, Confidentiality, Use of Name, and Data Retention

Your participation in this study is voluntary. Anonymity: You will not be identified by name in any publications, written reports, and oral presentations, unless you offer consent for the Principal Investigator to do otherwise.

Confidentiality: You will not be identified by name in the data. You will be identified by a code in the data, the key to which will be protected on a computer to which only the Principal Investigator has access. Electronic copies of the data will be stored on a computer to which only the Principal Investigator has access. Any soft copies of data, such as interview notes, will be locked in a filing cabinet to which only the Principal Investigator has access.

Use of Name: If you agree to have your name used, you will be given the opportunity to review the text prior to publication. Interview transcription will be sent to you for review and approval. You will be free to make any amendments. Interviewee contact information will be linked to the corresponding interview to ensure those quoted or named will be contacted with the text for review.

Data Retention: Audio tapes for the interviews will be destroyed after they are transcribed. All other data will be securely maintained as outlined above for five years following publication, in accordance with Dalhousie University policy.

150 11 - Questions Please direct any questions you may have about the study to John Glynn-Morris, the Principal Investigator. You will be provided with any new information that may affect your decision to participate in the study.

12 - Problems or Concerns In the event that you have any difficulties with, or wish to voice concern about, any aspect of your participation in this study, you may contact:

Patricia Lindley Director of Dalhousie University's Office of Human Research Ethics Administration (902) 494-1462 patricia. [email protected]

151 Signatures

1 -1 have read the explanation about this study. I have been given the opportunity to discuss it and my questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I hereby consent to take part in this study. However, I realize that my participa-tion is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw from the study at any time:

Participant Signature Date

Principal Investigator Signature Date

2-1 agree to waive confidentiality and agree to be identified in the body of the report:

Participant Signature Date

Principal Investigator Signature Date

3-1 agree that direct quotes may be used in the final report; in other words quotes may be attributed to a specific individual rather than a pseudonym (Person A, Person B, etc.):

Participant Signature Date

Principal Investigator Signature Date

4-1 agree that audio-recording may be used during the interview, to help the interviewee capture original data:

Participant Signature Date

Principal Investigator Signature Date

152 5-1 agree that I may be re-contacted for future participation in this or other research:

Participant Signature Date

Principal Investigator Signature Date

153 APPENDIX H - The Hut-to-Hut Concept Explained

'Hut-to-Hut'. The ability to travel self-propelled along a multi-day trail, using huts as fixed- accommodation. Huts are placed sequentially along a linear or circular trail, typically one day (4-7 hours) of travel apart. Users are typically self-propelled outdoor recreation enthusiasts. Modes of transportation include hiking/backpacking, cycling, paddling, snowshoeing, or skiing - also known as rondonee skiing. Management may be public, private for-profit, or private non-profit. User-fees are amenity, season and management-style dependent.

'Hut'. A fixed-roof shelter that provides temporary accommodation. Hut size and amenities depend on location, management, season and use. Huts vary from basic shelters to fully-serviced lodging. The purpose of a hut may also be fulfilled by a hostel, hotel, farm-stay or bed and breakfast. Hut location ranges from the wilderness, to rural country side, to urban centers. Basic wilderness-hut amenities are context dependent, but typically include a wood stove, bunks, a table and benches, an outhouse and a water source. Full-serviced lodging may also include on-site staff, food, bedding, \" .jb '' - ~^" lighting, and plumbing. Internationally, a 'hut'has many names: roadhouse, I M fatjLj^B^u -i,' . base camp, tea-house, lean-to, shack, bothi, camp, refuge, bivouac, and '• M^^&^^B ~ I cabin.

i^~#

The Norwegian Trekking Association (DNT), for example, operates over 600 'hutas'. England's Pennine Way, among other National Trail long-distance walks, makes use of hostels and bed and breakfasts for accommodation, while "the Scottish West Highland way includes 'bothies' - stone shelters in the ", ., , country-side. Spain's fabled Camino de Santiago pilgrimage uses'albergues' - hostels. In the United States, the Appalachian Trail uses lean-to's as well as K^P m huts in New Hampshire's White Mountains, while Colorado boasts three ^— *-—* hiking and sking hut-systems under the 10th Mountain Division. Utah's San Juan Hut System caters to mountain-bikers. South Africa's Amatola Trail and Australia's Overland Track also utilize huts. Trekkers and mountaineers use tea-houses in the Himalayas and the Andes. Current examples of proposed North American hut-to-hut systems exist in Hawaii, Alaska, British Columbia, and Maine. Although never realized, a hut-to-hut trail was considered in Nova Scotia's Cape Breton

Perhaps the most extensive hut-to-hut system is in New Zealand. The Department of Conservation (DOC) operates over 900 back-country huts which service over 200 multi-day trails. The Milford Track, for example, is a 53.5 kilometer trail served by three huts. The communal and . public nature of huts has created a 'tramping' (walking) culture and community which has become integral to the New Zealand culture. A 2000 study found that one third of New Zealand adults have utilized a DOC hut system, 10% within the last year. Quebec is the only Canadian province with a wilderness hut-to-hut culture. Numerous huts exist in BC and Alberta - the Alpine Club of Canada, those service by BC Parks, and private ski-touring operations - but not in the well-established, public and communal, European sequential hut-to-hut fashion.

154 APPENDIX I - Interview Schedule

The below is a schematic of the interview schedule. Each topic represents an interview topic and the associated sub-topics are issues to be covered in the interview. The sub- topic was turned into a question during the interview.

In t er viewee involvement CZC history, vision, timeline Profile Potential user perception 1 Current and future demand General society perception r\ Basic introductory Context [

Trends Outdoor recreation context Multi-day Room for growth

Interviewee knowledge / opinio Potential user knowledge / opin General society knowledge / opinion Key considerations for development

/{General LDTConcept I—j Interviewee knowledge / opinion Potential user knowledge / opinion Basic shelter / commercial accommodation General society knowledge / opinion Key considerations for development

New trail development process LDT concept utilized / explored Existing trails / LDTs

Key considerations for development?

Social i Nova Scotia Context f— Economic Trail / LDT relevant spheres Cultural Biophysical Key considerations for development? / // Relationship among stake-holder entities

Acquisition ; Availability Land ' Use planning Interview Schedule \ Zoning Planning and development process , Historical and environmental issues Design standards Major sources Funding Competing interests

Responsible entities Maintenance and management Liability issues [ Safety Key considerations for development?

Benefits of LDT Sectors associated with LDT Negative effects of LDT Influential policies Challenges to LDT development I Key considerations for development?

Design Advantages / Disadvantages Management Basic Shelter Existing Crown land Future possibility Parks / Wilderness Area's

Shelters utilized / explored Private land Purpose Advantages / Disadvantages

t Commercial Accommodation Management Existinq Future possibility Preference / hybrid Key considerations for developr nent?

Social Economic C2C rejeyant spheres: review

Key considerations for development?

155 APPENDIX J - Coding Manuel X-THEME Code Sub c.odp. Rub-sub-code. 1 - VISION AND PURPOSE - Create common vision - Clarify if 'footpath' only - Clarify if actual 'cape-to-cape' - Clarify if purpose outdoor recreation - Must not prioritize economic development - Balance local, regional, provincial needs - Embrace what it is - Incorporate commercial accommodation - Incorporate basic wilderness shelter - Share with OHV users? -Yes - Don't want to alienate -No - Different cultures - Different experience - Private landowner concern - Need a pedestrian-only LDT - Maybe - May have no choice - OHV mechanism for maintenance - Snowmobiles only - Snowmobilers have huts - Most users don't care - Depends on vision 2 - ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT - Clarify roles and accountability - Must be community led - Address volunteer challenges - Identify and support 'champions' - Need paid staff - Process: staged or concurrent? - Necessary proponent characteristics -Will - Experience - Patience - Flexible - Creative 3 - PLANNING PROCESS - Planning - Address changing land-use pattern - Maintenance - Develop Partnerships - Determine funding sources - Wide public support - Involve community in process - Involve landowners in process - Market LDT associated benefits - Communication: transparent - Strategy - Know local context and history - Proper timing

156 - Phased approach - Long-term trail Promotion - Community trail development model: improve - Develop stronger hiking community and culture - Determine whether there is a market for C2C - Connect with existing tourism demand generators - Involve Youth - Divide and delegate tasks - Educate users in 'Leave No Trace' principles - Liability: confirmation and clarification - Private landowners support - Address landowner concerns - Proximate community support - Identify economic spin-off - County-Municipality government support - Cumberland - Provincial government support - Greater inter-departmental cooperation - Tourism industry support 5 - LONG-DISTANCE TRAIL DEVELOPMENT - Understand existing LDT models - New trail development - Design - Do not overbuild - Low-impact - Proper signage - Maximize hydrological features - Connect with communities - Multiple access points - Access to amenities and services - Use of existing OHV trails? -Yes -No - May have no choice - Depends on vision - Understand existing LDT-Shelter models - Incorporate existing shelters - Blend of shelters - New wilderness shelter development - Pick a pilot - Design - Do not over-build - Safety standards - Low-impact design - Fire management - Proper management

157 APPENDIX K - Coding Schedule

CODING MANUAL INSTRUCTIONS: CHECK WHEN CODE NOTED IN TRANSCRIPT (^

1 - VISION AND PURPOSE

- Create common vision

- Clarify if 'footpath' only

- Clarify if actual 'cape-to-cape'

- Clarify if purpose outdoor recreation

- Must not prioritize economic development

- Balance local, regional, provincial needs

- Embrace what it is

- Incorporate commercial accommodation

- Incorporate basic 'wilderness' shelter

- Share with OHV users?

-Yes

- Don't want to alienate

-No

- Different cultures

- Different experience

- Private landowner concern

- Need a pedestrian-only LDT

- Maybe

- May have no choice

- OHV mechanism for maintenance

- Snowmobiles only

- Snowmobilers have huts

- Most users don't care

- Depends on vision

158 2 - ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

- Clarify roles and accountability

- Must be community led

- Address volunteer challenges

- Identify and support 'champions'

- Need paid staff

- Process: staged or concurrent?

- Necessary proponent characteristics

-Will

- Experience

- Patience

- Flexible

- Creative

3 - PLANNING PROCESS

- Planning

- Address changing land-use pattern

- Maintenance

- Develop Partnerships

- Determine funding sources

- Wide public support

- Involve community in process

- Involve landowners in process

- Market LDT associated benefits

- Communication: transparent

- Strategy

- Know local context and history

- Proper timing

- Phased approach

159 - Long-term trail Promotion

- Community trail development model: improve

- Develop stronger hiking community and culture

- Determine whether there is a market for C2C

- Connect with existing tourism demand generators

- Involve Youth

- Divide and delegate tasks

- Educate users in 'Leave No Trace' principles

- Liability: confirmation and clarification

- Private landowners support

- Address landowner concerns

- Proximate community support

- Identify economic spin-off

- County-Municipality government support

- Cumberland

- Provincial government support

- Greater inter-departmental cooperation

- Tourism industry support

5 - LONG-DISTANCE TRAIL DEVELOPMENT

- Understand existing LDT models

- New trail development

- Design

- Do not overbuild

- Low-impact

- Proper signage

- Maximize hydrological features

160 - Connect with communities

- Multiple access points

- Access to amenities and services

- Use of existing OHV trails?

-Yes

- -No

- May have no choice

- Depends on vision

- Understand existing LDT-Shelter models

- Incorporate existing shelters

- Blend of shelters

- New 'wilderness' shelter development

- Pick a pilot

- Design

- Do not over-build

- Safety standards

- Low-impact design

- Fire management

- Proper management

161