4.7 Article

Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Volume 92, Issue 12, Pages 3049-3057

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.07.016

Keywords

Recreation ecology; Nature-based tourism; Impacts; Walking; Snowy mountains

Funding

  1. New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service
  2. Area of Strategic Investment in Sustainable Tourism at Griffith University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mountain biking is an increasingly popular, but sometimes controversial, activity in protected areas. Limited research on its impacts, including studies comparing biking with hiking, contributes to the challenges for mangers in assessing its appropriateness. The impacts of mountain bike riding off trail were compared to those of hiking on subalpine grassland in Australia using a modification of a common trampling experimental methodology. Vegetation and soil parameters were measured immediately and two weeks after different intensities of mountain biking (none, 25, 75, 200 and 500 passes across slope, 200 pass up and down slope) and hiking (200 and 500 passes across slope). There were reductions in vegetation height, cover and species richness, as well as changes in species composition and increases in litter and soil compaction with riding. Riding up and down a moderate slope had a greater impact than riding across the slope. Hiking also affected vegetation height, cover and composition. Mountain biking caused more damage than hiking but only at high use (500 passes). Further research including other ecosystems, topography, styles of riding, and weather conditions are required, but under the conditions tested here, hiking and mountain biking appear to be similar in their environmental impacts. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available