The Price We Pay to Play
Outdoor Recreation’s Impact on Nature
Editor’s Note: This opinion piece is adapted and expanded from a similar letter that appeared in VTDigger earlier this year. Zimny raises many questions about the ecological impacts of outdoor recreation of all kinds, particularly mountain biking, whose popularity has grown exponentially in recent years. The positive impacts of outdoor recreation on local economies, as described by Allaire Diamond elsewhere in this issue, are worth celebrating. But Zimny asks for balance, and calls us to look hard at what our love for the outdoors might be doing to harm wild nature. – Liz Thompson
Here in Vermont, outdoor recreation has long been a prominent part of the state’s image, economy, and day-to-day life. Today, recreational activities such as skiing, hiking, mountain biking, and running collectively entice a growing number of people outdoors. With the added stimulus of the COVID-19 pandemic that encouraged outdoor activity as an antidote to the boredom of restricted social interactions, outdoor recreation of many kinds has exploded in popularity. With this explosion has come pressure in many Vermont communities to provide more access to more land to accommodate more outdoor recreation opportunities. And providing human access for recreation usually means trail development.
Many may assume that recreational trails are an ecologically responsible and innocuous way to enjoy one’s favorite outdoor activity. In addition to the significant personal benefits derived, there is also an underlying, long-held social belief that the more exposure people have to the outdoors, the greater their likelihood to support the conservation of more land in the future. Therefore, trail development that increases human access within our natural landscapes seems to be a logical win-win situation for both human recreation and the long-term conservation of land and its natural resources and wildlife.
Being able to “balance” recreation and conservation in this way is such an attractive premise and the underlying “win-win” assumption so ubiquitous, and repeated so frequently, that these concepts are rarely questioned.
But is our human use of recreational trails as benign as many outdoor recreationists and the public seem to believe? Furthermore, is the underlying social belief that more outdoor recreation benefits conservation true? Since these beliefs are often invoked as arguments for further recreational trail development, it’s important to explore their accuracy and ultimately, their validity as support for further trail development.
Recreation Trail Effects on Conservation
Scientific concerns about the impact of recreational trails on wildlife and natural habitats have existed since at least the 1980s. Recreational trails essentially provide a gateway for what are known as cumulative effects, or impacts, to occur. Cumulative effects are the persistent, repetitive, and seemingly inconsequential—but ultimately negative—stresses on wildlife and nature caused by a high volume of recreational traffic. And these effects can occur well beyond the physical trail itself—in what are called zones or corridors of influence that surround the trail.
Where trails exist, there are various possible conservation effects. For example, habitats fragmented by recreational activity can mean key animal movement patterns are disturbed. Humans—through their presence alone—can affect where and how wildlife live, forage, and procreate by inducing repetitive flushing and flight behaviors. This imposes an increase in energy demands that may increase animals’ stress and mortality (especially if it occurs during winter or other periods of limited food), decrease nest fidelity, or drive habitat abandonment. Behavioral alterations associated with breeding and prey-predator relationships in native/non-native plant and animal species can also occur. The ultimate result is a compromise in the fitness, sustainability, and diversity of many species over time.
“Today, recreational activities such as skiing, hiking, mountain biking, and running collectively entice a growing number of people outdoors.”
Many of these “recreation trail-based effects on conservation” are different from the more obvious, easily visible damage caused by activities like housing development, logging, or road construction. The effects of recreational trail traffic on wildlife and nature are often subtle and indirect—not immediately visible to the human eye, but no less impactful in the long term. To fully appreciate the impact on conservation and on the natural world, humans must be willing to understand what nature truly needs to survive, never mind thrive, over time.
Those of us who take advantage of recreational trails do so in a variety of ways—walking, running, hiking, skiing, traditional biking, or e-biking (all with or without dogs). All of us, regardless of the specific activity, by our very presence on trails contribute to these recreational trail-based effects. And of course, some behaviors (dogs on or off leash, loud sounds, hikers cutting switchbacks, or bikers creating rogue trails) are likely to exacerbate the effects even further.
The Catamount Community Forest in Williston serves mountain bikers and hikers in summer and skiers and snowshoers in winter. Managing the various users can be challenging, and signage is important. Photo © Liz Thompson
Even a well-behaved cadre of recreationists on the trail can’t negate the conservation impact of repetitive, high-volume use, and newer recreation technology use on trails may contribute further to stress on wildlife and nature. No type of outdoor recreation can escape its responsibility in producing trail-based effects on conservation. However, the exponential rise in the popularity of mountain biking draws particular attention to the intensive push for more trails to accommodate growing numbers of participants. Also, since bicycles allow people to go farther into the land’s interior, any negative effects on conservation are spread more broadly, potentially extending into areas that used to otherwise provide safe refuge for wildlife. Furthermore, characteristics that humans consider highly desirable in mountain biking—such as separate trails for ascent and descent, loops, variety, technical challenges, and interconnectivity of trails to form extensive trail networks—are all ancillary features that expand the human footprint and its effects on wildlife and habitat. The call for “sustainable” trail building within the mountain biking community is directed primarily at issues of soil erosion and water drainage—a laudable nod to conservation of the trails themselves—but these efforts alone do little to minimize the human impact on wildlife and habitat that those same more “sustainable” trails invoke.
Stream, Andrews Community Forest, Richmond, Vermont. Photo © Liz Thompson
Human Awareness of Recreational Impact on Wildlife and Habitat
No one would suggest that outdoor recreationists of any kind purposefully set out to harm nature in any way. However, given the constellation of positive health, pleasure, and economic factors that drive the popularity of outdoor recreation today, it is not surprising that any recreation trail-based concerns about impact on wildlife and habitat—even if known for many years—may have gained little traction in the minds of outdoor recreationists or the general public.
There are many issues yet to be investigated to help more clearly understand the human impact of recreation trails on wildlife and habitat, and studies to do so present logistical and scientific challenges. Still, just because we don’t know everything doesn’t mean we know nothing. In separate systematic literature reviews of the impact of recreation on wildlife, the majority of reviewed studies showed a generally negative effect. This negative effect included impact not only on well-recognized mammals, but also on insects, herpetofauna, and birds. Furthermore, other studies are revealing that humans underestimate the strength, scope, or seriousness of the negative effects of their presence on wildlife, and that human interpretation of wildlife behavior can be fraught with inaccuracy. Certainly, enough information already exists to warrant significant skepticism that trail-based recreation is either innocuous or benign. Therefore, it’s important to routinely incorporate what scientific knowledge we do have into trail planning and use.
“No type of outdoor recreation can escape its responsibility in producing trail-based effects on conservation. ”
Social Belief That Recreation Benefits Conservation
The social belief that recreation benefits conservation is a simple and attractive idea to outdoor recreationists because it allows humans to reap the many benefits of outdoor recreation while simultaneously feeling they are contributing to conservation. It is based on a long-standing, common-sense notion that exposure to the outdoors through recreation encourages human interest in and support for further conservation. Indeed, this persistent and persuasive notion has helped many conservation organizations raise money to expand their conservation efforts—especially if their strategic planning includes the development of even more recreational opportunities on any proposed conserved land.
Today, however, the notion of this ideal, mutually beneficial, “hand-in-glove” relationship, which suggests that more recreation means more conservation, may be too simplistic. Significant shifts in outdoor recreation are happening at the same time as environmental concerns are growing. Taken together, they make the traditionally simple, strong, and symbiotic alliance between recreation and conservation more complex than ever.
Contemporary characteristics of outdoor recreation include such factors as the markedly increased numbers of outdoor recreationists; development and adoption of fun, mechanized transport that gives greater access deeper into conserved land; increased societal emphasis on the benefits of “healthy living” that includes getting all ages and abilities outdoors to recreate; profitable monetization of outdoor recreation as a healthy lifestyle through product, travel and self-promotions; more aggressive human attitudes about individual “rights” to use public land; and pervasive use of social media and technology to highlight and share individual accomplishments and “build community” in the outdoors with others. These factors bring unprecedented weight and visibility to the recreation side of any attempt to “balance” conservation and recreation.
Hikers in Andrews Community Forest, Richmond, Vermont. Photo © Liz Thompson
Indeed, as pressure for more human recreational opportunities on conserved land increases, some may wonder if there is any innate value to conserving land at all if recreational opportunities are not included in the plan. This primary focus on human benefits may shift concerns about how trails affect wildlife and their associated habitat to secondary importance and leave crucial information, such as thresholds for the human carrying capacity of trails, to go unexplored and unexamined.
Little can compare to the thrills and challenges of outdoor sports; an awesome mountain view; or the simple, quiet pleasure of a walk in the forest that recreational trails afford us humans. But we need to stay mindful of the conservation impact of our own recreational activities and wary of the influence of our anthropocentric beliefs. Relying heavily on a belief that Mother Nature is infinitely resilient and using vague assurances that recreation trails will have “only minimal impact” on conservation instead of applying scientific knowledge to their planning is especially ironic at a time when biodiversity is recognized as a critical feature of maintaining healthy ecosystems.
Practical Suggestions
At the most basic level, the siren call of outdoor recreation must not allow us to forget that whenever, however, or wherever we are enjoying outdoor adventures, we humans are always doing so as the self-imposed guests in someone else’s home and environment. We need to acknowledge that there is a price to pay for our outdoor play. It is not insignificant. And that price is largely borne by the plant and animal hosts who live there, and the fungi, and the soil microorganisms. To fully understand that cost, when land management decisions about trail development and use are being made, we humans must first acknowledge, understand, and incorporate scientific knowledge about how trail-based effects impact wildlife behavior and habitats, and we need to look more critically at the comfortable but self-serving notion that more recreation, however it’s done, automatically assures more conservation.
What might that mean in practical terms? Clearly, outdoor recreation’s human benefits of fun, health, and revenue generation can easily overwhelm the subtle, often unknown, unnoticed, or even misunderstood needs of wildlife and habitat, making the much-sought-after “balance” of recreation and conservation more easily said than done. One possible solution has been to make some areas within a larger geographic area trail-free and others more trail-dense. This solution, while practical and likely useful in some circumstances, is no guarantee that initially designated trail-free areas will stay that way. The relentless push today for recreational access within previously designated wilderness in the western United States is an example.
“Little can compare to the thrills and challenges of outdoor sports; an awesome mountain view; or the simple, quiet pleasure of a walk in the forest that recreational trails afford us humans. But we need to stay mindful of the conservation impact of our own recreational activities.”
Since humans make the decisions about trail development, it behooves humans—whether local conservation experts, town residents, town committee members, avid recreationists, or people who just enjoy nature from their porch—to recognize the inherent imbalance between recreation and conservation. At the least, then, when recreational trails are being planned, we humans need to be nature’s voice at the decision-making table. We can do that by seeking answers to important questions about the proposed locations of trails.
An example might be asking what is known about the value of the property to nature and wildlife. What kinds of wildlife live, forage, move through, or procreate there? Is the property part of an important, larger, interconnected ecosystem upon which wildlife depend? Is the area’s size capable of accounting for zones of influence of trails? What do the wild animals who live there need not only to survive but to thrive?
In terms of planning specific trails, we should be asking questions such as: Why exactly is a new trail needed? What is the anticipated trail traffic volume, seasonally and by type of activity? What are the specific plans needed to assure “minimal impact” on conservation? Are trail planners knowledgeable about and up to date on the science of recreation trail-based effects on wildlife and nature? Do decision-makers include those who are advocates for non-human interests?
We humans know what we want for our own recreation. It’s time for us to acknowledge, understand, and apply what nature and wildlife need in the places where we want to play.
Nancy Zimny has been a resident of Richmond, Vermont, for 43 years and is a lifelong outdoor recreationist. She is a retired UVM Professor of Physical Therapy who based her teaching on the clinical science underlying therapeutic rehabilitation techniques for humans and eventually companion animals as a certified canine rehabilitation therapist. Today, she volunteers at a farm animal sanctuary and has been closely following the discussions of the Andrews Community Forest Committee in Richmond as they discuss ways to “balance” recreation and conservation there.
Editor’s Note: The author is the spouse of Ian Stokes, former co-chair and current member of Richmond’s Andrews Community Forest Committee (dealing with the recreation-conservation issues in the forest). He has had no input into or participation in this article.