Conflict and management tactics on the trail.

In recent years, the technological advances in mountain-bike construction have increased the ability of the biker to travel farther into remote areas (Chavez, Winter & Baas, 1993). This has raised some interesting questions and concerns by both the managers of wildlands (Tilmant, 1991; Chavez, 1996b) and other user groups of the outdoors such as hikers and equestrians (Watson & Daigle, 1991). The main concerns of these groups focus on how the mountain biker will impact the trails (Hain 1986; Keller, 1990; Seney 1990), the safety of all groups on the trails (Pettit & Pontes, 1987; Jacoby, 1990), and the satisfaction of their outdoor experience (Ramthun, 1995). To date, there are no federal or state guidelines for managers of these lands to consult when conflicts between user groups arise, though research shows some techniques that managers can use (Chavez, 1996a, 1997b). This article will outline the sources of conflict between user groups as well as offer some management tactics.

History

Popular lore holds that mountain bikes were first constructed in 1974 by Gary Fisher in Marin County, California. Fisher, a bicycle mechanic-outdoor enthusiast-amateur road racer, desired to connect all of his interests. By brazing a five-speed derailleur to a heavyweight "fat-tire" 1940s Schwinn, he was able to construct a bicycle that could maneuver over the rough terrain of the area (Jacoby, 1990). Fisher produced these custom-made bikes for more than 81,000, but found he could not keep up with production. In 1982, the Specialized Bicycle Company released the first commercially available mountain bike (Jacoby, 1990). Today, mountain-bike production has skyrocketed, while traditional road-bike sales have dropped to a paltry seven percent of the bicycle market (Drake, 1997).

The first areas visited by these new bikes were in the hills of the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD), located just outside of San Francisco. Bordering the MMWD is Mt. Tamalpais State Park, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and Matin County Open Space land. These areas are filled with diverse topography that afforded these new recreationists a testing ground for a soon-to-be multibillion-dollar industry. Little did these recreation pioneers know that mountain bikes would become the primary mode of transportation and recreation for many people in college towns, cities, and forests across the United States. In 1990, there were 15 million mountainbike owners (Keller, 1990). The majority of these owners, however, will never venture off-road; but for those who do, the market is filled with new technology to allow easy access to even the most remote locations (Brown, 1988). Backcountry areas that were previously only accessible by toot are now reachable by bike. Suspension systems to cushion the hardest rides, specialized gearing to tackle the steepest hills, and pedals that actually clip to the rider's shoe to ensure the most efficient use of energy are all part of creating access to the land for the mountain biker.

Recreationists can use mountain bikes to aid in their pursuit of other activities. For example, a trout fisherman can use his mountain bike to access a lake that usually would require an MI-day hike. Now, instead of having to take a three-day weekend to achieve a goal, only one long day may be needed. This new ability does not come without a cost; increased numbers of mountain bikers in areas previously not available have caused a conflict between bikers and other users. This conflict among user groups has created a need for either a change in the current management strategies or implementation of a management plan by forest planners and managers.

Conflict

Conflict among recreationists in the outdoors is nothing new. Many studies have been conducted pitting snowmobiling vs. cross-country skiing or canoeing vs. motor boating (Watson, Williams & Daigle, 1991). In both instances the conflict centered around mechanization. These conflicts set in opposition the "low-impact" passive user and the "high-impact" aggressive user. In both cases the "high-impact" user was often times louder, had a greater impact on the environment, and was perceived to be less than courteous by the other user group (Knopp & Tyger, 1973; Devall & Harry, 1981; Adelman, Heberlein & Bonnickson, 1982; Jackson & Wong, 1982).

The conflict observed among mountain biking and hiking or horse riding takes a different turn because there is no motorization involved. Conflict can then be a matter of perception. The theory of recreational conflict proposed by Jacob and Schreyer (1980) cites that conflict arising between groups is a product of perceived intergroup differences. These differences surface partly because of one party deeming another party's activity unacceptable. This activity may be as simple as taking the coveted camping spots, being loud, or getting in the way of the effected group. Conflict may also occur when one group perceives there are differences in lifestyle (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980). Lifestyle differences can be characterized as perceived differences in attitude toward the environment, motives for coming to a particular site, or goals and expectations. As one group defines another group as an "outgroup," the potential for conflict rises (Ramthun, 1995).

Much of the research regarding conflict among recreationists has shown the conflicts to be asymmetrical, meaning that the conflict is one-sided. One group consistently reports that it had a conflict with a competing group all or most of the time; conversely the competing group experienced little or no conflict (Watson, Williams & Daigle, 1991). This asymmetry may account for why a mountain biker will report his or her experience on a particular trail as excellent, while a hiker on that same trail may respond that there were too many bikes. Ramthun (1995) suggests that evaluations based on group membership may be based more on beliefs than actual experience. For example, a hiker may have encountered only one bike rider on the entire trail but will report feelings of dissatisfaction in the allowance of bikes on the trail system, and cite mountain bikes as an interference in attaining particular goals (Watson, Williams & Daigle, 1991). When looking at the interactions among mountain bikers and hikers or equestrians, the latter group (both hikers and equestrians) cites three main problems with mountain bikers on multi-use trails: environmental impacts, threats to the safety of trail users, and the perceived social differences between traditional trail users and mountain bikers.

Environmental Impacts

Many trail users and managers cite environmental impact as the reason for their disapproval of mountain biking. Trail impact will occur no matter what the activity. The degree to which it occurs, and to which group it is attributable, is the crux of this conflict. In a study by Cole (1987), the primary environmental impacts associated with trails arose through their initial construction (as cited by Kennett, 1995). Once a trail is constructed, there are several problems worthy of managerial attention that can occur.

Cole (1987) cites four major types of trail impact. The first type of impact is excessive erosion. This occurs on downhills or at drainage points on the trail, where water flow is enhanced. Another potential area of impact are muddy stretches of trail. In these areas, the soil becomes saturated with water, making travel more difficult. As a result, the trail begins to widen as users go around the actual trail to avoid the mud. A closely related type of trail impact is the development of multiple parallel trails. New trails are formed when the established trail becomes hard to cross because of fallen trees, rocks, or mud. The fourth major type of trail impact is the development of new informal trail systems. These can generally be found around points of interest or at corners and switchbacks where users have found the trail does not allow the trail user to see a specific area or does not follow the most direct route. The question becomes, How do mountain bikes contribute to trail impact, and is their impact so much greater than that of other users that it would result in a need for specific management? There has been little research to determine impact associated only with mountain bikes -- most focused on motor bikes, hikers, and horses. Keller (1990), in his review of the situation, only cites two unpublished studies that are not readily available to the general audience or manager. Therefore, the actions taken by various management agencies are mainly anecdotal accounts of observed environmental impacts (Kennett, 1995).

While there is no research evidence conclusively showing that mountain bikes have greater impact on trails than either hikers or horses, it is obvious that bikes have some effect. The physical impacts of mountain bikes are more likely to replicate that of motorcycles. However, there are important differences between the two that must be realized. Mountain bikes are light (most weigh less than 35 pounds), and they are not capable of producing the amount of torque a motorized vehicle can (Kennett, 1995). However, they do produce unique impacts. Skidding, for example, can promote soil dispersal and aid in the formation of ruts, which increase erosional effects as excess water runs downhill (Kennett, 1995). Wheel slip, which often occurs in very wet conditions, can force the mountain biker to dismount and walk the bike up the hill. Therefore, mountain bikes offer the highest potential for trail degradation on downhill gradients (Kennett, 1995).

While mountain bikes lack the uphill gouging effect that motorcycles exhibit, they do exhibit similar downhill erosional effects associated with skidding and braking, particularly in wet conditions (Kennett, 1995). Wet trail riding has been identified as problematic by resource managers (Tilmant, 1991; Chavez, 1996b; Chavez, 1997b), but similar damage from wet trail use may be caused by other users, too (Keller, 1990; Willson & Seney, 1994). Trail degradation is probably more closely linked with rainfall intensity and other factors, like slope gradient and total number of users, than the actual user. Initial trail selection and proper maintenance (resource hardening) of the trail may be the best defenses against trail destruction.

Even though there has been no substantial documentation that proves that mountain bikes cause deleterious effects on trails, the common perception is quite different. Since a mountainbike track is different from a hoof print or boot print, it is easy to point out. This ease in identification may lead to what Jacob and Schreyer (1980) call "scapegoating," in which one group disproportionately blames another for a particular behavior. Since mountain biking is a relatively new sport, other trail users have a tendency to view it as intrusive. More traditional trail users, having to deal with increased trail use, are generally not as accepting of the idea of additional crowding. The observation of mountain-bike tracks may lead other groups to place all the blame on one group's head, ignoring other impact factors such as rainfall, slope, or soil type. And as we are about to learn, not only are traditional trail users concerned with the impact that mountain bikes have on the trail, they are apprehensive about the additional risks to their own safety.

Threats to the Safety of Trail Users

Many traditional trail users believe there is an increased safety hazard when mountain bikers share the trail. Both hikers and equestrians have voiced legitimate safety concerns. These concerns can be categorized into three groups: mountain bikers who ride too fast; mountain bikers who are not prepared to stop on blind corners; and mountain bikers who surprise equestrians and others on crowded trails (Keller, 1990). In the "Kepner-Trago Analysis," a project administered by the Santa Barbara Ranger District of the Los Padres National Forest in California, Grost (1989) found that while the habits of a few "rogue" bikers posed an obvious threat to safety, he did not find that behavior to be the norm. After surveying 1,400 trail users, most had encountered mountain bikers and found them to be polite and not a threat. In a survey of 40 outdoor recreation managers, only one reported an injury caused by multiple-use conflict (Chavez et al., 1993). Jacoby (1990) provided a detailed look at the Kepner-Trago Analysis and found that 67 percent of non-riding trail users felt mountain bikes did not pose a safety threat, 89 percent found riders to be polite, and only 11 percent cited "mountain bikes" as reasons for dissatisfaction. From this study, only 15 bike-related incidents were considered to be hazardous, and only one actual incident occurred, when two bikes were trying to make way for a hiker and crashed into one another (Jacoby, 1990). According to the research, actual biker-induced accidents are not a cause for concern on the trail. However, the majority of trail injuries reported to rangers at the Marin Municipal Water District from January 1990 to July 1996 were suffered by mountain bikers who had fallen from their bikes (Edger, 1997). Speed does not seem to be a deciding factor in these accidents, according to witnesses. The speed of the mountain bikes and the quiet approach of users have been mentioned as problematic by resource managers (Tilmant, 1991; Chavez et al., 1993; Chavez, 1996b; Chavez, 1997b).

Social Differences Among User Groups

It appears the potential for an incident between a bike and any other trail user is often a matter of anticipated threat. As a hiker is walking down a trail he or she knows is frequented by mountain bikers, there may be some feeling of anxiety because the hiker is afraid of being surprised by a "silent" rider. A horseback rider may have similar feelings out on the trail because silent bikes can scare horses. Familiarity with mountain bikes and their capabilities may be at the heart of this issue. Hikers' attitudes toward mountain bikers have remained relatively constant since 1987, when the first studies at Los Padres were conducted, although bike use on the trail has increased (Chavez et al., 1993). As more hikers have had positive encounters with mountain bikers, perhaps they have become more accepting of alternative groups on the trail. Conversely, as Watson, Williams, and Daigle (1991) suggest, many bikers were once hikers and, therefore, a level of acceptance and understanding is fostered. If a trail user is aware of the fundamentals of other trail sports, either by participation or communication with other trail users, anxiety levels may decrease.

Trail conflict among mountain bikers and other users may also arise from the perception that mountain biking is inherently wrong. At first glance, mountain bikers are flashy. They have brightly colored clothing and sleek-looking machines. The average hiker may question why this "crazy kid" needs to come to the woods in search of his or her adrenaline rush. The hiker may also believe that such high-tech bikes have no place in the "natural" world where simplicity and tradition are held in reverence. Bryan (1979) noted that having "different equipment has been the basis for perceptions of difference between people in different activities" (as cited by Kennett, 1995, p. 15). Once a group is labeled as different, tolerance levels among others may be low. Mountain bikers on national forest land do tend to be young, but most are also educated, affluent, and from urban areas (Hollenhorst, Schuett, Olson & Chavez, 1995; Chavez, 1997a; Schuett, Hollenhorst & Chavez, 1997).

Differences in lifestyle may also lead to potential perceived conflict. Jacob and Schreyer (1980) suggest that when groups identify another group as different from their own, they tend to give unfavorable evaluations of the other group. In a study of conflict at the Rattlesnake National Recreation Area, overall real differences between the groups were few, while perceived differences were great (Watson, Williams & Daigle, 1991). Since there does exist some level of conflict among user groups on multi-use trails, whether based on real or perceived differences, managers should have a plan for alleviating these conflicts.

Management

Several methods of management by forest authorities have produced varying degrees of success. Chavez (1996a, 1996b, 1997b) notes that managers have three options: the indirect method, the direct method, and the bridge-building technique. By using indirect and direct methods, a manager can change visitor behavior by improving access to areas, limiting usage, imposing fines, and policing trails. The MMWD has successfully used the direct methods of citations and fines in an effort to control the excessive speed that concerns many hikers and equestrians. The speed limit on the trails is 15 mph, with a lower limit (5 mph) around blind curves and switchbacks, and rangers equipped with radar guns police the trails. For a minor offense, a rider may receive only a written warning. But to punish more serious offenses, riders may face impoundment of their bicycle and a 8200 fine. If a rider is found on a trail designated for hikers, he or she faces a fine of 8125. Use of such direct management tactics has been successful in changing the habits and riding locations of bikers. As one rider said, "It's just not worth the hassle" to ride at the MMWD (Edger, 1997).

Education can also influence rider behavior. Through cooperation with local bike shops and tourism agencies, land management agencies can distribute maps and trail regulations to potential users. By opening up the lines of communication and supporting collaborative problem-solving, public education, and volunteerism, a bridge can be created between potential conflict groups. According to Schneider (1997), most researchers in the field of conflict resolution and recreation advocate public involvement as a management tool. The first step to conflict resolution is the creation of an environment where "open communication, mutual respect, shared exploration, an orientation to collaborative problem-solving, and a commitment to resolution" are accessible to all parties (Schneider, 1997, p. 27). Once both parties make a commitment to resolve their problems, collaborative efforts can begin. These collaborative efforts in management can be very beneficial in this day of budget and personnel constraints. Floyd, Germain and ter Horst (1996) report that proactive conflict resolution techniques have resulted in higher satisfaction within the involved groups. This concept can be seen in the efforts of Southern California trail users. Social events have been organized where bikers and equestrians can get together to collaborate on trail maintenance, and both groups have reported success.

A trail may have to be closed to all traffic during certain times of the year because of rainfall conditions. Trails can also be made "one-way" to alleviate the potential for head-on collisions. The key to both of these strategies is the education and cooperation of the users. Maintenance of the trail, known as resource hardening, can also be a useful management tool.

Communication among all groups involved can be the best asset for both managers and users. In the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest, a group of local mountain bikers has taken responsibility for making and maintaining specific trails and roads in exchange for a special user permit. The organization currently maintains 150 miles of trail but holds the goal of 400 miles of open-access, mountain-bike-friendly trail (Grost, 1989). In Missoula, Montana, a group called Bikecentennial works with the Lolo National Forest to produce literature that encourages trail etiquette, noting the best trails to ride for specific skill levels, and highlights abandoned logging roads that managers and bikers prefer to ride (Baker, 1990). Many of these groups become involved to "create a positive image of mountain biking" (Baker, 1990, p. 36). By using volunteers, a manager can receive trail maintenance without using valuable time and money.

The record of volunteer accomplishments is long. One such example is the work done by the Appalachian Mountain Bike Club (AMBC), with help from the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations located in the Panther Creek State Park area of Knoxville, Tennessee. These groups have joined to halt the development of the wildlands that are essential to their interests. Together they have organized several thousand volunteer hours for trail building (Sprung, 1997).

Trail Access and the Mountain Bike

Other than the 1964 Wilderness Act, which classifies "mountain bikes" as mechanized vehicles and bans their use in wilderness areas, there is no national policy on mountain-bike use (Jacoby, 1990). Trail-use restrictions vary from one federal agency to another, and are not consistent between states or individual trails (American Hiker, 1990). Trail-use differences between agencies can confuse even the most experienced, well-traveled rider. In our national parks, mountain bikes are allowed on roads and paved trails only unless specifically noted. Contrary to the rules of national parks, national forests allow trail riding on all trails unless posted by sign. Knowing which trails to use on land maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers can be difficult because biking is generally allowed only on roads; yet the district engineer can make special provisions for specific groups or mandate special areas for biking. To add to this confusion, each state has its own set of rules and regulations for mountain bikes. All states designate where bikes are and are not allowed (American Hiker, 1990). Mountain biking is a growing recreational sport, and as more riders venture off the pavement and into the backcountry, the need for management will increase. With education and community involvement a multi-use trail can be a wonderful place for everyone.

References

Adelman, B.J.E., Heberlein, T.A. & Bonnickson, T.M. (1982). Social psychological explanations for the persistence of a conflict between paddling canoeists and motorcraft users in the boundary waters canoe area. Leisure Sciences, 5, 45-61.

Baker, N. (1990). Mountain bike management: A tale of three cities. Western Wildlands, 16, 36-39.

Brown, K. (1988). Wheels of fortune: Bicycle marketers shift into high gear to meet demand. Adweek's marketing week, 29, 2.

Bryan, R.B. (1979). Conflict in the Great Outdoors. (Social studies No. 4). Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama, Bureau of Public Administration.

Chavez, D.J. (1997a). Bunny hops or vegetable tunnels? Perceptions and preferences of mountain bike riders on the San Jacinto Ranger District. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 12(2): 44-48.

Chavez, D.J. (1996a). Mountain biking: Direct, indirect, and bridge building management styles. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 14 (4): 21-35.

Chavez, D.J. (1996b). Mountain Biking: Issues and actions for USDA Forest Service managers. (PSW-RP-226). Washington, DC: USDA Pacific Southwest Research Station. 33 p.

Chavez, D.J. (1997b). Mountain bike management: Resource protection and social conflicts. Trends, 34(3): 36-40.

Chavez, D.J., Winter, P.L. & Baas, J.M. (1993). Recreational mountain biking: A management perspective. Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration, 11(3): 29-36.

Cole, D.N. (1987). Research on soil and vegetation in wilderness: a state-of-knowledge review. Proceedings-National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State-of-Knowledge, Future directions. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (General Technical Report INT-220: 135-177). Washington, DC: Intermountain Research Station.

Devall, W. & Harry, J. (1981). Who hates whom in the great outdoors: The impact of recreational specialization on technologies of play. Leisure Sciences, 4, 399-418.

Drake, 13. (1997, April). Mountain bike anniversary. Bicycling, 271, 22.

Edger, C. (1997). Mountain biking and the Marin Municipal Water District watershed. Trends, 34, 5-10.

Floyd, D., Germain, R. & ter Horst, K. (1996, May). A model for assessing negotiation and mediation in forest resource conflicts. Journal of Forestry, 29-33.

Grost, R. (1989). Managing the mountain bike. American Forests, 95, 75-77.

Hain, G. (1986). Developing mountain biking opportunities on the Ochoco National Forest. Unpublished paper supplied by author.

Hollenhorst, S., Schuett, M., Olson, S. & Chavez, D. (1995). An examination of the characteristics, preferences, and attitudes of mountain bike users of the national forests. Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration, 13, 41-51.

Jackson, E.L. & Wong, R.A.S. (1982). Perceived conflict between urban cross-country skiers and snowmobilers in Alberta. Journal of Leisure Research, 14, 47-62.

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

Jacoby, J. (1990). Mountain bikes: A new dilemma for wild-land recreation managers? Western Wildlands, 16, 25-28.

Keller, K.J.D. (1990). Mountain bikes on public land: A manager's guide to the state of the practice. Washington D.C.: Bicycle Federation of America.

Kennett, P. (1995, October). Off-road impacts of mountain bikes. [Netscape]. Available: http://www.wcc.govt.nz/extern /kennett/politics/doc/impact/ab stract.htm

Knopp, T. & Tyger, J. (1973). A study of conflict in recreational land use: Snowmobiling vs. ski-touring. Journal of Leisure Research, 11,317-326.

Pettit, B. & Pontes, P. (1987). Kepner-Trago analysis: Montana bicycle situation on Santa Barbara front trails managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Unpublished draft supplied by the authors.

Ramthun, R. (1995). Factors in user group conflict between hikers and mountain bikers. Leisure Sciences, 17, 159-169.

Schneider, I. (1997). Conflict resolution: Opportunities and challenges in recreation management. Trends, 34, 26-28.

Schuett, M.A., Hollenhorst, S. & Chavez, D.J. (1997). Profiling members of the International Mountain Bicycling Association. Trends, 34(3): 48-51.

Seney, J. (1990). Research report on Master's thesis cited in the International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA) Educational Package. Bishop, CA: IMBA.

Sprung, G. (1997). Mountain biking can foster progressive management. Trends, 34, 15-17.

Tilmant, J.T. (1991). Mountain bike use within National Parks: A report on a 1990 survey. Unpublished draft supplied by author.

Watson, A.E., Williams, D.R. & Daigle, J.J. (1991). Sources of conflict between hikers and mountain bike riders in the Rattlesnake NRA. Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration, 9,59-71.

Who goes where? A mountain bike policy survey. (1990, August). American Hiker, 3.

Willson, J.R & Seney, J.P. (1994). Erosional impact of hikers, horses, motorcycles and off-road bicycles on mountain trails in Montana. Mountain Research and Development, 14(1), 77-88.

RELATED ARTICLE:

Research Into Action is published monthly by the Society of Park and Recreation Educators, National Recreation and Park Association. As an accompaniment to "Research Update," its goal is to turn research findings into field action by highlighting management strategies. Founding editors are Dr. Ruth Russell and Dr. Daniel D. McLean, Department of Recreation and Park Administration, Indiana University.

Research into Action: Don't Tread on Me

Introduction

Mountain bike use has experienced steady growth since the creation of the original off-road cruiser in 1974. Today, mountain bikes dominate the domestic bicycle market and are increasingly present in natural and wilderness areas (15 million reported in 1990). Managers and trail users have shared concerns about how mountain bikers impact the trails and other users of the trails.

Impact of this Research

The presence of research about conflict between mountain bikers and other trail users is relatively minimal. Most of what is known is anecdotal and frequently reflects the opinion of one group versus another group. In this instance, mountain bikers have reported little conflict between themselves and other trail users. The converse is not necessarily true. While the data reports that both groups show a tolerance toward each other, it does not suggest that there is an understanding. Rather, it proposes that conflict can be a matter of perceptions. At least one theorist has suggested that the conflict that arises between groups is a product of perceived intergroup differences, furthering the concept of the conflict as asymmetrical or one-sided.

Managers believe that mountain bikers impact the physical environment; one author has suggested four major types of trail impact: excessive erosion, muddy stretches of trail, development of multiple parallel trails, and development of new informal trail systems. The four impacts are not unique to mountain bikers, and the supporting evidence is minimal.

The final issue addressed is the safety of trail users when they are confronted with mountain bikers. Arguments against mountain bikers include cyclists riding too fast, cyclists not being prepared to stop on blind corners, and cyclists surprising other trail users. The research reported in this area did not find safety to be a major concern. While incidents and accidents did occur, the most frequently reported accidents occurred when bikers fell off their bicycles, not when they interfered with other trail users.

How to Use this Research

* Managers must be aware of the social differences that exist among the various types of trail users. As managers and groups work to enhance understanding amongst themselves, trail users' perceived conflict may be lessened.

* Indirect and direct management methods allow managers to influence mountain-biker impact on trails and other trail users. Successful strategies include levying speed limits, closing certain trails, policing and imposing fines, and improving access to areas.

* Bridge building can occur in various ways, ranging from joint educational programs with riders, manufacturers, sales outlets, and clubs to actual partnering with mountain-bike riders and their organizations to improve trails and trail access. Public involvement is essential in conflict resolution.

* Bridge building between organizations is an important tool. If social differences and perceptions are primary contributors to conflict, then bringing groups together can help to remove these barriers. Acting as the key catalyst, resource managers have the potential to bring these groups together.

* Maintenance of high-use areas may be necessary to deal with the increased impact mountain bikers can have on trails. Trail hardening may be essential in some sites. New trails or "old road" can be developed to accommodate mountain bikers.

* Resource managers must keep an open mind when working with trail users, and strive to balance management, resource, maintenance, and user needs.

For More Information

Chavez, D.J. (1996). Mountain biking: Direct, indirect, and bridge building management styles. Journal of park and recreation administration. 14 (4): 21-35.

Keller, K.J.D. (1990). Mountain bikes on public land: A manager guide to the state of the practice. Washington, D. C.: Bicycle Federation of America.

Jennifer L. Hoger is a graduate student in the Department of Forestry at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Deborah J. Chavez, Ph.D. is a research social scientist for the Pacific Southwest Research Station branch of the USDA Forest Service.

Research Update is edited by Dr. Irma O'Dell of Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.