To Cross or Not to Cross: Mt. Bicyclists'

Resource Trail Etiquette Behavior

 

William W. Hendricks

Recreation Administration Program

Natural Resources Management Department

California Polytechnic State University

San Luis Obispo, CA 93407

(805) 756-1246 phone

(805) 756-1402 fax

whendric@calpoly.edu

 

Roy H. Ramthun

Travel Industry Management

Concord College

P.O. Box 78

Athens, WV 24712-1000

 

Deborah J. Chavez

USDA Forest Service, PSW

4955 Canyon Crest Drive

Riverside, CA 92507

 

Running Head: Resource Trail Etiquette

 

*This research was supported in part by funds provided by the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest

Research Station and a McIntire-Stennis grant.

 

Abstract

 

One management concern related to the increased use of mountain bikes on multiple-use trails is that

heavily used sites may suffer damage to natural resources. An important part of the trail etiquette

guidelines advocated by the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) is protecting trail

resources. The purpose of this study was to examine mountain bicyclists behavior in two resource trail

etiquette settings. The study took place at a protection road (dirt, fire road) on Mt. Tamalpais in Marin

County, California. In the resource conditions, the behavior of mountain bicyclists was unobtrusively

recorded as they passed a designated area to observe whether the behavior complied with trail etiquette

guidelines. The first situation entailed whether bicyclists rode or walked their bikes across a section of

single-track trail that is closed to riding. The second situation involved whether the bicyclists traveled

through a stream or across a bridge. There was a significant difference between the number of subjects

(78.1%) who rode their bicycles across the trail and those (21.9%) who walked their bicycles across the

trail. At the stream crossing 83.1% of the bicyclists traveled through the stream and 16.7% crossed the

bridge. Significant differences were also present for gender and two potential specialization equipment

indicators. In these two resource conditions the majority of mountain bicyclists are not following trail

etiquette guidelines. These results imply that continued inappropriate behavior could result in resource

degradation at these sites. Education and enforcement regarding these two particular resource conditions

has not been a priority of land managers on Mt. Tamalpais, but should be considered in the future.

 

Introduction

 

Park and recreation resource managers are increasingly faced with adapting to technological advances,

changing social values, and varied recreational experiences in rural and urban parks, open space areas,

and forests (Hendricks, 1995; Watson, 1995; Williams, 1993). These natural resources areas are often

places of refuge, excitement, solitude, adventure, social experiences, and nature appreciation on any given

day for diverse user groups.

 

Since the late 1970s, one multiple-use trail user group in particular has gained the attention of the public,

media, and land managers. Mountain biking began quietly on Mt. Tamalpais in Marin County, California in

the late 1970s (Edger, 1997; Hendricks, 1997) and has become one of the fastest growing recreational

activities in the United States and beyond. Although many mountain bikes never travel off a paved road

(Hoger & Chavez, 1998), the potential social and resource impacts are a concern in many areas.

 

Newly adopted regulations, increased enforcement, and interpretive and informational strategies have been

among the approaches employed to reduce recreational conflict, social impacts, and resource degradation

that could potentially develop from mountain bicyclists emergence upon the multiple-use trail scene (Chavez,

1996, 1997a; Hendricks, Ramthun, & Chavez, 2000; Watson, Asp, Walsh, & Kulla, 1997). As has been the

case for actions in other resource managerial decisions, the preferred strategy is usually an indirect

educational or informational approach (Chavez, 1996; Moore, 1994; Moore & Barthlow, 1997; Watson et al.,

1997).

 

A concerted educational campaign has been adopted by land management agencies and mountain biking

organizations to promote and protect mountain biking access to trails, to educate bicyclists about

appropriate riding techniques and behavior, and to reduce social and environmental impacts that may be

caused by mountain biking. These educational efforts have commonly been referred to as "rules of the trail"

or trail etiquette guidelines (Hendricks & Ruddell, 1995; Ruddell & Hendricks, 1997; Moore, 1994; Moore &

Barthlow, 1997; Widmer, 1997). Perhaps the most widely publicized of these etiquette guidelines are those

promoted by the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA). IMBA's guidelines suggest that

mountain bicyclists should (a) ride open trails only, (b) leave no trace, (c) control the bicycle, (d) always yield,

(e) never spook animals, and (f) plan ahead (Hendricks, et al., 2000; Widmer, 1997).

 

Applied research to assist in managing both perceived and actual impacts due to mountain biking is still in

its infancy (Hendricks, 1997; Watson, 1995). Recreational conflict between mountain bicyclists and hikers

has received some attention from social scientists (e.g. Ramthun, 1995; Watson, Williams, & Daigle, 1991).

Descriptive studies of mountain bicyclists' characteristics, attitudes, motivations, and opinions have also

been examined (e.g. Chavez, 1997b; Hollenhorst, Schuett, Olson, & Chavez, 1995; Schuett, Hollenhorst, &

Chavez, 1997; Vilter, Blahna, & Van Patten, 1995). However research regarding resource impacts caused

from mountain biking remains rather inconclusive.

 

What is known is that land managers have observed and documented resource impacts at local, state, and

national levels (Chavez, 1996, 1997a; Chavez, Winter, & Baas, 1993; Edger, 1997; Tilmant, 1991). Among

the impacts that have been observed that managers have attributed to the presence of mountain bikes on

trails are erosion, vegetation trampling and damage, cutting switchbacks, soil compaction, riding in wet

sensitive areas, and damage by removing or avoiding erosion structures such as water-bars (Chavez,

1997a). While most managers and researchers currently regard mountain biking as a moderately disruptive

activity, having a greater impact than hiking but less than horses or ATVs, there are still concerns that heavily

used sites may suffer damage to natural resources on or near trails.

 

Most of the previous studies related to mountain biking have relied on self-reported behavior or knowledge

of mountain bicyclists. For example, on Mt. Tamalpais 94% of bicyclists surveyed indicated that they were

knowledgeable about the biking regulations on the mountain (Cerkel, 1993). Similarly, Chavez (1997b)

found that mountain bicyclists supported appropriate riding techniques and trail etiquette. The question

remains is actual behavior consistent with trail etiquette guidelines? In a study conducted simultaneously to

the research reported here, 55.9% of mountain bicyclists unobtrusively observed were traveling over the 15

mph speed limit on Mt. Tamalpais and the average behavior of mountain bicyclists when approaching two

hikers on a protection road was to make eye contact only, but not to yield to the hikers (Hendricks, et al.,

2000). In furthering this line of research, the purpose of the present study was to unobtrusively observe the

behavior of mountain bicyclists in two resource trail etiquette settings to determine if a preferred behavior as

espoused by a land management agency and mountain bike organizations was being followed.

 

Methods

 

The study took place at Lake Lagunitas on the Mt. Tamalpais watershed in Marin County, California. A

protection road (dirt, fire road) heavily used by bicyclists and hikers circles the lake. The research presented

here was a component of a larger study involving observational and quasi-experimental designs during the

1998 summer.

 

Two resource trail etiquette settings were examined. In each case, trained research assistants sat adjacent

to the site and unobtrusively recorded the behavior of mountain bicyclists as they passed the designated

area. In the first setting, approximately 150 feet of trail is reduced to a single-track trail and bicyclists are

required to walk their bicycles over this section of trail. A posted sign at each end of this section of trail

states, "Walk bicycles next 150 ft." Bicyclists are prohibited from riding on single-track trails on Mt.

Tamalpais; thus, the signs are consistent with overall regulations and assist in reducing erosion from an

area where siltation buildup in the lake is a concern. Furthermore, all watershed users on Mt. Tamalpais are

directed by the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) to stay on designated trails and protection roads

and to help prevent damage to natural resources. The researcher recorded whether a bicyclist rode or

walked the bike on this section of trail and estimated age category, gender, and specialization equipment

that could potentially indicate behavior. These indicators included riding shorts, jersey, helmet, gloves,

shoes, sport glasses, hydration pack, and clipless pedals. The age categories were 18-25, 26-35, 36-45,

46-55, and 56 and above. The second setting involved a stream crossing on the protection road. As an

alternative to crossing the stream, a bridge is available for use. Trail etiquette guidelines suggest that

bicyclists should avoid riding in wet conditions and in sensitive areas. The research assistant recorded

whether the bicyclist crossed the stream or the bridge and the variables mentioned previously.

 

Data were collected on 10 days during three of four randomly selected 4-hour time blocks in June, July, and

August 1998. Observations were recorded for 772 bicyclists at the two designated areas. Two hundred

thirty-three cyclists were observed at the trail setting and 539 were viewed at the stream setting. A limitation

that occurred during data collection was that the research assistant at the stream setting had to move further

from the trail than originally planned to remain unseen and to continue to observe behavior. Therefore, with

four of the potential specialization indicators there were only 239 recorded observations. Similarly, at this

setting age was recorded for 364 bicyclists. A chi-square statistic with cross tabulations was employed for

the data analysis. For data analysis, the 46-55 and 56 and above estimated age categories were combined

because of few observations in the latter category.

 

Results

 

Two hundred and thirty-three bicyclists were observed crossing the single-track section of trail. The majority

of these cyclists were males (n=176, 75.7%). There was a statistically significant difference between the

182 subjects (78.1%) who rode their bicycles across the trail and the 51 (21.9%) who walked their bicycles

across the trail (c2 [1, N=233] = 73.65, p < .0005). Estimated age categories, gender, and the potential

specialization equipment indicators did not result in significant differences between expected and observed

frequencies.

 

Table 1

                       Trail Observations

     Category

                   n

                       Walk Bike

      Ride Bike

                 Chi-square

  p

                       f

 %

       f

           %

Overall

                  233

                      51

                          21.9

     182

          78.1

               73.652

.0001

Gender

   Male

                  176

                      37

                          21.0

     139

          79.0

   Female

                  57

                      14

                          24.6

     43

          75.4

               .315

.574

Age Groups

   Age 18-25

                  29

                      7

                          24.1

     22

          75.9

   Age 26-35

                  101

                      19

                          18.8

     82

          81.2

   Age 36-45

                  70

                      13

                          18.6

     57

          81.4

   Age 46+

                  32

                      12

                          37.5

     20

          62.5

               5.638

.1311

Equipment Indicators

   No gloves

                  75

                      16

                          21.3

     59

          78.7

   Gloves

                  158

                      35

                          22.2

     123

          77.8

               .020

.888

   No helmet

                  36

                      7

                          19.4

     29

          80.6

   Helmet

                  197

                      44

                          22.3

     153

          77.7

               .149

.700

   No hydration pack

                  180

                      37

                          20.6

     143

          79.4

   Hydration pack

                  53

                      14

                          26.4

     39

          73.6

               .822

.365

   No jersey

                  144

                      27

                          18.8

     117

          81.3

   Jersey

                  89

                      24

                          27.0

     65

          73.0

               2.172

.141

   No sport glasses

                  214

                      44

                          20.6

     170

          79.4

   Sport glasses

                  19

                      7

                          36.8

     12

          63.2

               2.706

.100

   No clipless pedals

                  139

                      25

                          18.0

     114

          82.0

   Clipless pedals

                  94

                      26

                          27.7

     68

          72.3

               3.069

.080

   No riding shoes

                  146

                      33

                          22.6

     113

          77.4

   Riding shoes

                  87

                      18

                          20.7

     69

          79.3

               .117

.733

   No riding shorts

                  94

                      19

                          20.2

     75

          79.8

   Riding shorts

                  139

                      32

                          23.0

     107

          77.0

               .259

.611

 

 

Five hundred thirty-nine bicyclists were observed at the stream crossing. Seventy-two (13.4%) walked their

bike across the bridge, 18 (3.3%) rode their bike across the bridge, 448 (83.1%) rode their bike through the

stream, and 1 (0.2%) walked a bike through the stream. For further analysis those bicyclists who traveled

through the stream were combined into one category and those who crossed the bridge were combined into

a second category. Again, most of the observations were of male cyclists (n=418, 77.6%). A significant

difference was present between those who went through the stream and those who traveled over the bridge

(c2 [1, N=539] = 239.11, p < .0005). Overall, bicyclists observed in this setting were more likely to go

through the stream (83.1%) than over the bridge. Significant differences between expected and observed

frequencies were present for gender (c2 [1, N=539] = 4.656, p < .031), gloves (c2 [1, N=239] = 8.563, p <

.003), and hydration pack (c2 [1, N=539] = 5.800, p < .016). Bicyclists more likely to cross the bridge were

females, did not wear gloves, and did not wear a hydration pack.

 

Table 2

                      Stream Observations

       Category

                       n

Bridge

         Stream

                 Chi-square

  p

f

   %

        f

            %

Overall

                      539

                          90

  16.7

       449

           83.3

                239.111

.0001

Gender

  &nbspMale

                      418

                          62

  14.8

       356

           85.2

  &nbspFemale

                      121

                          28

  23.1

       93

           76.9

                4.656

.031

Age Groups

  &nbspAge 18-25

                      42

                          3

  7.1

       39

           92.9

  &nbspAge 26-35

                      220

                          40

  18.2

       180

           81.8

  &nbspAge 36-45

                      87

                          18

  20.7

       69

           79.3

  &nbspAge 46+

                      15

                          2

  20.0

       12

           80.0

                3.853

.278

Equipment Indicators

  &nbspNo gloves

                      111

                          27

  24.3

       84

           75.7

  &nbspGloves

                      128

                          13

  10.2

       115

           89.8

                8.536

.003

  &nbspNo helmet

                      58

                          8

  13.8

       50

           86.2

  &nbspHelmet

                      481

                          82

  17.0

       399

           83.0

                .394

.530

  &nbspNo hydration pack

                      436

                          81

  18.6

       355

           81.4

  &nbspHydration pack

                      103

                          9

  8.7

       94

           91.3

                5.800

.016

  &nbspNo jersey

                      394

                          62

  15.7

       332

           84.3

  &nbspJersey

                      145

                          28

  19.3

       117

           80.7

                .974

.324

  &nbspNo sport glasses

                      230

                          38

  16.5

       192

           83.5

  &nbspSport glasses

                      9

                          2

  22.2

       7

           77.8

                .202

.635

  &nbspNo clipless pedals

                      141

                          21

  14.9

       120

           85.1

  &nbspClipless pedals

                      98

                          19

  19.4

       79

           80.6

                .838

.360

  &nbspNo riding shoes

                      189

                          36

  19.0

       153

           81.0

  &nbspRiding shoes

                      50

                          4

  8.0

       46

           92.0

                3.463

.063

  &nbspNo riding shorts

                      214

                          29

  13.6

       185

           86.4

  &nbspRiding shorts

                      325

                          61

  18.8

       264

           81.2

                2.526

.112

 

 

Discussion and Conclusions

 

In these two resource conditions the majority of mountain bicyclists are not following a regulation or standard

trail etiquette guidelines. Similar results have been found when examining etiquette in social condition

settings on Mt. Tamalpais (Hendricks, et al., 2000). These results imply that continued inappropriate

behavior could result in resource degradation at these sites.

 

The exploratory use of potential specialization equipment indicators is not particularly useful in these

resource conditions although it was effective in understanding behavior of bicyclists in the social conditions

study (Hendricks, et al., 2000). One explanation for the discrepancy is simply the statistical methods

employed. Chi-square is sensitive to sample size and in addition to observing statistical significance it is

important to observe practical differences (Norusis, 1991). For example, in the current research, when

compared to two of the other groups, riders in the oldest age group (46+) were nearly 20% more likely to

walk their bikes at the single-track trail. This difference was not statistically significant, yet it does seem to

have practical significance. Also, from a practical significance viewpoint, observations of potential

equipment indicators of specialization for this resource condition indicate that for seven of the eight

indicators those cyclists with the equipment were more likely to walk their bikes. Although only 19 individuals

were wearing sport glasses the percentage of these individuals to walk across the trail is 16.2% greater

than the individuals not wearing sport glasses. In the stream setting age again seems to have practical

relevance, this time with the youngest riding group (18-25) traveling through the stream 92.9% of the time,

whereas the other three age groups range from 79.3% to 81.8% who go through the stream. Results are

somewhat mixed in the stream setting for the equipment indicators. Statistically significant differences are

present for gloves and the hydration pack with the individuals without this equipment more likely to walk

across the bridge. There is also an 11% difference between cyclists wearing riding shoes and those without

shoes with the latter more likely to travel over the bridge. On the other hand, cyclists with the other five

equipment indicators demonstrate slightly more likelihood of going across the bridge than individuals

without this equipment.

 

These results do not clearly support the findings of the social conditions study on Mt. Tamalpais. Hendricks

et al. (2000) found the potential specialized equipment indicators to be a fairly useful means of segmenting

visitors in the social etiquette settings. In their study bicyclists with equipment indicators were especially

inclined to travel a higher rate of speed. If equipment does play a role in a recreational experience as

suggested by Warnick (1995), confirmatory research needs to be conducted to further examine the potential

of this and other multi-dimensional aspects of recreational specialization as originally proposed by Bryan

(1977). Research regarding mountain bicyclists and other trail users commitment, involvement, and skill

development may ultimately lead to innovative management actions and segmentation of users (Hendricks

et al., 2000).

 

Education and enforcement regarding these two particular resource conditions has not been a priority of

land managers on Mt. Tamalpais. This may, in part, explain the lack of compliance with the two resource trail

etiquette conditions examined. These two situations were chosen for a subsequent quasi-experimental

study because of the control they provided in a field laboratory setting.

 

With an observational study such as this one it is impossible to speculate whether the cyclists were even

aware that the trail etiquette guidelines exist or whether the bicyclists think that compliance with these

guidelines is expected. As is the case with the social etiquette study, it is possible that the lack of

compliance is based on unintentional or uninformed violations (Gramann & Vander Stoep, 1987) and that

education may be an effective means of gaining compliance (Hendricks et al., 2000). Due to the potential

for additional resource degradation in these resource settings and the lack of compliance in both the

resource and social conditions trail etiquette the Marin Municipal Water District may want to consider

reemphasizing educational programs and focus some energies on these potential impacts.

 

References

 

Bryan, H. (1977). Leisure value systems and recreational specialization: The case of trout fisherman.

Journal of Leisure Research, 9, 174-187.

 

Cerkel, M. (1993). The potential for conflict between mountain bikers and hikers using the trail system of

Mount Tamalpais Watershed, California. Contribution No. 700. Moscow, ID: Idaho Forest, Wildlife and

Range Experiment Station, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences, University of Idaho. 21 p.

 

Chavez, D. J. (1996). Mountain biking: Direct, indirect, and bridge building management styles. Journal of

Park and Recreation Administration, 14(4), 21-35.

 

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

36-40.

 

Chavez, D. J. (1997b). Bunny hops or vegetable tunnels? Perceptions and preferences of mountain bike

riders on the San Jacinto Ranger District. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 12(2), 44-48.

 

Chavez, D. J., Winter, P. L., & Baas, J. M. (1993). Recreational mountain biking: A management

perspective. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 11(3), 29-36.

 

Edger, C. O. (1997). Mountain biking and the Marin Municipal Water District Watershed. Trends, 34(3),

5-10.

 

Gramann, J. H., & Vander Stoep, G. A. (1987). Prosocial behavior theory and natural resource protection: A

conceptual synthesis. Journal of Environmental Management, 24: 247-257.

 

Hendricks, B., & Ruddell, E. J. (1995). Mountain bike trail etiquette: A comparison of guidelines and

behavior. Journal of Recreation and Leisure, 14(1), 105-118.

 

Hendricks, W. W. (1995). A resurgence in recreation conflict research: Introduction to the special issue.

Leisure Sciences, 17, 157-158.

 

Hendricks, W. W. (1997). Mountain bike management and research: An introduction. Trends, 34(3), 2-4.

 

Hendricks, W. W., Ramthun, R. H., & Chavez, D. J. (2000). Mountain bicyclists' behavior in social trail

etiquette situations. Proceedings of the 1999 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. USDA Forest

Service General Technical Report.

 

Hoger, J. L., & Chavez, D. J. (1998). Conflict and management tactics on the trail. Parks & Recreation,

33(9), 41-42, 44, 46-48, 50, 52, 54, 56.

 

Hollenhorst, S., Schuett, M., Olson, D., & Chavez, D. (1995). An examination of the characteristics,

preferences, and attitudes of mountain bike users of the national forests. Journal of Park and Recreation

Administration, 13(3), 41-51.

 

Moore, R. L. (1994). Conflict on multiple-use trails: Synthesis of the literature and state of the practice.

Report No. FHWA-PD-94-031. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.

 

Moore, R. L., & Barthlow, K. (1997). Principles for minimizing trail conflicts: Applications to mountain biking.

Trends, 34(3), 11-14.

 

Norusis, M. J. (1991). The SPSS guide to data analysis. Chicago: SPSS.

 

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

17, 159-169.

 

Ruddell, E. J., & Hendricks, W. W. (1997). Martial arts, Confucius, and managing mountain bikes: The role

of etiquette in conflict management. Trends, 34(3), 41-44.

 

Schuett, M. A., Hollenhorst, S., & Chavez, D. J. (1997). Profiling members of the International Mountain

Bicycling Association. Trends, 34(3), 48-51.

 

Tilmant, J. T. (1991). Mountain bike use within national parks: A report on a 1990 survey. Unpublished

manuscript supplied by author.

 

Vilter, J. C., Blahna, D. J., Van Patten, S. (1995). Trends in experience and management preferences of

mountain bikers. In J. L. Thompson, D. W. Lime, B. Gartner, & W. M. Sames (Comp). Proceedings of the

Fourth International Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Trends Symposium and the 1995 National Recreation

Resource Planning Conference ( pp. 49-54). St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, College of Natural

Resources and Minnesota Extension Service.

 

Warnick, R. (1995). Trends in recreation and leisure equipment. In J. L. Thompson, D. W. Lime, B. Gartner,

& W. M. Sames (Comp). Proceedings of the Fourth International Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Trends

Symposium and the 1995 National Recreation Resource Planning Conference ( pp. 307-315). St. Paul, MN:

University of Minnesota, College of Natural Resources and Minnesota Extension Service.

 

Watson, A. E. (1995). An analysis of recent progress in recreation conflict research and perceptions of

future challenges and opportunities. Leisure Sciences, 17, 235-238.

 

Watson, A., Asp, C., Walsh, J., & Kulla, A. (1997). The contribution of research to managing conflict among

national forest users. Trends, 34(3), 29-35.

 

Watson, A. E., Williams, D. R., & Daigle, J. J. (1991). Sources of conflict between hikers and mountain bike

riders in the Rattlesnake NRA. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 9(3), 59-71.

 

Widmer, M. A. (1997). Management through education: A mountain biking curriculum. Trends, 34(3), 22-25.

 

Williams, D. R. (1993). Conflict in the great outdoors. Parks & Recreation, 28(9), 28-34.