The Multi-functional Trail

Transkript

1 ETOUR Reprt 2017:1 The Multi-functinal Trail An Internatinal Literature Review and the Case f Trails in Suthern Jämtland Muntains, Sweden Kristin Gdtman Kling, Sandra Wall-Reinius, Peter Fredman

2 The Multi-functinal Trail An Internatinal Literature Review and the Case f Trails in Suthern Jämtland Muntains, Sweden Kristin Gdtman Kling, Sandra Wall-Reinius & Peter Fredman, 2017 Printed by Mid Sweden University. ISBN: Phts: Kristin Gdtman Kling & Sandra Wall-Reinius Faculty f Human Sciences Mid Sweden University Phne: +46 (0) Reprt series: Etur Reprt 2017:1

3 Table f cntents Abstract... v Svensk sammanfattning... vii 1 Preface Intrductin Trails in natural settings Negtiating pathways t multi-functinal landscapes Literature review Methds Findings frm the literature review Case study: Trails in the suthern Jämtland muntains Study area Visitr use and perceptins f trails Stakehlder perceptins f trails Discussin What is a trail? Literature abut recreatinal trails is gegraphically uneven Literature n different trail types and trail functins is limited Hiking is the mst researched trail activity Trails are imprtant, t visitrs and ther stakehlders in the suthern Jämtland muntains Cncluding remarks and research needs References Appendices Appendix A Fjällfrum survey Appendix B Open answers (Fjällfrum survey) Appendix C Ntes frm Wrkshp in Ånn, April 26-27, List f participants in the wrkshp in Ånn, April

4

5 Abstract This reprt prvides an verview f internatinal research n recreatinal trails, and presents results frm a Swedish case study n trails in the suthern Jämtland muntains. The reprt cnsists f three parts, beginning with a literature review n recreatinal trails in nn-urban areas in internatinal research. In this sectin, a quantitative literature review was cnducted and 195 papers n recreatinal trails published in academic jurnals were reviewed and categrized, in rder t gain insights n where there is research n trails, what trails have been assessed and what methds have been used, what trail activities and trail functins have been researched, and where research gaps remain. Results frm the literature review reveal that research n recreatinal trails has been given increased attentin within the academia, as the majrity f the reviewed papers were published between 2000 and Results als shw that research is gegraphically uneven, with a majrity f the studies being cnducted in the USA and Australia and little research has been cnducted in Asia, Africa and Suth- and Central America. The literature review als reveal that research n different trail types and trail functins is limited, with a majrity f the studies researching the trail types traditinal backcuntry trail and wilderness track, i.e. trails in natural settings and/r remte wilderness areas. Research was primarily based n natural sciences with an emphasis n envirnmental and eclgical aspects f trails, such as ersin and wear and tear n the surrunding envirnment, and there was less research n scial aspects f recreatinal trails, such as cnflict management and public health. The trail-based activity dminating research is hiking, althugh there appears t be an increase in studies researching multiple activities. Based n the findings f the literature review, it is suggested that future research n recreatinal trails shuld stimulate studies in under-represented regins, and a need fr mre studies n winter use is recgnized. Als, there is a need fr studies lking at the pprtunities and challenges f multipleuse trails, as well as studies lking at cnflicts assciated with trail use. The secnd part f this reprt cncerns the case study area and visitrs trail use. Findings frm an n-site visitr survey frm the summer f 2013 is presented. This visitr survey was cnducted in the study area t cllect infrmatin n visitr attitudes, experiences and preferences, and fr this reprt, nly questins abut trail usage and attitudes twards trails have been used in the analysis. Fr this reprt, analysis f the questins regarding trails in the survey aimed t capture Swedish and internatinal recreatinists and turists use and perceptins abut trail management and cnditins f trails. Sme survey questins are als cmpared with a previus visitr survey dne in the same area in 1999 t capture if there are any changes ver time regarding Swedish visitrs attitudes. Results shw that the availability f marked trails is imprtant t bth Swedish and internatinal visitrs, and that these tw visitr-grups have similar thughts regarding the imprtance f the availability f marked trails. Just abve 80 % think that the availability f marked trails is an imprtant factr when they decided t visit the area. Results frm the n-site visitr survey als shw that the majrity f the visitrs use trails during their visit. A v

6 majrity f the respndents als think the quality f the marked trails is gd r very gd. Only 4% f the internatinal and the Swedish respndents respectively, state that trail quality is bad. The third part f the reprt cncerns stakehlders perceptins f trails in the case study area. Results frm this sectin is based n answers frm a web-based survey abut trails in the suthern Jämtland muntains that was distributed t stakehlders in the case study area, and a tw-day wrkshp that was rganized amng stakehlders with the purpse f discussing current and future use/management f trails in the suthern Jämtland muntains. Stakehlders represent Sami rganizatins, turism rganizatins and entrepreneurs, lcal service prviders and ldges, and public authrities, bth frm Nrway and Sweden. The survey cncerned questins regarding the rle f trails in general and ptential cnflicts assciated with trails, marked trails in the area, histrical trails and unmarked trails, and the respndents wn use f trails in the study area. Tpics discussed during the wrkshp included definitins f trails, hw they are used and their imprtance; if current trails fulfil the intended purpse; management and infrmatin; and cnflicts assciated with trails in the area. Future needs were als discussed, as well as new trails and changes in the trail system; future challenges in trail management, finance and respnsibility; future challenges and slutins; and future c-peratin between Sweden and Nrway regarding trails. Key findings frm the survey and wrkshp amng the stakehlder grup in the suthern Jämtland muntains, reveal that trails are an imprtant feature fr successful management f this area. Their rle t facilitate accessibility and visitr experiences, channel usage, prtect nature, prvide guidance and interpretatin, facilitate reindeer herding, supprt nature prtectin and increase safety are imprtant accrding t the stakehlders in the area. vi

7 Svensk sammanfattning Denna rapprt ger en översikt över internatinell frskning m leder för rekreatin i ickeurbana mråden. Den presenterar även resultat från en svensk fallstudie m leder i södra Jämtlandsfjällen. Rapprten börjar med en kvantitativ litteraturstudie sm mfattar 195 artiklar m leder för rekreatin sm publicerats i vetenskapliga tidskrifter. Dessa granskades ch kategriserades utifrån var frskning kring leder sker, vilken typ av leder sm undersöks, vilka metder sm används, vilka ledbaserade aktiviteter ch ledfunktiner sm har undersökts samt vilka mråden sm kräver mer frskning. Resultatet visar att frskning på leder för rekreatin har ökat, utifrån att en majritet av de granskade artiklarna var publicerade mellan 2000 ch Resultatet visar ckså att frskningen är gegrafiskt jämn, utifrån att en majritet av studierna utfördes i USA ch Australien ch att det fanns lite frskning från Asien, Afrika liksm från Syd- ch Centralamerika. Dessutm visar resultatet att frskningen kring lika typer av leder ch ledfunktiner är begränsad ch att frskningen i huvudsak handlar m typiska vandringsleder i mer avlägsna vildmarksmråden. Inriktningen är huvudsakligen naturvetenskaplig med fkus på miljömässiga ch eklgiska aspekter av leder, såsm ersin ch slitage. Frskningen är mindre fkuserad på samhällsvetenskapliga aspekter av leder, såsm knflikthantering ch flkhälsa. Den ledbaserade aktiviteten sm dminerade de vetenskapliga artiklarna var vandring. Det verkar dck vara en ökning av studier sm undersöker leder där flera lika aktiviteter utövas. Utifrån resultatet från litteraturstudien är rekmmendatinen att mer frskning bör bedrivas i reginer sm idag är underrepresenterade. Det finns ckså behv av mer frskning m vinterbruk av leder liksm m möjligheter ch utmaningar för leder där flera lika aktiviteter utförs. Likaså finns behv av studier sm undersöker knflikter i samband med leder. Den andra delen av rapprten behandlar fallstudiemrådet ch besökares användning av leder. Resultat från en enkätundersökning sm utfördes i mrådet under smmaren 2013 presenteras för att återge besökares attityder, upplevelser ch preferenser. I denna rapprt analyseras enbart frågr m leder i syfte att fånga svenska ch internatinella besökares användning ch uppfattning m ledernas skick ch förvaltning. Resultatet av vissa enkätfrågr jämförs med resultatet av en tidigare besökarundersökning i samma mråde från 1999 sm enbart behandlar svenska besökares attityder, upplevelser ch preferenser. Detta för att se m det har skett någn förändring av attityder över tid. Resultatet från undersökningen visar att förekmsten av markerade leder är viktig för både svenska ch internatinella besökare ch att grupperna har liknande uppfattning angående markerade leders betydelse. Strax över 80 % anser att markerade leder är en viktig faktr när de bestämmer sig för att besöka mrådet. Enkätundersökningen visar ckså att en majritet av besökarna använder lederna under sitt besök ch att de uppfattar kvaliteten på de markerade lederna sm bra eller mycket bra. Endast 4 % av de svenska ch internatinella besökarna uppger att kvaliteten på lederna är dålig. Den tredje delen av rapprten handlar m lika intressenters uppfattning m leder i fallstudiemrådet. Resultatet grundar sig dels på svar från en nätbaserad enkätundersökning m leder i södra Jämtlandsfjällen sm skickades ut till intressenter i fallstudiemrådet, dels på utfallet av en tvådagars wrkshp där nuvarande ch framtida vii

8 användning ch förvaltning av leder i södra Jämtlandsfjällen diskuterades. Intressenterna representerar såväl svenska sm nrska samebyar, turistrganisatiner, entreprenörer, lkala tjänsteleverantörer ch myndigheter. Enkätundersökningen behandlade frågr m ledernas rll i allmänhet, ptentiella knflikter i samband med leder ch respndenternas egen användning av lederna i mrådet. Wrkshpen behandlade bland annat definitinen av leder, hur de används, deras betydelse, m nuvarande leder uppfyller det avsedda ändamålet, förvaltning ch infrmatin liksm knflikter i samband med leder. Framtida behv, nya leder ch förändringar i ledsystemet, framtida utmaningar i leders förvaltning, finansiering ch ansvar, framtida utmaningar ch lösningar samt framtida samarbeten mellan Sverige ch Nrge kring leder behandlades ckså. De viktigaste resultaten från enkätundersökningen ch wrkshpen visar att leder är en viktig del för en framgångsrik förvaltning av södra Jämtlandsfjällen. Deras rll när det gäller att främja tillgänglighet, bidra till besökares upplevelser, kanalisera användning, skydda naturen, ge vägledning, underlätta för renskötseln, stödja naturskydd ch öka säkerheten är viktiga faktrer enligt intressenterna. viii

9 1. Preface In this reprt, we present a review f internatinal research n nn-urban trails used fr utdr recreatin and nature-based turism. We als present findings frm a Swedish case study n trails in the suthern Jämtland muntains. The reprt is prduced within the research prject Negtiating pathways t multi-functinal landscapes funded by The Swedish Envirnmental Prtectin Agency and the Magnificent Muntain prgram. This prgram aims t increase knwledge abut the Swedish muntain regin and cntribute t a future sustainable management f the muntain regin ( 2016). The research prgram as such, as well as this reprt, will supprt the wrk twards the envirnmental gal A magnificent muntain envirnment and prvide deeper understanding f cnflicts f interests in the Swedish muntain landscape. We think this wrk will be f interest fr natinal, reginal and lcal agencies and rganizatins, as well as fr enterprises and ther private stakehlders in the muntains. This reprt will als prvide a basis fr further analysis and research. The reprt is written by Kristin Gdtman Kling, Sandra Wall-Reinius, and Peter Fredman at the turism research institute Etur, Mid-Sweden University. Kristin has written the sectin n the literature review, Sandra has written the sectin abut the case study area and the visitrs trail use, and Peter the sectin abut stakehlders perceptins f trails in the case study area. All three authrs cntributed t the final cncluding sectin and prvided cmments t the entire manuscript. Several persns have been invlved directly, and indirectly, in the wrk behind the reprt, including the data cllectin in the suthern Jämtland muntains. Firstly, we wuld like t acknwledge ur prject clleagues frm Negtiating pathways t multi-functinal landscapes ; Annika Dahlberg, Stckhlm University, Daniel Svenssn and Sverker Sörlin, KTH Ryal Institute f Technlgy. Tgether with us they were highly invlved in develping the survey questins and in planning and cnducting the wrkshp with members f the Föreningen Gränsfjällen Sylarna i samverkan. Thanks als t Kai Krnenberg and Matilda Anderssn fr assisting the data cllectin. Many thanks t Lennart Adsten, Naber AB, fr input and cmments, as well as valuable administrative and rganizatinal wrk with the wrkshp. Secndly, we wuld like t thank all wh wrked tgether with Sandra n the visitr survey frm 2013; Rsemarie Ankre, Christine Lundberg, Maria Lexhagen, Bsse Bdén, Peter Fredman, Mikael Wassdahl, Fredrik Olaussn, Elin Hägglund, Kai Krnenberg, and Tatiana Chekalina at Mid-Sweden University, Annika Dahlberg at Stckhlm University, and Klas Sandell at Karlstad University. Thanks t Tumas Vuri and Lars Emmelin wh did the visitr survey in Finally, we wuld like t thank all peple participating in Fjällfrum and special thanks t Handölsdalens Sameby, Svenska Turistföreningen, Länsstyrelsen i Jämtland, Naturvårdsverket, and Naber AB fr valuable cllabratin. Karin Falkeström, Pelle Fredrikssn, and Annika Dahlberg have prvided valuable feedback, and Marika Wennbm has made the map ver the study area thank yu. Östersund, February, 2017, Kristin Gdtman Kling, Sandra Wall-Reinius and Peter Fredman 9

10 2 Intrductin 2.1 Trails in natural settings Over the centuries, trails and paths have helped frm the basis f human mbility patterns and have been essential t travel and turism. Hwever, even thugh trails and paths have been recgnized elements f human landscapes, little attentin has been given t their rle in the cntext f turism and recreatin (Timthy & Byd, 2015). Many ancient pathways have develped int rutes and rads that are still used tday. They ften serve as imprtant transprtatin passageways fr turists and recreatinists. These linear crridrs (e.g. paths, rutes, trails and scenic rutes) can functin as turist attractins in themselves, as they prvide a wide range f cultural and nature-based pprtunities (Timthy & Byd, 2015; Mre & Shafer, 2001). Trails in natural settings and utdr areas are ne f the mre imprtant resurces fr turism and recreatin tday (Timthy & Byd, 2015). Trails are used by peple fr a number f purpses, such as exercise, self-renewal, relaxatin, wildlife viewing, visiting cultural features, travel t a scenic viewpint and inspiratin. Trails als functin as guides in the landscape. They allw access int nature and prvide a rute fr visitrs t fllw t reduce the risk f becming lst, cnfrnting physical dangers r damaging sensitive places (Lekies & Whitwrth, 2011). There are a number f ways t understand trails in natural settings. Nature trails can be classified and managed depending n the type f activity used n them such as hrseback riding, muntain biking r the use f ff-rad vehicles r by their gegraphical lcatin r type f envirnment they are set in. Examples f ways f classifying nature trails are trails in natinal parks, rainfrest walks, wilderness tracks r desert trails (Timthy & Byd, 2015). Hwever, even thugh many trails are lcated in natural areas they are almst always clsely interlinked with cultural features. True nature trails where humans have nt had an impact n the envirnment are very few and nly in the mst remte areas can trails with little human influence be fund. Nevertheless, trdden tracks in the natural envirnment are signs f human influences and hence, cultural values are placed n the landscape. In a trail cntext, there is therefre an essential inseparability f nature and culture (Timthy & Byd, 2015). 2.2 Negtiating pathways t multi-functinal landscapes There were three research prjects included in the first phase f the Magnificent Muntain Prgram, funded by the Swedish envirnmental Prtectin Agency; Beynd Cnflicts, The New Muntain Experience and The Mvement Heritage. They fcused n land use cnflict reslutin, turism experiences and trends, and landscapes f mbility in the Swedish muntain regin respectively. Findings frm these prjects prvided new knwledge n cnflicts between interests grups n hw the muntain landscape culd be managed t deal with different interest grups. Interviews with stakehlders shwed that there are cnflicting ideas and agendas between cnservatin authrities and lcal cmmunities, between Sami interest and turism activities, between lcal peple and 10

11 visitrs/turists and between recreatinal activities (Ankre & Krnenberg, 2015; Fredman et al., 2016; Sörlin, Mulk, & Svenssn, 2015; Wall-Reinius et al., 2015; Wassdahl, 2015). Results frm the research prjects Beynd Cnflicts and The New Muntain Experience als pint at the rle f trails and their imprtance fr visitrs as a majrity f the muntain visitrs use the trail system fr varius recreatinal purpses (Fredman et al., 2014; Wall- Reinius et al., 2015). In additin, the Swedish Envirnmental Prtectin Agency (SEPA) recently cnducted a status reprt n the trail system in the Swedish muntain regin. The purpse was t review the cnditins f the trails and t estimate what resurces is needed t upgrade the trails t the lwest acceptable cnditin (Naturvårdsverket, 2014). As the nature f utdr recreatin in the muntain regin has changed in the last decades in cmbinatin with a lng-term lack f resurces, the management f trails have been affected and the SEPA has identified a need fr a deeper analysis f the status f the trail system. SEPA cncluded that the resurces prvided are insufficient t maintain the trail system and that the extent f the trail system need t be adapted t the resurces available (Naturvårdsverket, 2014). A future challenge is t design trail systems and management mdels that are within available resurces, ecnmically sustainable and adapted t the utdr recreatin f tday (Naturvårdsverket, 2014). A change in the use f trail activities can lead t increased wear and tear and cntribute t cnflicts between users. Therefre, there is a need t analyse hw sustainable trail management systems can be develped. Future research shuld cnsider the needs f multiple interest grups, ways t minimize cnflicts between them and shuld adapt t new utdr recreatin activities. Results frm the three previus research prjects within the Magnificent Muntain Prgram, tgether with the status reprt n trails cnducted by the SEPA shwed that the use and management f trails in the Swedish muntain regin need t be further studied. Therefre, a new research prject, based n the results frm the three abve described, was initiated. This prject, Negtiating pathways t multi-functinal landscapes, aims t explre flexible frms f nature- and heritage cnservatin in cmbinatin with lcal needs, develpment f recreatinal value and turism, alng with an analysis f future gvernance and management f muntain trails (Strslagen fjällmiljö, 2016). The prject als aims t analyse the use f trails as a tl t handle mbility amng varius users with cmplex values. It als aims t enable c-existence f multiple interests t reduce frictin, avid cnflicts and t enhance experience values in the muntain regin. The suthern Jämtland muntains is used as a case study area and the prject has three integrated wrk packages: 1) evaluating future nature cnservatin/prtectin in multifunctinal landscapes, 2) analysing the emergence and cnceptualizatin f paths and trails, and 3) investigating present trail usage and future trail management. The current reprt cvers issues related t trail use, planning and management bth in an internatinal cntext and fr the suthern Jämtland muntain area. The aim f the reprt is t (i) prvide a thrugh review f internatinal research n nn-urban trails used fr recreatin and turism, (ii) t present results frm a visitr survey in the Jämtland muntains frm 2013 with cmparisns with a similar survey frm 1999, and (iii) t present 11

12 results frm a survey and wrkshp with stakehlders in the Jämtland muntain regin frm The reprt cnsists f an verview and summary n the internatinal research n recreatinal trails, and an in-depth explratin f trails in the case study area based n the visitr survey, a stakehlder survey and wrkshp. The reprt ends with a discussin n the definitin f a trail, the gegraphical spread f trail research, the different trail types and trail functins researched, different trail-based activities, stakehlders and visitrs perceptins and attitudes twards trails in the case study area, as well as future research needs. 3 Literature review The literature review hlds a special rle within research as it prvides researchers with the insights necessary t fully understand their chsen tpic (Bth, Papaiannu, & Suttn, 2012; Jessn, Mathesn, & Lacey, 2011). In the literature review, extensive reference t related research and thery in the field f interest is presented, and cnnectins between the surce texts and the psitining f the researcher are made. The literature review can therefre serve as a driving frce and the jumping-ff pint fr scientific inquiry. Withut the literature review, it will nt be pssible t identify what has already been researched, and what knwledge gaps need t be filled (Bth et al., 2012; Ridley, 2008). Machi and McEvy (2016) suggest that the literature review prvides the cntext and the backgrund abut the current knwledge f a tpic, which then makes a lgical case t answer the questins f the study. Jessn et al. (2011) identify tw brad categries f literature reviews: the traditinal review and the systematic review. The majr difference f these types is that the traditinal review has a mre narrative apprach and is cnducted withut a prescribed methdlgy. A systematic literature review, n the ther hand, is a review with a clear stated purpse, a questin, a defined search apprach, stating inclusin and exclusin criteria, prducing a qualitative appraisal f articles. (Jessn et al., 2011, p. 12). Bth et al. (2012) argue that there is increasing recgnitin fr all reviews t be systematic, as all research requires sme srt f system. In this study, a systematic quantitative literature review was cnducted in rder t assess the academic research literature n recreatinal trails and the functins f these. This review attempts t cver areas f research made n recreatinal trails, in rder t gain a prfund insight n: 1) where there is research n trails, 2) what trails have been assessed by what methds, 3) what trail activities and trail functins have been researched, which leads t 4) where research gaps remain. As a systematic quantitative methd clearly articulates the searching and categrising f the literature, bias in the selectin and inclusin f studies can be reduced and the quality f the included studies can be assessed (Pickering & Byrne, 2014). Thus, the literature review can highlight areas f little research and hence identify fields where knwledge gaps need t be filled. 12

13 3.1 Methds In rder t examine and explre the research f trails in academic literature, a systematic quantitative literature review was perfrmed using a methdlgy utlined in Pickering, Grignn, Steven, Guitart, and Byrne (2015) and in Petticrew (2001). The prtcl develped by the Preferred Reprting Items fr Systematic Review Recmmendatins (PRISMA) (Mher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009) was als fllwed in rder fr the selectinprcess f the academic articles t be as thrugh and elabrate as pssible. Figure 1 displays hw the selectin f the articles included in the literature review was perfrmed and the reasns fr excluding certain papers. T start with, 380 papers were identified frm searching the n-line databases. When screening the selected papers, articles identified in the initial database-search were excluded mainly because f the limitatins f the literature review, such as studies in urban areas r studies n aquatic trails. Papers were als excluded due t the fcus f the study nt being n trails, even thugh sme f the keywrds were included in the article. Seven articles were excluded because full-text versin f these were nt available, even thugh effrts f trying t btain the papers thrugh alternative channels such as ResearchGate and t the authrs were made. Figure 1. The chart displays the flw f infrmatin and the actins taken in the different phases f the systematic quantitative literature review (PRISMA, 2015). n= number f riginal papers. 13

14 The definitin f trails fllwed Timthy and Byd (2015, p. 4): includes all natural and r human-made linear crridrs in rural r urban areas designated as trails, paths r rutes fr the use f recreatinists, turists r travellers regardless f their mde f transprtatin. This definitin will be used in this study because it invlves multiple aspects f the trail cncept and will therefre prvide a mre cmprehensive review f the subject. Timthy and Byd (2015) als recgnize that the terms trail, path, walkway, track etc. may have different meanings in different cuntries, fr example in the UK and in the US. Hwever, fr the cnvenience f the reader, Timthy and Byd (2015) suggest an interchangeable use f these terms in rder t include all linear, human-designated attractins. This reprt fllws this suggestin and therefre, if nthing else is stated, the cncept f track and path is used synnymusly with trail. See further in sectin 5.1 fr a discussin abut the definitin f the trail Keywrds used Original research papers published in English language jurnals were btained by searching a number f schlarly electrnic databases: Academic Search Elite, Scpus and Leisure Turism. Searches were carried ut frm March t May These databases were selected s that the literature search culd be as brad and extensive as pssible, and t cver a wide range f disciplines. There was n time limitatin in the search, therefre all identified articles frm five decades were reviewed. The keywrds used in the searches were: trail and recreatin r trail and turism and a cmbinatin f the fllwing terms: walk* hik*, bik*, ski*, snwmbil*, hrse rid*, infrmal, railtrail, heritage, multi-use, public health, managment, cnflict, ecnm* and impact, turist attractin, sustainab*, design and plan*, interpret* and envirnment* and prtectin. These keywrds were chsen because they cver cmmn activities n recreatinal trails, as well as imprtant trail functins that are fcused upn in this study. Since the fcus f this study is n trails fr recreatinal purpses used by humans, studies n trails fr industrial use, wildlife trails etc. were excluded. Studies n trails in urban areas and aquatic trails, such as cane trails were als excluded. Yet anther inclusin criterin used fr this study was that the publicatin had t be an riginal research paper. This criterin ensures that the results f the research paper have been peer-reviewed and that the paper is a primary surce (Pickering & Byrne, 2014). Bk chapters, literature reviews, cnference papers and reprts were accrdingly excluded. Hwever, reference lists f such literature were reviewed in rder t find additinal research papers f interest t the study. 14

15 3.1.2 Categrizatin The fllwing infrmatin was categrised in a Micrsft Excel database frm the papers being examined: Title Authr Jurnal published in Year f publicatin Gegraphical lcatin f the study (including cuntry where the research was cnducted) If the study was cnducted in a prtected area Infrmatin n the methds used i.e. research design and type f data cllected A classificatin f the types f trails studied The recreatinal activity fcused n in the study Infrmatin n the studied trail functins A shrt descriptin f the purpse f the study The methds f the studies were categrized as bservatinal (bserving and measuring impacts and effects f trail-use n the surrunding envirnment), experimental (experiments related t existing trails), crss-sectinal (survey research n a sample at a single pint in time), lngitudinal (research n an bject f study n mre than ne ccasin), cmparative (research in which there is a direct cmparisn between tw r mre cases), case studies (research n a single case), explratry (research n an issue that has nt yet been clearly defined) r predictive (predicting effects f planned trails) studies. The type f data cllected was recrded as quantitative, qualitative r mixed, r if it was spatial (GIS) and/r phtgraphic. The recreatinal activities f trail users were categrized as hiking (bth lng-distance hiking and shrter walks), biking (including muntain biking), hrse riding, skiing, snwmbiling and the use f mtrized vehicles, such as ORV:s and ATV:s, r a cmbinatin f multiple activities, categrized as multi-use. The classificatin f trails is a cmbinatin f the trail categries utlined in Mre and Rss (1998) and Timthy and Byd (2015). Mre and Rss (1998) identify five trail categries: traditinal backcuntry trails, recreatinal greenways, multiple-use recreatin trails, rail-trails and water trails. Hwever, recreatinal greenways are mainly fund in urban areas (Mre & Shafer, 2001; Searns, 1995) and aquatic trails are, as previusly mentined, nt included in this study. Therefre, these tw categries were excluded frm ur review. The multiple-use trail is built t high-standards and ften wide with a surface f asphalt r cncrete. They are typically designed fr many different activities, such as bicycling, walking, running and ther nn-mtrized uses. Rail-trails are cnstructed n abandned railrad crridrs that have been cnverted t recreatinal use. The surface is ften crushed stne r paved. The categry traditinal backcuntry trail is generally an unsurfaced natural rute that can range frm narrw pathways t carefully planned, natural-lking passages (Mre & Driver, 2005). These are ften fund deep inside recreatin areas and the uter perimeters (Timthy & Byd, 2015). 15

16 Timthy and Byd (2015) add t the typlgy f trails and extends the cncept f natural trails t als include wilderness tracks, ski and snwmbile trails, frest canpy walks, gelgy trails and lng distance, multi-day trails. Wilderness tracks are different frm the traditinal backcuntry trail in the sense that they are the mst natural and the mst remte type f trails. They are mst cmmnly used by hikers and hrseback riders and are characterized by islatin and separatin frm human-mdified landscapes (Timthy & Byd, 2015). In this literature review, there were als studies fcusing n infrmal trails (trails created by users withut cnnectins t the frmal trail system) (e.g. Barrs, Gnnet, & Pickering, 2013; D'Antni, Mnz, Newman, Lawsn, & Taff, 2013; Leung, Newburger, Jnes, Kuhn, & Widerski, 2011), and studies cmparing frmal trails (trails created and managed by agencies and land managers) and infrmal trails (e.g. Cahill, Marin, & Lawsn, 2008; Pickering & Barrs, 2015). These studies were srted int tw categries: infrmal trails and frmal/infrmal trails. Finally, the last categry is the cultural trail which includes trails such as trade rutes, religius rutes/pilgrim trails, literary trails and fd and wine rutes (Timthy & Byd, 2015). In summary, the trail categries included in this literature review are: Traditinal backcuntry trail Wilderness track Multiple-use trail Rail trail Ski and snwmbile trail Frest canpy walk Ge trail Lng-distance trail Infrmal trail Frmal/infrmal trail Cultural trail Trail functins refers t the purpse f the trail-study, i.e. what functin aspect f the trail the study aims t research. These categries emerged during the analysis f the selected academic articles and were then develped by the authrs. As such, there categries were assessed t cver the trail functins researched in the literature and prvide a cmprehensive basis fr the analysis f trail research: Trail management Envirnmental prtectin Heritage Ecnmic impact Trail planning and design Public health Cnflict management Interpretatin and educatin Turist attractin 16

17 There were a number f studies that examined mre than ne trail functin. Fr example trail management and trail planning and design were tw functins ften researched in the same study. In these cases, the main trail functin was used fr categrizatin. With a similar apprach, all ther categries used fr this literature review are classified as exclusive, rather than verlapping, which shuld be kept in mind when reading the results f this literature review. 3.2 Findings frm the literature review Where is there research n recreatinal trails cnducted? There were 195 academic jurnal articles identified which examined trails in the cntext f recreatin and/r turism. A majrity f these (166 papers, 85 %) were published frm year 2000 t 2016 (Figure 2). This may indicate that recreatinal trails are tday given a greater academic attentin than previusly, and that trails is getting an increased attentin in academic (peer reviewed) research. Brnmann and Mutz (2015) recgnize a general grwth in the number f scientific publicatins and cited references in the database Web f Science (WS, Thmsn Reuters). Fr the perid , the glbal scientific publicatin utput was grwing at a rate f abut 3 % annually (ibid). When cmparing this number t the percentage increase f scientific articles cncerning recreatinal trails in the time perid , it is clear that the increase in trail-related articles is cnsiderably higher than the average glbal increase. Between the decades and the increase was 280 %, with the number f publicatins ging frm 5 articles t 19 articles. Between and the increase was almst as high, 279 % with 19 articles cmpared t 72 articles. Between and the grwth in articles abut recreatinal trails seem t have stagnated smewhat, with an increase f 30 %, frm 72 articles t 94 (nte hwever that the last perid is nly seven years, nt a full decade). These numbers crrespnd t an annual increase f just ver 8 %. Number f papers by year Figure 2. Number f published papers n trails

18 The majrity f the studies (62 %) were cnducted in varius types f prtected areas, such as natinal parks, natinal frests, UNESCO Wrld Heritage Sites, nature reserves, natinal grasslands, Natura 2000-areas etc. Althugh research had been cnducted in 36 cuntries, the majrity f the studies were cncentrated t a few cuntries and regins. Just ver 40 % f the studies (81 papers) were cnducted in the USA and Canada (73 papers in the USA, 8 papers in Canada), and 18 % (37 papers) f the studies were cnducted in Australia and New Zealand (32 papers in Australia, 5 in New Zealand). Research in Eurpean cuntries cnstituted 28 % f the papers (57 papers), whilst research in Asia nly cnstituted 7 % f the papers (14 papers), Suth- and Central America 5 % (10 papers) and research in Africa nly 0.9 % (2 papers). Table 1 shws the number f studies in each cntinent, with cuntries specified (nly cuntries with mre than ne study are included). In Eurpe, nly the seven cuntries with the largest share f studies are displayed, as there was a great number f cuntries where nly ne r tw trail studies had been cnducted. Examples f cuntries where nly ne r tw studies were bserved are Finland (2 studies), Nrway (2 studies), Czech Republic (2 studies), Iceland (2 studies), Belgium (1 study), Serbia (1 study) and the Netherlands (1 study). Results frm this categry reveal that there is an apparent gegraphical skewness in trail research, with a predminant fcus n English-speaking Western cuntries, such as the USA and Australia. This culd reflect that trail systems are mre develped in Western cuntries and that the traditin f utdr recreatin has a mre prminent rle in Western sciety. 18

19 Table 1. Gegraphical spread f trail research. Number f papers and percentage f ttal numbers. Nrth America 81 40,3 % USA 73 Canada 8 Oceanian cuntries 37 18,4 % Australia 32 New Zealand 5 Eurpe 57 28,4 % United Kingdm 13 Pland 8 Italy 4 Germany 4 Sweden 3 Ireland 3 Prtugal 3 Other Eurpean cuntries (including Israel) 19 Asia 14 7 % China 5 Suth Krea 3 Nepal 3 Other Asian cuntries 3 Suth- and Central America 10 5 % Csta Rica 4 Argentina 2 Other Suth- and Central American cuntries 4 Africa 2 0,9 % Suth Africa 2 Ttal Althugh there were 195 papers, fur studies examined trails in mre than ne cuntry. Farrell and Marin (2001) studied trails in Csta Rica and Belize, Leung and Marin (1999) studied trails in Csta Rica and Ecuadr, Symmnds, Hammitt, and Quisenberry (2000) lked at trails in the United Kingdm, USA, Australia and New Zealand and Vail and Heldt (2004) cnducted trail-research in USA and Sweden What methds have been used? A majrity f all studies used quantitative data (65 %). A cmbinatin f quantitative and qualitative data was used in 23 % f the studies and 12 % f all papers had nly qualitative data (Figure 3). The studies used methds bth frm scial sciences (e.g. interviews, surveys and fcus grups) and nature science (e.g. pint sampling and experimental rainfall simulatrs). The studies with quantitative data were generally abut envirnmental aspects f trails, where quantitative data was used t measure impacts n the envirnment surrunding trails. The studies cncerning envirnmental aspects f trails used mstly quantitative data (61 studies) and fewer used mixed data (10 studies). 19

20 Quantitative data was clearly verrepresented in this categry. Quantitative data was als the primary surce f infrmatin in studies researching trail functins and management (30 studies), as well as studies lking at ecnmic impact frm trail use (11 papers). In this latter categry there were six studies that used mixed methd data. Type f data Quantitative 127 Mixed 45 Qualitative Figure 3. Type f data (number f studies). GIS (gegraphic infrmatin system) was used in 18 studies (9 % f ttal number f papers in the review), mainly fr the purpse f studying reduced negative impacts and prviding infrmatin abut trail cnditins (Beec, Hall, English, & Giumetti, 2013; Hawes, Dixn, & Ling, 2013; Newsme & Davies, 2009), but als fr assessing the suitability f trail lcatins (e.g. Martínez & Ocana, 2014; Snyder, Whitmre, Schneider, & Becker, 2008; Yang et al., 2014). One study fcused n hw GIS can be used t plan fr reduced cnflicts between recreatin grups (Shilling, Bggs, & Reed, 2012). The tw predictive studies bth used GIS. The studies using GIS all cmbined this type f data with quantitative data. Phtgraphy was used in eight studies, bth as a tl when interviewing visitrs and managers abut recreatin impacts n the grund (Vistad, 2003) and when measuring ersin during rainfall events (Tarlli, Calligar, Cazrzi, & Dalla Fntana, 2013). One study used qualitative data in cmbinatin with phtgraphy, where participants was given a camera and instructed t take pictures f the surrundings at given times, in rder t research hikers and muntain bikers mde f experience (Walker & Shafer, 2011). All but tw f the studies using phtgraphy did s in cmbinatin with quantitative data. One study used mixed methd data, and ne study used qualitative data. The studies using qualitative data were mainly crss-sectinal (12 studies) with interviews as the primary surce f data (e.g. Dey et al., 2014; Hayes & MacLed, 2008). See als belw abut crss-sectinal studies. Studies with qualitative data were als explratry (6 studies) and case studies (5 studies). 20

21 Mixed methd data studies were mainly crss-sectinal, but case studies and experimental studies were als fund amng the studies. One example f studies where mixed data was used is Beetn (1999a), wh used self-cmpletin questinnaires in cmbinatin with secndary and tertiary infrmatin n management practices and regulatins f natinal parks in Australia. Anther example is Reis, Lvelck, and Jellum (2014) wh cnducted a survey n rail trail visitrs tgether with interviews with key turism and cmmunity stakehlders. Studies with mixed methd data researched a variety f tpics, fr example, 14 studies cncerned trail management. There was als six (ut f 10) studies researching the trail functin public health (e.g. Grdn, Zizzi, & Pauline, 2004; Hehner et al., 2010), and five (ut f 11) studies n the trail functin cnflict management (e.g. Beetn, 1999b; Jacksn, Haider, & Ellit, 2003). The mst cmmn research design was crss-sectinal (32 % f all papers included in the review) fllwed by bservatinal research design (25 %). Figure 4 displays the spread f different types f research designs and number f papers. Crss-sectinal studies refers t studies using surveys, qualitative interviews r fcus grups at a single pint in time. The divisin between different types f data in crss-sectinal studies was quite even, with 28 studies using quantitative data (e.g. Chi-Ok & Hammitt, 2010; Grdn et al., 2004), 22 studies using mixed methd data (e.g. Buckley, van Rensburg, & Hynes, 2009; Wearing, 2007) and 13 studies using qualitative data (e.g. Schmudde, 2015). The crss-sectinal studies researched varius trail-related tpics, including a number f trail functins such as cnflict management (e.g. Beetn, 1999a; Jacksn et al., 2003), heritage (e.g. Dey et al., 2014), public health (e.g. Librett, Yre, & Schmid, 2006), ecnmic impact (e.g. Bwker, Bergstrm, & Gill, 2007; Nagler, Bastian, Taylr, & Fulke, 2013), trail planning and design (Bers & Cttrell, 2007; McNamara & Prideaux, 2011) and trail management (e.g. Mrrw, 2005; Ptter III & Manning, 1984). Few studies used a crss-sectinal design t research envirnmental and eclgical aspects f trails. Observatinal studies refers t studies bserving and measuring effects f trail-use related impacts n the surrunding envirnment. The bservatinal studies predminantly used quantitative data, with 46 f 49 studies using quantitative data and three studies using mixed data. There was a cnnectin between the bservatinal studies and the trail functin envirnmental prtectin, as the majrity f the bservatinal studies cncern envirnmental aspects f recreatinal trails (36 studies), such as changes in vegetatin and land ersin caused by trail use (e.g. Hall & Kuss, 1989; Queirz, Ventura, & Silva, 2014; Tinsley & Fish, 1985; Wimpey & Marin, 2010), and hw the use f recreatinal trails affects wildlife (e.g. Deluca & King, 2014; Nagler et al., 2013; Thmpsn, 2015). The third mst cmmn research design, the experimental design (15 % f the ttal number f reviewed studies) used quantitative data in 22 f the 29 studies, and mixed data in the seven ther studies. Experimental studies primarily fcused n researching the trail functins envirnmental prtectin and trail management, (72 %, 21 f the 29 studies) by using fr example rainfall simulatrs and trampling experimental methdlgies (e.g. Cahill et al., 2008; Deluca, Pattersn, Freimund, & Cle, 1998; Pickering, Rssi, & Barrs, 21

22 2011; Weaver & Dale, 1978). In the case studies, data as well as tpics were mre diverse; 52 % f the case studies (12 studies) used quantitative data, 26 % (6 studies) used mixed data and 22 % (5 studies) used qualitative data. The cmparative studies, where there was a direct cmparisn between tw r mre cases, mainly used quantitative data. Eight f the 11 studies used this type f data, and three used mixed data. All but ne f the cmparative studies researched the trail functins envirnmental prtectin r trail management, fcusing n fr example cmparing impacts f different activities (e.g. Törn, Tlvanen, Nrkrpi, Terv, & Siikamäki, 2009) and n cmparing impacts n vegetatin n a high-use and lw-use trail (Nepal & Way, 2007). There was a clear cnnectin between explratry studies and qualitative data, with six f the nine studies using qualitative data, and three using mixed r quantitative data. The explratry studies researched mre scial science riented trail functins, such as heritage (e.g. Wrede & Mügge-Bartlvić, 2012) and interpretatin and educatin (e.g. Lekies & Whitwrth, 2011). Research design Crss-sectinal Observatinal Experimental Case studies Cmparative Explratry Lngitudinal Predictive Theretical sampling apprach Figure 4. Research design (number f papers) What types f trails have been assessed? Reflecting the great interest in trails in natural settings, traditinal backcuntry trails cnstituted the majrity f the researched trail types, with 54 % f the ttal number f papers examining this categry f trails (Figure 5). As this categry is s large, the classificatin traditinal backcuntry trails includes a number f different trail settings. Examples f different traditinal backcuntry trails are trails lcated n the rural cuntryside (e.g. Buckley et al., 2009; Clark, 1997), trails in trpical rainfrests (e.g. Aguirre, 2009; Farrell & Marin, 2001), trails in deserts and xeric shrub lands (e.g. Webb, Ragland, Gdwin, & Jenkins, 1978; White, Waskey, Brdehl, & Fti, 2006), trails in alpine climate (M. 22

23 Ballantyne, Pickering, McDugall, & Wright, 2014; Hill & Pickering, 2006) and trails in temperate bradleaves and mixed frests (e.g. Lynn & Brwn, 2003; Siderelis, Naber, & Leung, 2010; Wd, Lawsn, & Marin, 2006). It is difficult t distinguish specific features that characterizes the traditinal backcuntry trail, ther than the classificatin suggested by Mre and Driver (2005) that this type f trail is generally an unsurfaced natural rute and that it can be fund deep inside recreatin areas and the uter perimeters (Timthy & Byd, 2015). The mre remte type f trail, the wilderness track, cnstituted 13 % f the researched trails. Tgether these trail types were researched in 68 % (131 papers) f the academic papers. Given that studies f the traditinal backcuntry trail and the wilderness track cnstitute ver tw-thirds f the researched trail types, studies f these trails cncern a great number f tpics and trail functins. Hwever, sme patterns culd be detected. The mst researched tpic within the categries traditinal backcuntry trail and wilderness track was envirnmental aspects f trail-use (53 papers), such as impacts n vegetatin and sils and trail cnditins (Nepal & Nepal, 2004; Thurstn & Reader, 2001; Törn et al., 2009). Rail trails and multiple-use trails, which are quite similar in their characteristics given that they bth are used fr a number f different activities and have a paved r asphalted surface, were researched in 11 % f all papers (22 articles). Public health aspects were targeted in eight studies in research abut these types f trails. Tpics included were assessing awareness and use f trails (Reed, Ainswrth, Wilsn, Mixn, & Ck, 2004), trail setting preferences in a grup having disabilities cmpared t a grup withut disabilities (Mre, Dattil, & Devine, 1996) and determining physical activity patterns and scidemgraphic crrelates related t trail use (Librett et al., 2006). As there was nly 10 studies in ttal researching the trail functin public health, there is a clear cnnectin between studies n public health and the trail types rail trail and multiple use trails. Research n rail trails and multiple use trails als cncerned ecnmic impacts f trails (6 studies), such as estimating the lcal ecnmic impact and value f a rail trail (Bwker et al., 2007) and measurement issues when assessing ecnmic impacts (Ryan, Thu Thi, Sun, & Li, 2014). There was als an apparent cnnectin between these tw trail types and the activity categry multi-use, which includes a cmbinatin f multiple activities. Anther apparent cnnectin was the trail type ski and snwmbile trail and the activities snwmbiling and skiing. Of the six studies researching this trail type, five cncerned these tw activities. The remaining study in this categry was classified as a multiple activity study, as it examined the behaviur f hikers, snw-shers and crss-cuntry skiers (Cppes & Braunisch, 2013). Of the lng-distance trails, fur ut f six studies researched the trail functin trail management. Studies in this categry include fr example the develpment f a design fr estimating recreatinal visitatin (Zarnch, Bwker, & Crdell, 2011) and estimating recreatin use patterns in park and wilderness envirnments (Ptter III & Manning, 1984). Infrmal trails refers t trails created by users withut cnnectins t the frmal trail system. Infrmal trails were researched in 18 papers (9 % f ttal number f reviewed 23

24 papers), and nine directly cmpared frmal and infrmal trails. Research n infrmal trails was predminantly abut assessing envirnmental impacts frm varius types f recreatin, such as ersin and effects n plants and sils (e.g. Barrs et al., 2013; Newsme & Davies, 2009; Randall & Newsme, 2008). Of the studies examining infrmal trails, 12 ut f 18 studies, researched the trail functin envirnmental prtectin. Mst f the papers abut infrmal trails cncerned the activity hiking. Three studies, f the nine studies that cmpared frmal and infrmal trails, cmpared impacts frm hiking and biking. There was a clear cnnectin between the few studies cncerning cultural trails (7 studies) and the trail functin heritage, with five studies investigating this tpic. Research n cultural trails includes, fr example, the imprtance f cultural rutes fr turism develpment (Bžić & Tmić, 2016) and the creatin f a dark turism thematic trail thrugh cemeteries frm the First Wrld War (Hrdnikva & Derc, 2015). Type f trails Traditinal backcuntry trail Wilderness track 25 Rail trail 12 Multiple-use trail 10 Infrmal trail 9 Frmal/infrmal trail 9 Cultural trail 7 Ski and snwmbile trail 6 Lng-distance trail 6 Ge-trail 4 Frest canpy walk Figure 5. Type f trails (number f papers) What recreatinal activities have been researched? Hiking is the mst researched trail activity, with 51 % f the studies examining this activity. The cncept hiking is brad and includes bth shrter walks and lng-distance hikes. Because f the large number f studies researching this activity, studies are diverse and fcus n a wide range f tpics. Research n hiking as a trail-based activity cncerns scial science tpics such as hw different nature interpretatin-actins can impact visitr behaviur in natural areas (e.g. Bradfrd & McIntyre, 2007; Hughes & Mrrisn-Saunders, 2002; Littlefair & Buckley, 2008) and hw hiking trails can be planned and designed in rder t be a sustainable turism prduct (Hug, 1999). Scial science research als include ecnmic impacts f hiking trails, fr example the expected recreatin value f a new walking track (Ck, 2008) and methds t assess the ecnmic value f services prvided 24

25 by hiking trails (Chen & Liaw, 2012). Research was als cnducted in natural scientifically riented studies, such as impacts n vegetatin and sils frm hiking (e.g. M. Ballantyne et al., 2014; Bright, 1986; Nepal & Way, 2007) and hw hiking trails and hikers affect wildlife (e.g. Lngshre & Thmpsn, 2013; Rdríguez-Priet et al., 2014; Wiedmann & Bleich, 2014). The secnd mst researched field within the categry f trail activities is multiple-use, which includes activities such as walking, biking, jgging and hrse riding. As previusly mentined, there is a clear cnnectin between researching multiple activities and the trail types multiple-use trails and rail trails. These trail types prvides pprtunities fr practicing varius types f recreatin activities, and it is therefre reasnable that there is a cnnectin between these trail types and multiple activities in the same study. Of the 18 studies researching the activity biking, seven studies fcused n trail management and fur studies fcused n trail planning and design. These studies were mainly abut hw biking trails can be planned and managed t avid eclgical and envirnmental prblems (e.g. Figueras, Farrés, & Pérez, 2011; Newsme & Davies, 2009; Symmnds et al., 2000). Even thugh there were n studies with the primary fcus n cnflicts between recreatinal interests in the biking categry, in sme cases, studies cncerning management f biking n trails als included this issue (e.g. Chiu & Kriwken, 2003; Mrey, Buchanan, & Waldman, 2002; Schuett, 1997). In the ne study that primarily cncerned biking in cmbinatin with the trail functin interpretatin and educatin, the fcus f the study was hw bikers can be educated t minimize cnflicts with ther trail users (Hendricks, Ramthun, & Chavez, 2001). It appears that cnsidering recreatinal cnflicts is imprtant when managing trails fr biking. Of the studies researching biking, 12 studies examined biking n the trail type traditinal backcuntry trail. Of the eight studies cncerning mtrized activities, three fcused n snwmbiles, and five examined ff-rad vehicles r all-terrain vehicles. All f the studies researching the trail activity ff-rad driving used the trail types traditinal backcuntry trail r wilderness track, and all the studies n snwmbiling used the trail type ski and snwmbile trail. The ttal f five studies n ff-rad vehicles were all gegraphically cncentrated t the USA. Of the studies n snwmbiling, ne study was frm the USA, ne frm Sweden and ne examined snwmbiling in bth USA and Sweden in the same study. Figure 6 displays the spread f trail activities. 25

26 Trail activities Hiking Multi-use Biking Mtrized/nn-mtrized Hiking/biking Mtrized Hiking/hrse riding Hrse riding Biking/hrse riding Skiing Figure 6. Trail activities (number f papers) What trail functins have been researched? Trail functins refer t the purpse f the trail-study, i.e. what functin aspect f the trail the study aims t research. The mst researched trail functin is envirnmental prtectin, with 36 % f the ttal number f studies researching this tpic (71 studies). Studies in this categry cncern brad envirnmental and eclgical issues such as effects frm trampling (e.g. Deluca et al., 1998; Kellmaki, 1977; Masn, Newsme, Mre, & Admiraal, 2015) and ersin (e.g. Eaglestn & Rubin, 2013; Gager & Cnacher, 2001), but als mre specific tpics such as hw visitrs, hst cmmunities and gvernment in Nepal culd avid waste being left n trails and instead earn incme frm waste (Kuniyal, 2005) and the effects f winter recreatin snwmbile activity n air quality (Musselman & Krfmacher, 2007). The secnd mst researched trail functin is trail management, which was examined in 24 % f all papers (47 studies). Studies n trail management cncerned tpics such as hw management f recreatin use can cntrl envirnmental impacts (Park, Manning, Marin, Lawsn, & Jacbi, 2008), and the evaluatin f management actins t reduce envirnmental impacts (Vistad, 2003). Research als include scially riented studies, fr example hw trails can be rganized and managed t benefit the lcal cmmunity (Vda, Mldvan, Trpan, & Henning, 2014) and if tw different managerial factrs are determinants f respnsible hiking behaviur (Gu, Smith, Leung, Seekamp, & Mre, 2015). Studies f the trail functin trail management was fund t investigate this tpic frm bth visitrs perspectives (e.g. Cahill, Marin, & Lawsn, 2007; Denstadli, Lindberg, & Vistad, 2010; Lee, Kim, Graefe, & Chi, 2013) and managers perspectives (e.g. Aguirre, 2009; Hawes et al., 2013; Kim, Chang, & Shelby, 2003). In ttal, 60 % f the reviewed academic papers researched the trail functins envirnmental prtectin and trail management. This pints t a scientific skewness in the research f recreatinal trails. 26

27 The third mst researched trail functin, trail planning and design, was studied in 21 papers. The academic articles in this categry mstly cncerned hw recreatinal trails can be develped in a sustainable manner t reduce negative envirnmental impacts frm trailusers and hw negative impacts caused by seasnality can be alleviated (e.g. Bers & Cttrell, 2007; Curtenay & Lkingbill, 2014; McNamara & Prideaux, 2011; Santarém, Silva, & Sants, 2015). Figure 7 shws the spread f different trail functins in research. Papers researching the six categries ecnmic impact, cnflict management, heritage, public health, interpretatin and educatin and turist attractin cnstituted tgether 29 % f the reviewed academic articles. As recreatinal trails ften are lcated in prtected and/r peripheral areas, this skewness in the researched trail functins culd suggest that recreatinal trails are ften viewed in cnnectin t envirnmental impact issues, and there is therefre a greater interest in researching trails frm a nature science perspective. It is pssible that as trail use increases, research n scial science aspects f trails such as cnflict management and interpretatin and educatin will be given a mre prminent rle. It is als ntewrthy that even thugh climate change is being discussed amng schlars in turism research (e.g. Amelung & Nichlls, 2014; Kaján & Saarinen, 2013; Rsselló- Nadal, 2014), nly three f the 195 reviewed articles addressed this issue. Ritter, Fiebig, and Muhar (2012) discuss hw glbal warming affects alpine trail netwrks, and Tmczyk, White, and Ewertwski (2016) recgnize the imprtance f trail design when weather events becme extreme, and Fernandes (2016) analyses the relatins between turism, actrs and climate change n an island impacted by heavy rainfalls. Trail functins Envirnmental prtectin Trail management Trail planning and design Ecnmic impact Cnflict management Heritage Public health Interpretatin and educatin Turist attractin Figure 7. Trail functins (numbers f papers)

28 3.2.6 Change in trail research ver time While the results abve categrize research n trails frm a number f pre-defined parameters, it is als f interest t see hw this research have changed ver time. Since there were n time limitatins used in the literature search, it is pssible t analyse hw sme f the research has changed since Fr this purpse, the reviewed academic articles are divided int three time-perids ( , and ) with 29, 72 and 94 bservatins in each categry respectively. It shuld hwever be nted that in the categry gegraphical spread f trail research, fur articles researched trails in mre than ne cuntry. Therefre, in this particular categry there was 30 bservatins in the time perid cmpared t the time perid when the number f bservatins was 77. When reviewing the gegraphical spread f trail research ver time, it is clear that research is being cnducted in mre cuntries in the time-perid than in the perid f Between 1970 and 1999, 50 % f the studies were cnducted in the USA, cmpared t 34 % in bth f the time perids and This culd pint t a stagnatin in US trail research. Between 1970 and 1999 studies cnducted in Australia and New Zealand tgether cnstituted 13 % f the studies, a number that in the tw time perids f and had increased t abut 19 %. Between 1970 and 1999, trail research was reprted frm nly three Eurpean cuntries, but in the time perid there were studies frm nine Eurpean cuntries. Between 2010 and 2016 this number had increased t include studies frm 15 different Eurpean cuntries. An interesting example is Pland, which was the Eurpean cuntry with the secnd largest number f studies (8 studies). All f these studies were published between 2010 and 2016, which culd pint t bth an increase in trail-based utdr recreatin in Pland, as well as an increased scientific interest in trail research in a cuntry that can be cnsidered new in a trail research cntext. It is als interesting t nte that in the time perid , there are n studies at all frm Asia, as the first study frm an Asian cuntry is frm Table 2 displays the number f cuntries researched in the three time perids , and

29 Table 2. Gegraphical spread f trail research ver time Nrth America (%) (%) (%) USA 50 33,8 34 Canada 0 9 1,1 Nrth America Ttal 50 42,8 35,1 Oceanian cuntries Australia ,9 New Zealand 3,3 1,3 3,2 Oceanian cuntries ttal 13,3 19,3 19,1 Eurpe United Kingdm 13,3 10,4 1,1 Pland 0 0 8,5 Italy 0 1,3 3,2 Germany 0 1,3 3,2 Sweden 3,3 2,6 0 Ireland 0 1,3 2,1 Prtugal 0 0 3,2 Other Eurpean cuntries 5,2 14,9 3,3 (including Israel) Eurpe ttal 19,9 22,1 36,2 Asia China 0 2,6 3,2 Suth Krea 0 2,6 1,1 Nepal 0 3,4 0 Other Asian cuntries 0 1,3 2,1 Asia ttal 0 9,9 6,4 Suth- and Central America Csta Rica 6,6 2,6 0 Argentina 0 0 2,1 Other Suth- and Central 2,6 1,1 3,3 American cuntries Suth- and Central America 5,2 3,2 9,9 ttal Africa Suth Africa 6,6 0 0 Africa ttal 6,

30 Table 3 shws changes in the fur types f research design ver the three time perids. The crss-sectinal research design was mstly used in the perid , with 43 % f the studies using this design cmpared with 34 % in the perid and 23 % in the perid. Table 3. Changes is research design ver time Research design (%) (%) (%) Crss-sectinal 34, ,4 Observatinal 20,7 16,6 38,3 Experimental 24,1 13,9 12,7 Lngitudinal 3,4 0 7,4 The secnd mst used research design, the bservatinal design, has n the ther hand increased much in the last time perid ( ) cmpared t the tw previus nes. Of all studies cnducted , 38 % used an bservatinal research design, cmpared t nly 17 % between 2000 and The experimental research design was mre cmmn between 1970 and 1999, with 21 % f the studies emplying this design. In the perid the prprtin had decreased t 14 % and fr the perid t 13 %. Lngitudinal studies were generally few, but we can identify a grwing trend f studies being lngitudinal. Research n trail impacts ver time is limited (Ballantyne, Gudes, & Pickering, 2014; Ballantyne & Pickering, 2015), and by lking at tempral effects f trailuse research can assess and determine the impacts f recreatinal activities, and hence supprt managers f natural areas (Ballantyne & Pickering, 2015). There is therefre a need fr mre lngitudinal research n recreatinal trails ver time. Changes in the use f data types ver time culd als be identified in the literature study. Table 4 shws hw the relative use f quantitative has increased and qualitative data has decreased between the three time-perids. Between 1970 and 1999 there was 59 % f the studies using quantitative data, a number that increased t 69 % in the time-perid In cmparisn, there were 21 % f the studies that used qualitative data between , cmpared with 11 % in and 10% in the perid Table 4. Changes in data types ver time Data type (%) (%) (%) Quantitative 58,6 62,5 69,1 Qualitative 20,7 11,1 9,6 The crrelatin between research design and data types ver time is rather cherent, as fr example bservatinal studies almst exclusively used quantitative data, and bth f these 30

31 categries increased ver time. It is hwever interesting that research designs predminantly emplying quantitative data (e.g. bservatinal design) is increasing and studies using qualitative data is decreasing, as it culd be expected that qualitative data wuld take a larger space in trail research, fllwing the general increase in qualitative research in the fields f hspitality and turism (Mehmetglu, 2004). It is als ntewrthy that the experimental research design is being less used, at the same time as quantitative data studies are increasing. The decreased number f studies using a crss-sectinal r experimental research design are likely a result f the greater use f the bservatinal design. In the categry trail activity, tw activities stand ut when reviewing the articles in a lng-term perspective: multi-use and hiking/hrse riding. The activity hiking/hrse riding refers t when these tw activities are researched in the same study, see figure 6. There were few studies researching multi-use in the time-perid , and ver time mre studies fcused n multiple activities. This culd pint t an increase in the number f trailbased activities, and a diversificatin f trail activities. The secnd activity that stand ut is hiking/hrse riding. Between 1970 and 1999, this activity was researched in 17 % f the studies. In the fllwing time-perids, hiking/hrse riding was examined in less than 2 % f the studies. This is mst likely a result f ne researcher publishing three articles n this activity, and the ttal number f studies in this time perid being small. In the categry trail functins, the functin cnflict management is interesting t discuss as the number f studies researching this functin has gne dwn frm 10 % in the time perid t 4 % in the perid With an increased use f trails by different grups (e.g. hikers, bikers, runners, skiers, snwmbilers) ne culd expect an increase in studies researching cnflict management, but this des nt seem t be the case. Table 5 shws the change ver time fr different trail functin. Table 5. Changes in trail functins ver time Trail functins (%) (%) (%) Envirnmental prtectin 41,4 29,2 39,4 Trail management 13,8 34,7 19,1 Trail planning and design 10,3 4,2 17 Ecnmic impact 6,9 11,1 7,4 Public health 6,9 5,5 4,3 Cnflict management 10,3 5,5 4,3 31

32 4 Case study: Trails in the suthern Jämtland muntains 4.1 Study area The case study area is the muntainus parts f Åre and Berg municipalities in the suthwestern part f the Cunty f Jämtland, Sweden, hereafter called the suthern Jämtland muntains. It includes the muntain peaks Helags and Sylarna and surrunding highlands, as well as valleys, pen and frested lands, and the lcal cmmunities that surrund the bare muntains. The ttal area is abut hectares. N ne lives permanently n the bare muntains, while the surrunding lwer muntains and frested lands are sparsely ppulated with an estimated 500 inhabitants in small surrunding cmmunities (Culturum, 2017; SCB, 2016; Wikipedia, 2017), whereas the ttal number f inhabitants in the tw municipalities is nearly (SCB, 2016). The area is mainly characterized by extensive land use, including indigenus Sami practices such as reindeer herding and hunting/fishing, nature cnservatin and utdr recreatin/nature-based turism, but als small scale pastures/farming, mining and energy prductin. Thrughut the area abut reindeer graze during the snw-free perid. Reindeer are kept by reindeer herders belnging t tw different Sami villages. The study area has been the subject f many nature cnversatin initiatives and debates, fr instance there has been plans and suggestins during decades regarding a natinal park and tday there is an initiative by the SEPA and the Cunty Administrative Bard t establish a natinal park. Tday, a large part f the study area is demarcated as a nature reserve, as well as a Natura 2000 area. Turism is ne f the majr activities transfrming this landscape with well-develped infrastructure fr visitrs and utdr recreatinists. In the area, there are ten muntain cabins, sme with restaurants and facilities such as sauna and shwers, run by the Swedish Turist Assciatin (STF). STF has abut 500 vernight beds in the case study area and in 2016, the number f guest nights in the area was (L. Welander, persnal cmmunicatin, January ). In the cunty f Jämtland as a whle, there are kilmetres f state managed muntain trails fr summer and winter usage, and equally number f trails managed by municipalities, land wners, rganizatins, and turist establishments (Länsstyrelsen Jämtlands län, n.d.). In the demarcated case study area, there are abut 500 kilmetres marked trails managed by the Cunty Administrative Bard (Länsstyrelsen Jämtlands län, 2013). Included in the trail netwrk is als wden bardwalks, bridges and wind-shelters. 32

33 Figure 8. Map ver the study area. Marked summer and winter trails are merged int the categry Led (Eng. Trail). The map als shws muntain statins and cabins ( STF bende ) and areas prtected as nature reserves ( Naturreservat ). Surces: Marika Wennbm has prduced the map by using pen data frm Lantmäteriet. The crdinates fr the STF accmmdatin are mdified frm T analyse trail use and varius actrs views f trails in the case study area, three main surces f data were used: Firstly, we present findings frm an n-site visitr survey t capture recreatinists and turists use and perceptins abut trail management and cnditins f trails. Sme survey questins are als cmpared with a previus visitr survey carried ut in the same area in 1999 t capture if there are any changes ver time regarding visitrs attitudes. Secndly, we surveyed members f the rganizatin Föreningen Gränsfjällen Sylarna i samverkan t get their view f trail use and management. This rganizatin arrange meeting arenas and discuss cmmn and current tpics, and members are frm Swedish and Nrwegian lcal cmmunities, as well as frm reginal and natinal rganizatins and authrities. Thirdly, we arranged a wrkshp at ne f the meeting arenas, called Fjällfrum. The aim f the wrkshp was t fllw up the survey and t get mre prfund knwledge abut trails in the case study area. 4.2 Visitr use and perceptins f trails In the summer f 2013 (July t September), a visitr survey was cnducted in the study area t cllect infrmatin n visitr attitudes, experiences and preferences. Fr this reprt, nly questins abut trail usage and attitudes twards trails have been used in the analysis. 33

34 The study was designed in tw steps. In the first step, the visitrs stpped at ne f the registratin bxes t answer three shrt questins and they were als asked t fill in their name and address (in ttal there were nine self-registratin bxes in the area and a ttal number f cards was received). In the secnd step, all visitrs with an address received a questinnaire after their visit. In ttal, 578 Swedish and internatinal visitrs cmpleted the questinnaire. Amng the Swedish respndents the respnse rate was 70 %, while it was 48 % amng the internatinal visitrs. Fr a full descriptin f data cllectin prcedure and questinnaire results see Wall-Reinius et al. (2015). Sme questins in the visitr survey f 2013 can be cmpared with an earlier visitr study frm 1999 in the same area. The earlier survey als fllwed the same research design including step 1 with registratin bxes, and step 2 with a fllw up questinnaire. The cmparisn ver time nly cnsiders Swedish respndents. The visitr survey f 1999 is reprted in Vuri (2003). On the 2013 registratin card (the first step f the data cllectin), we asked if the visitr hiked/cycled utside marked trails. Accrding t the answers 35 % hiked/cycled utside trails; thus, meaning that the majrity f the visitrs used marked trails during their visit. A similar questin was asked in the fllw up questinnaire. In the questinnaire (the secnd step f the data cllectin), we asked t what extent they perfrmed their activities utside marked trials. On the five pint scale, ne indicated nt at all utside marked trails, and five indicated t a large extent utside marked trails. Less than 10 % carry ut their activities t a large extent utside the marked trails. Abut ne furth nly hike/cycle n marked trails. The results frm Swedish and internatinal respndents are summarized in figure % 25% 29% 31% 22% 20% 13% 6% 9% 4% 1= nt at all = t a large extent Swedish respndents Internatinal respndents Figure 9. T what extent did yu carry ut yur activity/activities utside marked trails? Swedish and internatinal respndents frm the 2013 visitr survey in the suthern Jämtland muntains The availability f marked trails was investigated as ne f many factrs that can be perceived as imprtant fr the decisin t visit the area. Result shws that the availability f marked trails is imprtant. Swedish and internatinal visitr have very similar thughts 34

35 regarding the imprtance f the availability f marked trails. It was a five-pint scale frm 1 (nt at all imprtant), t 5 (very imprtant). Fr Swedish visitrs the mean value was 3.7, and fr internatinal visitrs 3.6. Just abve 80 % think that the availability f marked trails is an imprtant factr (prprtin f respndents wh marked 3, 4 and 5 n the scale) when they decided t visit the area (84 % f the Swedish respndents, and 82 % f the internatinal respndents). Thus, a minrity stated that marked trails is nt imprtant (the nes answering 1 r 2 n the five-pint scale). In additin, a majrity f the respndents als think the quality f the marked trails is gd r very gd (table 6). In particular, the internatinal visitrs think that the trail quality is high. Of the internatinal respndents, 95 % think the quality is gd r very gd, and crrespnding share amng the Swedish respndents is 82 %. Only 4% f the internatinal and the Swedish respndents respectively, state that trail quality is bad. We als asked abut the quality f the wden bardwalks and quality f the bridges in the area. In general, the visitrs think the quality is gd, see table 6. The questin abut trail quality can be cmpared with an identical questin in the 1999 visitr survey. When we cmpare the answers between 1999 and 2013, we find n difference between the years regarding what the Swedish respndents think abut the quality f marked trails, bridges r bardwalks in the area. Hwever, if we cmpare first time visitrs and repeat visitrs, we find that first time visitrs are mre psitive twards the quality f marked trails, bardwalks and bridges than repeat visitrs. Als, first time visitrs 2013 are mre psitive than first time visitrs 1999 twards the quality. Clsely related t the trail infrastructure is shelters/rest cabins (vindskydd/raststugr) as well as infrmatin, especially if ne cnsider signs alng the trails (table 6). The respndents f the 2013 survey think the quality f the shelters/rest cabins and the quality f the infrmatin are gd r very gd. The result that stands ut a bit is that Swedes seem t be less satisfied with the shelters/rest cabins than the freign visitrs. Hwever, it is a bit hard t knw what the respndents perceive as shelters/rest cabins, and the same applies fr infrmatin since als printed infrmatin, brchures etc. can be included, as well as the n-site signage. Table 6, shws a detailed verview f what the visitrs think abut the quality f the trail infrastructure in the 2013 visitr survey. 35

36 Table 6. What d yu think f the quality? Swedish (SWE) and internatinal (INT) respndents answers in the 2013 visitr survey regarding the quality f the trail infrastructure. Number f respndents in parenthesis (n). Quality f Marked trails SWE (n=481) INT (n=81) Wden bardwalks SWE (n=478) INT (n=80) Bridges SWE (n=477) INT (n=82) Shelters/rest cabins SWE (n=474) INT (n=78) Infrmatin (signs, printed material etc.) SWE (n=477) INT (n=79) Very bad 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Bad 4% 4% 4% 3% 2% 1% 2% 1% 3% 0% Neutral/ acceptable 13% 4% 22% 18% 12% 7% 14% 6% 19% 11% Gd 50% 42% 44% 41% 47% 37% 48% 45% 49% 48% Very gd 32% 53% 26% 26% 34% 52% 19% 42% 26% 27% Dn t knw 2% 1% 4% 13% 5% 5% 17% 5% 3% 14% The 2013 questinnaire als cntained the statement: The hiking trails are well maintained (Vandringslederna är välskötta). Mst respndents think that the hiking trails are well maintained. The result f this statement is in line with the abve reasning abut the trail quality; 80 % f the Swedish respndents and 87 % f the internatinal respndents, partially r cmpletely, agree with the statement. Abut ne ut f ten respndents disagree, partially r cmpletely, that the hiking trials are well maintained. Again, we can cmpare the Swedish respndents ver time. The respndents d nt agree t the statement in 2013 as much as they did befre (in 1999). Hwever, lking at the mean value f the five pint scale (1 disagree cmpletely, and 5 agree cmpletely) f that statement, result shw that mean value in 1999 was 4.65 and in 2013 it was That is, still a mean abve fur n the five pint scale, but it has decreased. This means visitrs are nt as satisfied with trail maintenance as they were befre. In 1999, there was n difference between first time visitrs and repeat visitrs regarding this statement. Hwever, in 2013, first time respndents agree t the statement t a larger extent than repeat visitrs. Lking at repeat visitrs in 1999 and 2013, they have becme mre critical twards trail maintenance. We can als cmpare travel grup cmpsitin ver the years, i.e. if they travelled as sl visitrs r in a grup, and if they think that the hiking trials are well maintained. There is n difference between the years amng sl visitrs, hwever, peple travelling in a grup have becme mre critical tward trail maintenance. These results shw that repeat visitrs and visitrs traveling in a grup disagree mre t the statement that hiking trails are well maintained and ver time they disagree even mre. In the 1999 survey and in the 2013 survey, the respndents were asked t shw what they think is negative and psitive in the Swedish muntains, cnsidering a number f issues. One f the issues was if it is negative r psitive with marked trails in the muntains. It was a five pint scale frm very negative t very psitive. Thus, this questin was abut 36

37 their general pinin f the Swedish muntains, and nt nly abut the Jämtland muntains. Analysis f the results shw that the respndents have becme mre psitive t marked trails in the muntains ver time; especially amng first time visitrs, and amng visitrs travelling in a grup. In the 2013 questinnaire, the respndents culd express their pinins in a number f pen-ended questins. We have analysed fur pen-ended questins where the respndents culd put frward varius experiences, feelings, and attitudes regarding reasns t visit the area, quality f infrastructure, changes in the attractiveness f the area, and cnflicts f interests. Fr this reprt, the fcus f the analysis was t find if, and what the respndents had t say abut trails and trail infrastructure in thse pen questins. Firstly, in the pen-ended questin abut the main reasn t visit the area, respndents express reasns like; t hike, t experience nature, t be with family, and t relax, etc. Indirectly we can see in many f the expressins that trails are imprtant, but mst d nt write the wrd trail. Fr example, respndents state that the main reasn t visit the area is because it is easy t access and easy t hike the muntains. Sme, in particular Swedes, als wrte explicitly that they wanted t hike the Jämtlandstriangeln (The Jämtland Triangle) because they heard abut it. One telling qute cmes frm this Swedish visitr when he explained his main reasn t visit the area: Experience nature, muntains, autumn clurs, t hike, wanted t hike the triangle. Internatinal visitrs seem t highlight Kungsleden (The King s Trail). Several f the internatinal respndents wrte that hiking alng the suthern part f Kungsleden was the main reasn t visit the area. One German wman writes: A hike alng the Suthern Kungsleden with my byfriend. We bth lve hiking and were/are abslutely fascinated by the nature in the Jämtland Muntains and the impressive diversity f the fauna and flra. Hwever, few respndents (three ut f 473 Swedish respndents and three ut f 79 internatinal respndents answering this penended questin) wrte abut trails in particular in their answers. This is what they had t say: We hiked with a grup f scuts aged 14 and lder. We wanted t ffer them new experiences and give them inspiratin t cntinue t visit the muntains. We chse an accessible trail t give gd first impressin f muntain life. (Swedish respndent) Child-friendly hiking trails fr families with limited wilderness experiences. Gd accmmdatin and fd and the pprtunity t even buy pick nick lunch. (Swedish respndent) Altitude and nature, extensive netwrk f walking trails, lneliness (German respndent). Landscape, trails, pssibility f free camping (German respndent). 37

38 Lve running at the trails there. Have a cabin in Teveldalen, and we ften drive there because f the fantastic nature, bird and animal life. (Nrwegian respndent) Secndly, the respndents culd cmment n the quality f fr example the trails and trail infrastructure. As we have already presented the descriptive statistics regarding trail quality, the pen-ended questins can give us further infrmatin abut what they think f trail quality. In ttal, 73 Swedish respndents cmmented n quality and abut ne third f thse had t d with trails, bridges, bardwalks, signs r shelters alng marked trails (ther cmments were abut accmmdatin, restaurants, waste dispsal, etc.). Several respndents want better markers f trails (i.e. the markers shuld be clearer), mre signs, and mre shelters. Several als want the wden bardwalks t be better maintained. Here are sme qutes t illustrate the critique they had twards trail quality: Bardwalks are pr in many places, the signs are very pale and smetimes illegible. (Swedish respndent) Bad bardwalks, brken bridges ver streams. (Swedish respndent) It is als visible frm the cmments that sme respndents experience wrn trails; /there are/ wrn trails arund Blåhammaren, Strulvån, and Sylarna, and hiking trails /are/ partly destryed by muntain bikes. Sme respndents had a mre ptimistic tne in their cmments abut quality: I think it wuld have been mre bardwalks in bg lands clse t the Vålådalens turist statin therwise very gd. (Swedish respndent) Maintenances f trails and signs wuld enhance the area s attractiveness. Wuld be gd with clarity arund which trails are fr summer/winter use. (Swedish respndent) Very few internatinal respndents cmmented n the questin abut trail quality. One German visitr had this critique t put frward: The wden bardwalks n the mrs were partly n lnger existing and partly in a very bad shape. Many peple have returned t the suthern Jämtland muntains several times. Almst 75 % f the Swedish respndents had been in the area befre, during summer time, and 34 % f the internatinal. S, the third pen-ended questin cncerned the visitrs wh had been in the area befre, and their reflectin abut pssible changes in the area when they cmpare this visit (summer f 2013) with their first visit t the suthern Jämtland muntains. In ttal, 114 Swedish respndents and 14 internatinal respndents gave their pinin abut in which ways the area had changed and if the area had becme mre r less attractive due t that change. Again, we are interested t see what they had t say 38

39 abut trails in this regard. Several respndents are pleased with the develpment f trails infrastructure. Fr example they mentin the bridge ver the river Handölan, mre shelters, better trails and bardwalks, as well as better marked trails. Here is what tw German visitrs had t say abut changes in the area: Better signpsting f reginal trails. Mre marked trails, infrmatin bklets t the trails. One Nrwegian visitr was psitive t the maintenance f trails, signage and skitracks: We have a cabin in Strlien, in Gråmyrsvegen, and we use the area n weekends. Great that trails, signs and ski tracks are kept in rder. Hwever, three Swedish respndents expressed their cncern abut t many peple in the area, and wrn trails. This is what ne f them stated: It is very wrn nw, a lt mre peple, thrwing things etc. N lnger exactly a wilderness. Three Swedish respndents als directly cmment n the pr maintenance f trails ver time. This is what ne f them had t say: The management f trails and bardwalks have sadly deterirated a lt. The railrad als wrks wrse, which is definitely a prblem. Hwever, the service (shps, restaurants) imprved a lt. Lastly, we investigated the respndents experiences cncerning cnflicts f interests. Nearly half f the Swedish respndents and abut ne third f internatinal respndents knw abut sme kind f cnflict f interest and/r ther prblems in suthern Jämtland muntains. They culd explain in their wn wrds and describe what r which cnflicts f interest they intended in an pen-ended questin. In ttal, 203 Swedish respndents and 25 internatinal respndents described cnflicts f interests, and f thse a minrity cncerned trails in particular. Here are a few examples what the respndents had t say abut sme f the prblems: An increased flw f turists means increased impacts f the very sensitive nature. I saw traces f peple even far beynd the marked trails. (Swedish respndent) T many visitrs, nature is wrn, hiking trails are similar t mtrways and are trampled and wide, nt funny at all! (Swedish respndent) Hikers and bikers. OK that yunger peple visit the muntains but it als destrys the trails. (Swedish respndent) Several respndents als describe varius cnflicts in their answers, including cnflicts f interest cncerning trails: Reindeer herding versus turism. Nature prtectin versus turists wear. The state has the respnsibility f the trails and STS has ecnmic interests that they are there. (Swedish respndent) 39

40 As far as I have learned, the mst attractive muntain trails are lcated where the really gd grazing lands are fr reindeer. (Swedish respndent) /I/ refuse t pay fr /ski/tracks as we have public right t access. Prhibitin f mtr vehicles including snwmbiles are very gd and necessary. (Swedish respndent) 4.3 Stakehlder perceptins f trails Survey amng stakehlders A web-based survey abut trails in the suthern Jämtland muntains was distributed n April 4, 2016, t 107 members f Föreningen Gränsfjällen Sylarna i samverkan a Swedish-Nrwegian nn-prfit rganizatin with the aim t prmte sustainable develpment in the Sylarna area. Members f the rganizatin represent Sami rganizatins, turism rganizatins and entrepreneurs, lcal service prviders and ldges, event rganizers and public authrities ( After tw reminders, the survey was clsed n April 21 with a 60 % respnse rate (n=64). Answers were prvided annymusly and 54 persns cmpleted the entire survey (10 respndents answered parts f the survey). Amng the respndents, 67 % were frm Sweden and 33 % frm Nrway; 59 % were male and 41 % female; and 48 % represent public authrities, 24 % lcal businesses, 17 % nn-prfit rganizatins and 6 % private persns r lcal land wners. Frty percent f the respndents persnally used the trails in the area a few times every year, while ne third f the respndents used them several times a mnth during certain perids. The survey cncerned questins regarding (i) the rle f trails in general and ptential cnflicts assciated with trails, (ii) marked trails in the area, (iii) histrical trails and unmarked trails, and (iv) the respndents wn use f trails in the study area. Appendices A and B include the survey questinnaire with frequency reprts and the answers t penended questins respectively. Results frm the survey shw that issues related t trails are cnsidered as very imprtant t mst f the respndents. Their functins t facilitate accessibility, manage (channel) usage f the area, prtect nature and increase safety are amng the issues mentined. The quality f trails, and thus f management, is als stressed as imprtant by several respndents. Fr example, as here illustrated with a cuple f answers frm the survey; They (trails) shuld be f high quality and prvide gd experience and gd accessibility fr different grups. They shuld be designed fr a specific purpse and cntribute t channel and zne different activities in time and space. They (trails) shuld prvide experiences withut disturbing animals, nature, culture nr the reindeer herding. There shuld be a basic supply f trails fr different purpses. 40

41 A majrity f the respndents (>80 %) think there are histrical trails in the area that are frgtten and n lnger in use. Amng currently used trails with histrical interest the Karliner trails (used by Swedish military frces n retreat frm Nrway in the 18 th century) and pilgrim trails were mentined. A majrity f the respndents als think there are cnflicts f interests assciated with the trails in the area, and thse mentined are primarily assciated with the use f bikes (n trails traditinally used fr hiking) and disturbance by turists n reindeers. Mtrized use and negative impact n vegetatin frm turism were als mentined as perceived areas f cnflicts. The mst imprtant purpse f marked trails in the area, i.e. accrding t the survey, was t manage (channel) activities away frm sensitive vegetatin, wild animals and/r reindeer herding fllwed by muntain safety and accessibility (as reflected in the qutes abve). As much as 98 % f the respndents think trails are an effective means t decrease negative impacts frm humans. A main reasn fr this view was that mst peple are believed t fllw the trails when they visit the area. In the survey, we als asked if the respndents think that trails restrict r limit the Right f Public Access. A clear majrity f the respndents stated that trails d nt imply restrictins t the Right f Public Access. A majrity f the respndents (>60 %) wanted separate biking trails develped in the area. This is hw a cuple f the respndents addressed the issue f increase biking in the area; Bikers n the trails is irritating t many peple. This year I even met bikers in wintertime The increased MTB 1 activity destrys the trails and makes it mre difficult fr hikers Abut ne ut f five respndents did think there are t few trails in the area. Just as many think the quality f the existing trails were t lw. One third f the respndents think the trail quality is t high/gd, which is smewhat surprising given the recent debate regarding trail quality in the Swedish muntain regin in general (Naturvårdsverket, 2014). When given the questin hw trails can be imprved (quantity and quality) several respndents answered better and mre hmgeneus signage. Other imprvements mentined are mre bardwalks and relcatin f trails away frm certain sensitive parts f the area (e.g. t prtect vegetatin and t decrease disturbance f reindeer). The Nrwegian natinal trail marking system is mentined as a gd example. When it cmes t the respnsibility ver trails in the area (planning and management) several respndents think it is gd the way it is at present. Pssible imprvements mentined were assciated with mre resurces, a better defined missin and better crdinatin between Sweden and Nrway. In Sweden mst f the trails are managed by the Cunty Administrative Bard (Länsstyrelsen) while in Nrway many trails are managed thrugh vlunteer wrk by the Nrwegian Hiking Assciatin (DNT). Lking 1 Muntain bike 41

42 at the finance f trail management, results frm the survey shw a strng supprt t use tax-mney fr hiking and skiing trails, while a user-pay principle has strnger supprt with respect t snwmbile and biking trails Wrkshp with stakehlders A wrkshp was rganized April 26-27, 2016, as part f Fjällfrum, a meeting frum amng members in Föreningen Gränsfjällen Sylarna i samverkan (Appendix C). The purpse f the wrkshp was t discuss current and future use/management f trails in the suthern Jämtland muntains as part f the research prject Negtiating Pathways t Multifunctinal Landscapes: A Pilt Mdel in the Jämtland Muntains. Grup discussins were cnducted with 5-6 participants in each, with a researcher frm the prject assigned t each grup. Tpics discussed in these smaller grups during the first day (ne-hur sessin) included definitins f trails, hw they are used and their imprtance; if current trails fulfil the intended purpse; management and infrmatin; and cnflicts assciated with trails in the area. Tpics fr the secnd day f grup discussins (45 min sessin) fcused n future needs, new trails, changes in the trail system; future challenges in trail management, finance and respnsibility; future challenges and slutins; and future c-peratin between Sweden and Nrway regarding trails. Ntes frm the grup discussins were taken bth by the mderating researcher and by an appinted secretary in each grup. Appendix C lists all questins and sub-questins discussed by the grups tgether with a cmpilatin f the ntes frm all grups. The purpse is t prvide an un-edited verview f the grup discussins (where nly persnal citatins are remved). T summarize a few reflectins frm these discussins, we find that trails are present in many different frms marked and un-marked trails in the area, histrical and pilgrimage trails, wildlife trails, reindeer trails, waterways, riding trails, climbing trails, ski-, biking- and snwmbile trails, and als interactive and virtual trails exist. The purpse f trails was perceived just as multifaceted. Safety, guidance, interpretatin, experiences, channelling f visitrs, lcal use, recreatin, reindeer herding, frestry and nature prtectin t give sme examples. In general, the current trails in the area were appreciated and fulfil many f the abvementined intentins. Hwever, new recreatin behaviur and activities, disturbance f reindeer and wildlife and impact n vegetatin may call fr changes in the trail netwrk. Trail use is unevenly distributed in the area, and when it cmes t management f trails, several f the grups pint ut differences between Sweden and Nrway. Mre active management and better signage in the Swedish part f the muntains was mentined by several grups. The grup discussins als identified several cnflicts assciated with trail use fr example reindeer vs. recreatinal use, snwmbile vs. crsscuntry skiing, biking vs. hiking, and turism vs. nature prtectin. When it cmes t the future f trails in the suthern Jämtland muntains, issues discussed in the grups were related t demands fr shrter trails t meet changing recreatin behaviur, needs fr better signs and infrmatin abut the trails, demands fr mre 42

43 cmfrt when visiting the muntains, and structural changes t avid sme f the abvementined cnflicts. The imprtance f flexibility t meet the future including changes assciated with a ptential new Natinal Park in the area were als mentined. In terms f management f trails, the rle f lcal interests (e.g. the Sami ppulatin and/r lcal inhabitants in the prximity f the suthern Jämtland muntains) was raised in several grups and new frms f trail finance culd be public fund raising. Sme f the main challenges fr the future that were mentined are new frms f recreatin, cnflicts between different interests (cf. abve), trail quality, impacts n vegetatin, a decreased knwledge abut safety in muntains and hw t behave in muntains amng the general public (e.g. disturbance). A number f ptential imprvements in the crss-brder cperatin between Sweden and Nrway were als identified, fr example a cmmn signand infrmatin design, marketing and bking systems. 43