1 Recreational Mountain Biking
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Recreational mountain biking: A case study of sustainable trail development at Boggs Demonstration State Forest, Cobb, California. by Lauren N. Claussen A CAPSTONE PAPER submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Natural Resources Presented March 23, 2021 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, a sincere thank you to my graduate advisor, Dr. Michael Harte, for mentoring me through the MNR program, providing guidance and constructive comments as I developed my project, and for your encouraging feedback and wisdom over the past few years. It has been a pleasure to work with my committee members, and I am so grateful for the time and knowledge they have shared with me through this process. Dr. Ashley D’Antonio, thank you for opening my eyes to the field of recreation ecology and providing your expertise on my mapping and analysis questions, and Lynette de Silva who provided assistance with feedback and final edits on my project. I could not have done this without support from my family, who have always been my biggest cheerleaders. Thank you to my husband, Nicholas, who first introduced me to the sport of mountain biking, and always encourages me to find comfort and growth in the uncomfortable – whether on a trail or in life. Your assistance in data collection at Boggs was invaluable, and there’s nobody I’d rather do field work in the freezing rain with! All the professors and faculty I have learned from and interacted with during my time at Oregon State have helped further my research, writing, and analysis skills, and I am so grateful for this opportunity and experience. 2 Table of Contents I. Introduction…………………………………………………………….……………5 1. Types of mountain biking……………………………………….…………..6 2. User motivations and preferences…………………………..…….…………8 3. Conflict ………………………………………………………….…………..9 II. Recreation ecology……………………………………………………….…………10 1. Outdoor Recreation Impacts…………………………………….……..……12 III. Mountain Bike: Ecology…………………………………………………….……....15 1. Soils impacts……………………………………………………….………..16 2. Vegetation, wildlife, and water impacts…………………………….………18 3. Formal vs. informal trails………………………………………….………..19 4. Future research……………………………………………………….……..20 IV. Mountain Bike: Trail Management…………………………………………………21 1. Trail design……………………………………………………………….…22 2. Social sustainability…………………………………………………………25 V. GIS and Recreation Management…………………………..……………………….26 VI. Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest………………………………….……30 1. Site information………………………………………………………….….30 2. 2015 Valley Fire and Restoration……………………………………….…..34 VII. Methods……………………………………………………………………………..36 VIII. Results……………………………………………………………………………...39 IX. Discussion and Management Implications………………………………..………..44 X. References………………………………………………………………………….49 Table of Figures Figure 1: Sustainability parameters for mountain bike trails……………………………….23 3 Figure 2: Trail slope alignment……………………………………………………………..24 Figure 3: BMDSF Trail Overview………………………………………………………….39 Figure 4: Trail sustainability inventory……………………………………………………..40 Figure 5: ANOVA statistical analysis………………………………………………………41 Figure 6: Paired t-test analysis……………………………………………………………...41 Figure 7: GIS trail slope analysis…………………………………………………………...43 Table of Maps Map 1: BMDSF overview map……………………………………………….…………….31 Map 2: Trail system slope map……………………………………………………………..42 Map 3: Trail suitability analysis…………………………………………………………….44 Table of Photos Photo 1: Berm mountain bike feature………………………………………..……………..45 Photo 2: View of site on Mac’s trail……………………………………………….……….45 Photo 3: Rock armoring on Jethro’s trail…………………………….………………..……47 Photo 4: Rock armoring on Jethro’s trail………………………….………..……………....47 Abstract This study identifies contemporary research in the field of recreation ecology focusing on ecological impacts of mountain biking and establishing best management practices for sustainable trail development and management. A site analysis at Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest (BMDSF) takes existing knowledge and research on sustainable trail development and applies those lessons through geographic information systems (GIS) analysis and on-site trail observations. This research is timely as trails are being planned and re-built after a catastrophic fire in 2015. GIS analysis can help identify limitations of the site and guide management recommendations. 4 I. Introduction Recreational mountain biking began in the mid-twentieth century and its popularity has increased exponentially over the past decades. The origins of the sport are believed to come from Marin, California in the 1970’s, where innovators used and adapted bike frames to ride off-trail on what became known as “clunkers” (Buenstorf, 2003). Early mountain bike development was distinguished by the situation where the producers were also the consumers; they often modified or developed their own bicycles without sophisticated equipment to race and ride downhill and off-trail (Buenstorf, 2003). When the Specialized brand developed the first off-the-rack mountain bike in 1981, the modern mountain bike industry was born, and by 1999 mountain bikes accounted for 50% of retail bicycle sales in the United States. Mountain biking has remained one of the fastest growing recreation activities in the world for the past 20 years (Hill et al., 2017). By 2003, there were an estimated 10 million mountain bike users in the US, and currently the International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA) has membership in 17 countries, with the sport becoming increasingly popular in Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland (Hardiman & Burgin, 2014). In 2019, an estimated 48.9 million (16.1% of the population) people rode bicycles recreationally in the United States, with 8.6 million riding mountain bikes on unpaved trails (Outdoor Foundation, 2020). Users of recreational mountain bikes are primarily found in affluent countries where users enjoy leisure time and are motivated to exercise as a means to maintain or improve their health (Hardiman & Burgin, 2014). The sport has historically been dominated by young males, comprising 86% of riders in the United States, 97% in the United Kingdom, and 85% in Australia (Hardiman & Burgin, 2014). In recent surveys, the ratio of men to women participating 5 in recreational cycling is estimated 2:1, indicating an increase in female participation and fueling economic growth and development in the bicycle industry (Outdoor Foundation 2020). In the United States, a majority of users are between 35-55 years of age, with most mountain bikers in their 30s (Hill & Gomez, 2020). 1a. Types of mountain biking There are multiple sub-disciplines of mountain biking that attract a variety of users. This includes riding styles of cross country, endurance, all-mountain, free riding, downhill, and dirt jumping. Each of these disciplines utilize different terrain, obstacles and environments, and attract different athletes with varying cultural attitudes (Hagen & Boyes, 2016). A range of bikes are used depending on the style of riding. These include full-suspension for downhill or all- mountain, hardtail, or even no suspension for endurance or gravel riding. While some cross-over may occur between disciplines depending on the style of bike and terrain, a majority of users pursue cross-country riding, which includes uphill and downhill segments, and usually occurs on multi-use trails or trails originally developed for a different activity such as hiking or equestrian use (Quinn & Chernoff, 2010). An analysis of rider styles shows that cross country riding has a low risk of impact on formed surfaces, likely due to slower speeds and less desire for technical difficulty than other styles of riding (Newsome & Davies, 2009). More technical trails and intense riding is known as “trail” or “all-mountain” riding. Much of the published literature on ecological impacts of mountain biking are referring to cross- country or all-mountain styles, as these are the most common types of recreational riding. Free ride, downhill, and dirt jumping attract users looking for speed, adrenaline, and technical trail features like logs, jumps, berms, and steep slopes. These styles of riding have a 6 high impact potential if trails are not sustainably planned and designed, as impacts are likely to be greater if a person is riding faster, less controlled, and on steeper slopes. Downhill mountain biking takes place on steep, uneven terrain and has obstacles like jumps, drops, or rocks for a rider to navigate. Analyzing the links between rider affects, or biological sensation, in the body, and elements of mountain bike trails suggest that experienced riders have little interest in smooth tracks, seeking instead mud ridges, steep shoots, jumps, drops, and speed (Hagen & Boyes 2016). Hazardous and more exposed trails require more concentration, which increases the quality of the experience a rider has on these trails. These users tend to be younger and identify risk and thrill as motivating factors for biking (Roberts et al., 2019). Over the past decade, technological advances have led to the creation of “pedal-assist” electric mountain bikes (eMTB), where the user still pedals the bike but with the electric capabilities they can attain up to 20 miles/hour increase in speed (Hall et al., 2019). Pedal-assist allows for a larger segment of the population to experience the health benefits of mountain biking; a study done with experienced mountain bikers illustrated the eMTB users experienced an average heart rate