What is the real environmental impact of MTB?

[unitec]

The exclusion of DH, FR & DJ due to environmental impact in the NPWS discussion paper on potential trails in national parks has got me thinking about how these decisions are made and how environmental impact is measured.
All of us would agree that per km DH, FR & DJ would have much higher environmental impacts than XC however unless XC has a zero environmental impact there must be a point where the length of XC trail has the same environmental impact as say 1 Km of DH. The same could also be calculated for FR & DJ.
If this could be established more informed and transparent decisions could be made on what MTB discipnies are included on future programs instead of the ones that seem to me to be based on ?????.
It seems that XC has been chosen by NPWS regardless of how long the trail is which seems to me to be flawed in it’s logic.
In absence of any scientific data I would interested in peoples opinions/guesses on what the comparitive E.I. is.
Using some of the same logic that has been used to show that MTB has less impact than bush walking (not just erosion) my guess would be
1Km DH = 20km XC trail
1Km FR = 15 km XC trail (if north shore used)
2,000m2 DJ park = 10km XC trail

 

[ando_assi]

Having just read most of the discussion paper, it seems that XC/AM is not defined at all, So it could range between Fire road and those CRAZY rock gardens i saw on telly on Saturday night on SBS from the WC!!!

The question you ask cannot be answered because there are just too many variables...

 

[thecat]

agreed.

DH and XC are definitions for competition. What we need is approved trails that cater for a variety of users, where appropriate. Don't get caught up in the xc/am/fr/dh/ds/dj/sj hoohaa it's just a distraction

 

[Greenvalleys Freeride]

agreed.

DH and XC are definitions for competition. What we need is approved trails that cater for a variety of users, where appropriate. Don't get caught up in the xc/am/fr/dh/ds/dj/sj hoohaa it's just a distraction

Considering how long it is taking nsw to recognise the need for legal trails for mtb activities, i think that it is a great starting point for the consideration of xc and am trails.. A trail model for nsw has to start somewhere, although some councils have already recognised the need for more specific trails ie: Castle Cove dirt jumps..

I can't wait for the first legal AM trail in a NSW NP.. Multi use or otherwise..

I think the macquarie pass national park should fit perfectly into the AM consideration

 

[thecat]

I can't wait for the first legal AM trail in a NSW NP..

The oaks... St Helena's... Cannonball run... Glowworm tunnel trail

All involve single trail and all in NPs

 

[Bucket Master]

First off have a quick look at this article - basically says that there is a lot more research needed. It also has quite a substantial reference list at the end of the article. This article was published in the journal of Environmental Management (91:5) in February this year. It is also worth nothing that the lead author is from Griffith University on the Gold Coast.

Maybe this article should have its own thread for discussion...but anyway, here it is

AB

Comparing hiking, mountain biking and horse riding impacts on vegetation and soils in Australia and the United States of America

Catherine Marina Pickeringa, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Wendy Hilla, David Newsomeb, E-mail The Corresponding Author and Yu-Fai Leungc, E-mail The Corresponding Author


Abstract

Hiking, horse riding and mountain biking are popular in protected areas in Australia and the United States of America. To help inform the often contentious deliberations about use of protected areas for these three types of activities, we review recreation ecology research in both countries. Many impacts on vegetation, soils and trails are similar for the three activities, although there can be differences in severity. Impacts include damage to existing trails, soil erosion, compaction and nutrification, changes in hydrology, trail widening, exposure of roots, rocks and bedrock. There can be damage to plants including reduction in vegetation height and biomass, changes in species composition, creation of informal trails and the spread of weeds and plant pathogens. Due to differences in evolutionary history, impacts on soil and vegetation can be greater in Australia than in the USA. There are specific social and biophysical impacts of horses such as those associated with manure and urine, grazing and the construction and use of tethering yards and fences. Mountain bike specific impacts include soil and vegetation damage from skidding and the construction of unauthorised trails, jumps, bridges and other trail technical features. There are gaps in the current research that should be filled by additional research: (1) on horse and mountain bike impacts to complement those on hiking. The methods used need to reflect patterns of actual usage and be suitable for robust statistical analysis; (2) that directly compares types and severity of impacts among activities; and (3) on the potential for each activity to contribute to the spread of weeds and plant pathogens. Additional research will assist managers and users of protected areas in understanding the relative impacts of these activities, and better ways to manage them. It may not quell the debates among users, managers and conservationists, but it will help put it on a more scientific footing.

 

[Bucket Master]

Oh and here is a radio interview from ABC Canberra about the subject to...clearly NSW has finally be annexed by the ACT

http://blogs.abc.net.au/canberra/2010/09/chain-reaction-.html?site=canberra&program=canberra_drive

 

[nrthrnben]

DH and XC are definitions for competition. What we need is approved trails that cater for a variety of users, where appropriate.

Totally agree!

But, it could be said that an All Mountain Trail will have DH and XC in it.

The DH that is suitable for most parks would be half that of an AM trail.

So they have said AM is OK, which includes DH, the only difference is, a DH trail is just "downhill".

 

[nrthrnben]

Lets put things in perspective

The exclusion of DH, FR & DJ due to environmental impact in the NPWS discussion paper on potential trails in national parks has got me thinking about how these decisions are made and how environmental impact is measured.
All of us would agree that per km DH, FR & DJ would have much higher environmental impacts than XC however unless XC has a zero environmental impact there must be a point where the length of XC trail has the same environmental impact as say 1 Km of DH. The same could also be calculated for FR & DJ.
If this could be established more informed and transparent decisions could be made on what MTB discipnies are included on future programs instead of the ones that seem to me to be based on ?????.
It seems that XC has been chosen by NPWS regardless of how long the trail is which seems to me to be flawed in it’s logic.
In absence of any scientific data I would interested in peoples opinions/guesses on what the comparitive E.I. is.
Using some of the same logic that has been used to show that MTB has less impact than bush walking (not just erosion) my guess would be
1Km DH = 20km XC trail
1Km FR = 15 km XC trail (if north shore used)
2,000m2 DJ park = 10km XC trail

Some environmentalists will have you believe that as soon as you get on a bike,(irrespective of discipline) you are having 5/10/20x the impact on the environment.

You make some excellent points, some of which i tried to bring out in my submissions, however i would not agree that there is such a difference between XC and DH in terms of Environmental impact in most regards, the following is why:

The act of riding does not create an environmental impact, if the trail(irrespective of discipline) is built sustainably to suit the style of riding and has a regular maintenance scheme (volunteer or not).

If a trail is built sustainably, irrespective of discipline, you could say, the only environmental impact worth noting would be: Trail Width and the resulting environment taken away to put this in.

But wait, that doesn't fit with me, that sounds a bit hypocritical when walkers have wide paths cut in all over the world.

Take a look at trail width on the following attachment:



You notice that if IMBA guidelines are followed the trail width actually reduces the more difficult the trail is from 72>" for easy, to 6>" for double black diamond, obviously this width would increase for "Fall/Landing Zones"


Now lets put this in perspective with what is already in parks.
Walkways. Most of us would not believe how much has been spend on creating sustainable walkways, which have been cut through some of the most pristine environments in the world, for example:

The Great Walks of Queensland are the result of a $16.5 million and 10 year Queensland Government initiative to create a world-class system of walking tracks throughout the very best of Queensland’s protected area estate, including four of our five magnificent World Heritage Areas.

How wide would the average walkway in a park be? at least a metre last time i checked.

So really the only Environmental impact that holds up against mountain biking is trail width, No! that doesn't even hold up as its comparable or less that walking trails.

Some environmentalists might say, "what about sensitive area's". They say Boardwalks, we say "North-shore" Boardwalks.

So in my opinion the only actual argument against certain "styles of riding" is in-fact,

Does this style suit this area/environment and the ethos of this area?

That decision is to be made by submissions by the actual users and Park Management.

For example i could see all Disciplines fitting in nicely in certain area's of Garigal, but only certain Disciplines in Sydney Harbour National Parks.

IMBA is your friend

 

[unitec]

First off have a quick look at this article - basically says that there is a lot more research needed. It also has quite a substantial reference list at the end of the article. This article was published in the journal of Environmental Management (91:5) in February this year. It is also worth nothing that the lead author is from Griffith University on the Gold Coast.

Maybe this article should have its own thread for discussion...but anyway, here it is

.

Thanks. Long but interesting read.
It would appear that there is very little (if not nothing) known about the environment impacts of different forms of the sport.
I guess that we will just continue to make it up as we go.

 

[mr.freeride]

it is good to see that not all of us are out to "wreak the world" as is being said by some of the councils out there.
we just need to make a convincing defence in our favour about constructing trails of all sorts,right across the board.

 

[Gock]

There is a mix of fact, fiction & myth in this debate.

Any style of trail / facility can be designed & built to be sustainable

Agree re the distraction comment - one of the main arguments against DH FR & DJ is not based on environmental impact, but on their perceived social impact or whether it fits with a "park experience". In fact this is one of the key reasons that MTB is still not widely accepted in parks.

Some environmental scientists & land managers think the griffith research is pretty useless to help in this debate - there is much better research just, or about to be, published relating to trail impacts in SA & Qld.

Unfortunately many "illegal" trails are not built well & are used as examples of how MTB causes unacceptable environmental impacts (& they're right).

 

[Emmett]

I'm surprised we haven't heard from Mike V@nderm@n yet.

 

[dcrofty]

I'm surprised we haven't heard from Mike V@nderm@n yet.

I think he's got a few other things on his plate at the moment.

 

[Bucket Master]

Glock

I am a social researcher in the field, as well a planner (recreation, environmental and social). Have done quite a lot of work in the field on this subject previously (not published yet) and am always keen to see more research and peer reviewed published papers. Can you advise on which journal you (or the authors) will be publishing in?

 

[FR Drew]

One of the big problems appears to be that although authorities hate folks making their own trails, the still haven't come to terms with the fact that most mountain bikers don't want to be riding on a fire road.

Regularly people get "given access" to an area and the authorities bang on about how they've met the needs of the users by letting them in, when in reality, the access provided doesn't meet the recreational needs of the user group at all.

15km of well designed track is far better at meeting needs of riders than 200km of fire road access. It also enables authorities to control where the riding occurs.

Lots of money has been sunk into projects that for whatever reason (conflicts between user groups, conditions of management) have ended up deeply flawed even though they had great potential. (Bucket Master can guess where I'm talking about)

Meet user need and they don't build wildcat trails, they ride the good stuff that is provided.

Build something half arsed, un maintained, boring or that doesn't meet user need and you can't expect compliance from riders, no matter how many $ you've spent in the process.

Discussing impact of MTB riders when there are bugger all well designed and sustainable trails around is pointless. It's like discussing the health impacts of jumping out of aeroplanes if no one had invented parachutes.

If the trails were properly designed and available where the users need existed, then the impacts of mountain biking could be miniscule. The problem is that approaching the issue this way requires a fundamental change in mindset from prohibit/allow on limited basis under strict conditions to facilitate and contain impact through design.

 

[Gock]

Glock

I am a social researcher in the field, as well a planner (recreation, environmental and social). Have done quite a lot of work in the field on this subject previously (not published yet) and am always keen to see more research and peer reviewed published papers. Can you advise on which journal you (or the authors) will be publishing in?

It is research done by Stuart Clements looking at MTB impacts on some tracks in SA (not sure but believe it may have been funded by MTBA??). The same methodology is being used on some trails in Brisbane. Don't know when / where it is going to be published.

Also some interesting looking work being done in Vic by M Fluker ("Fluker Post") using photo monitoring but have no info about it - could be simple, cheap but effective.

Yell if you want more info.

 

[GeurieMTB]

Are you serious?

All of us would agree that per km DH, FR & DJ would have much higher environmental impacts than XC however unless XC has a zero environmental impact there must be a point where the length of XC trail has the same environmental impact as say 1 Km of DH. The same could also be calculated for FR & DJ.
If this could be established more informed and transparent decisions could be made on what MTB discipnies are included on future programs instead of the ones that seem to me to be based on ?????.
It seems that XC has been chosen by NPWS regardless of how long the trail is which seems to me to be flawed in it’s logic.
In absence of any scientific data I would interested in peoples opinions/guesses on what the comparitive E.I. is.
Using some of the same logic that has been used to show that MTB has less impact than bush walking (not just erosion) my guess would be
1Km DH = 20km XC trail
1Km FR = 15 km XC trail (if north shore used)
2,000m2 DJ park = 10km XC trail

Sorry but this is a nonsense, the impact of a trail is localised, ie to the imediate surrounds of a given stretch of trail, a DH track will have a higher environmental impact per metre along its length than XC, and the impact of that metre of trail is localised, not cumulative. In other words at any given point along a DH track the impacts will be more severe than the impacts of an XC trail. An XC trail can be constructed to cover 20 k in 1,000 ha, thereby spreading the impact dramatically, a DH trail by definition will be much shorter and localised, its impacts are greater environmentally (ever heard of fall lines?), erosion is unavoidable.

NPWS is charged firstly with environmental protection/conservation. Second priotiy is visitation. They have quite reasonably assessed that XC riders and trails have a much lower impact on native bushland than DH and is more likely to attract a broader range of participants, DH often needs shuttles and is largely undertaken by young men rather than families etc.

NPWS have adopted a perfectly understandable approach in the circumstances, testing the water with minimal impact and, hopefully maximum visitation increases.

 

[FR Drew]

And yet from the point of view of the spread of seeds/weeds, orienteering where runners regularly go off trail to get between check points has far more impact than a short length, narrow corridor DH run does.

 

[unitec]

Sorry but this is a nonsense, the impact of a trail is localised, ie to the imediate surrounds of a given stretch of trail, a DH track will have a higher environmental impact per metre along its length than XC, and the impact of that metre of trail is localised, not cumulative. In other words at any given point along a DH track the impacts will be more severe than the impacts of an XC trail. An XC trail can be constructed to cover 20 k in 1,000 ha, thereby spreading the impact dramatically, a DH trail by definition will be much shorter and localised, its impacts are greater environmentally (ever heard of fall lines?), erosion is unavoidable.

.

Dilution of the problem doesn’t make it go away. This very same logic is why we are spending millions decontaminating land all over the country.
With regard to the environmental impact of MTB, there maybe a valid argument that even the complete destruction of a very small part of land may be a better outcome than minor damage of a much greater area. Also many people mistakenly believe that the only issue concerning MTB is erosion which (apart from being wrong) is why we need a more scientific & transparent system for making decisions. There may always be a need for some environmental studies however we shouldn’t have to reinvent the wheel each time a trail proposal is made. The basic science of different riding impacts should be done.
The other real benefit of a better understanding of environmental issues is that the sport could be developed/improved to better fit in with the environment. A very valid point was made earlier that 15km of well designed trail is better at meeting needs of riders than 200km of fire road (or poor trail). Motocross was in a similar position about 30-40 years ago and can now hold events indoors.
If trails were able to be condensed down to only the features that riders need we may find that the whole paradigm of “trail advocacy = access to forests” may change to “trail advocacy = delivery of sporting facilities”. How many people are complaining about the environmental impact of a footy field? I have 4 golf courses within 1km of my home each of which in my view would have much greater environmental impact than a DH trail and very few people seem to be overly concerned because they are sporting facilities build out side sensitive forests.
With regard to recent proposals to allow MTB in national parks there is no doubt in my mind that XC riding would be a better fit with the goals of NPWS however if the basis of the decision to exclude DH is centred on doubtful environmental science I feel that it is worth questioning.