Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Does Zoning Winter Recreationists Reduce Recreation Conflict?

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Parks and protected area managers use zoning to decrease interpersonal conflict between recreationists. Zoning, or segregation, of recreation—often by non-motorized and motorized activity—is designed to limit physical interaction while providing recreation opportunities to both groups. This article investigated the effectiveness of zoning to reduce recreation conflict in the Vail Pass Winter Recreation Area in Colorado, USA. Despite a zoning management system, established groomed travel routes were used by both non-motorized recreationists (backcountry skiers, snowboarders, snowshoers) and motorized recreationists (snowmobilers). We hypothesized that persistent recreation conflict reported by non-motorized recreationists was the result of recreation occurring in areas of mixed non-motorized and motorized use, mostly along groomed routes. We performed a geospatial analysis of recreation [from Global Positioning System (GPS) points, n = 1,233,449] in the Vail Pass Winter Recreation Area to identify areas of mixed non-motorized and motorized use. We then surveyed non-motorized recreationists (n = 199) to test whether reported conflict is higher for respondents who traveled in areas of mixed-use, compared with respondents traveling outside areas of mixed-use. Results from the geospatial analysis showed that only 0.7 % of the Vail Pass Winter Recreation Area contained recreation from both groups, however that area contained 14.8 % of all non-motorized recreation and 49.1 % of all motorized recreation. Survey analysis results showed higher interpersonal conflict for all five standard conflict variables among non-motorized respondents who traveled in areas of mixed-use, compared with those traveling outside mixed-use areas. Management implications and recommendations for increasing the effectiveness of zoning are provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The analysis was performed directly on the GPS points rather than on the GPS tracks because the straight lines drawn between points did not necessarily accurately represent the path taken by the recreationist. We found the point analysis to be more accurate at this spatial resolution.

  2. Similar to Miller and Vaske (2016) and Vaske et al. (2007), a K-means cluster analysis was performed on the non-motorized dataset. Unlike in those analyses, however, no convergence was reached with a 2, 3, or 4 cluster solution and, therefore, the cluster analysis was not included in this analysis. The relatively small sample size of the non-mixed-use respondents could be responsible for the lack of convergence.

References

  • Adelman BJ, Heberlein TA, Bonnicksen TM (1982) Social psychological explanations for the persistence of a conflict between paddling canoeists and motorcraft users in the boundary waters Canoe area. Leis Sci 5:45–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blahna JD, Smith SK, Anderson AJ (1995) Backcountry llama packing: Visitor perceptions of acceptability and conflict. Leis Sci 17:185–204

  • Bowker JM, Askew AE, Cordell HK, Betz CJ, Zarnoch SJ, Seymour L (2012) Outdoor recreation participation in the United States—Projections to 2060: a technical document supporting the forest service 2010 RPA assessment: 2010 renewable resources planning act assessment. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Ashville, NC

    Google Scholar 

  • Carothers P, Vaske JJ, Donnelly MP (2001) Social values versus interpersonal conflict among hikers and mountain bikers. Leis Sci 23:47–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark RN and Stankey GH (1979) The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A Framework for Planning, Management, and Research. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PNW-98

  • Cole DN (2004) Carrying capacity and visitor management: Facts, values, and the role of science. In: Harmon D, Kilgore BM, Vietzke GE (eds) Protecting our diverse heritage: the role of parks, protected areas, and cultural sites. George Wright Society, Hanckock, MI, p 43–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole DN, Daniel TC (2003) The science of visitor management in parks and protected areas: From verbal reports to simulation models. J Nat Conserv 11:269–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordell HK, Betz CJ, Green GT (2008) Nature-based outdoor recreation trends and wilderness. Int J Wilderness 14(2):7–13

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Antonio A, Monz C, Lawson S, Newman P, Pettebone D, Courtemanch A (2010) GPS-based measurement of backcountry visitors in parks and protected areas: Examples of methods and applications from three case studies. J Park Recreat Admin 38(3):42–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons S, Ruddell EJ (1995) The effect of goal orientation and place dependence on select goal interferences among winter backcountry users. Leis Sci 17:171–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graefe AE, Thapa B (2004) Conflict in natural resource recreation. In: Manfredo MJ, Vaske JJ, Bruyere BL, Field DR, Brown PJ (eds) Society and natural resources: a summary of knowledge. Modern Litho, Jefferson, MO, p 209–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallo JC, Beeco JA, Goetcheus C, McGee J, McGehee NG, Norman WC (2012) GPS as a method for assessing spatial and temporal use distributions of nature-based tourists. J Travel Res 51:591–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammitt WE, Cole DN (1998) Wildland recreation: ecology and management (2nd ed.). Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson EL, Wong R (1982) Perceived conflict between urban cross-country skiers and snowmobilers in Alberta. J Leis Res 14:47–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob GR (1977) Conflict in outdoor recreation: The search for understanding. Utah Tour Recreat Rev 6(4):1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob GR, Schreyer R (1980) Conflict in outdoor recreation: A theoretical perspective. J Leis Res 12:368–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen CR, Guthrie SP (2006) Outdoor recreation in America (6th ed.). Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai PC, Li CL, Chan KW, Kwong KH (2007) An assessment of GPS and GIS in recreational tracking. J Park Recreat Admin 25:128–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Liddle MJ (1997) Recreation ecology: the ecological impact of outdoor recreation and ecotourism. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg K, Fredman P, Heldt T (2009) Facilitating integrated recreation management: Assessing conflict reduction benefits in a common metric. For Sci 55:201–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung Y, Marion JL (1999) Spatial strategies for managing visitor impacts in national parks. J Park Recreat Admin 17(4):20–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas RC (1964) The recreational capacity of the Quetico-Superior area. USDA Lake States Forest and Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN

  • Knopp TB, Tyger JD (1973) A study of conflict in recreational land use: Snowmobiling versus ski touring. J Leis Res 5:6–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuss FR, Graefe AR, Vaske JJ (1990) Visitor impact management: a review of research. National Parks and Conservation Association, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning RE (2011) Studies in outdoor recreation: search and research for satisfaction (3rd edn.). Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning RE, Anderson LE (2012) Managing outdoor recreation: case studies in the national parks. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxfordshire

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marion JL, Roggenbuck J, Manning RE (1993) Problems and practices in backcountry recreation management: a survey of National Park Service managers. Natural Resources Report NPS/NRVT/NRR-93/12

  • Miller AM, Vaske JJ (2016) Winter recreationist conflict and management approaches at Vail Pass, Colorado. J Parks Recreat Admin 34(2):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Monz CA, Cole DN, Leung YF, Marion JL (2010) Sustaining visitor use in protected areas: Future opportunities in recreation ecology research based on the USA experience. Environ Manage 45:551–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Park Service (1997) VERP: the visitor experience and resource protection (VERP) framework, a handbook for planners and managers. USDI, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, Denver, CO

    Google Scholar 

  • National Park Service (2013) Special regulations; Areas of the national park system; Yellowstone national park; Winter Use. 36 SFR part 7. Fed Regist 78(205):630968–663093

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudell EJ, Gramann JH (1994) Goal orientation, norms, and noise-induced conflict among recreation area users. Leis Sci 16:93–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rupf R, Wyttenbach M, Köchli D, Hediger M, Lauber S, Ochsner P, Graf R (2011) Assessing the spatio-temporal pattern of winter sports activities to minimize disturbance in capercaillie habitats. J Prot Mt Areas Res 3(2):23–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider IE (2000) Revisiting and revising recreation conflict research. J Leis Res 32:129–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelby B, Heberlein TA (1986) Social carrying capacity in recreation settings. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoval N, Isaacson M (2006) Application of tracking technologies to the study of pedestrian spatial behavior. Prof Geogr 58(2):172–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stankey GH, Cole DN, Lucas RC, Peterson ME, Frissell SS (1985) The limits of acceptable change (LAC) system for wilderness planning. USDA forest service general technical report INT-176. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Odgen, Utah

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • USDA Forest Service (2015) White River National Forest Official Webpage on Vail Pass Winter Recreation Area. http://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/whiteriver/recreation/recarea/?recid=41445&actid=92. Accessed 30 July 2015

  • Vaske JJ, Donnelly MP, Wittman K, Laidlaw S (1995) Interpersonal versus social value conflict. Leis Sci 17:205–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaske JJ, Needham MD, Cline RC (2007) Clarifying interpersonal and social values conflict among recreationists. J Leis Res 39:182–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Vittersø J, Chipeniuk R, Skår M, Vistad OI (2004) Recreational conflict is affective: Case study of cross country skiers and snowmobiles. Leis Sci 26:227–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagar JA (1964) The carrying capacity of wild lands for recreation. For Sci 10(Supplement 7):a0001–a0001

    Google Scholar 

  • Wing MG, Eklund A, Kellogg LD (2005) Consumer-grade global positioning system (GPS) accuracy and reliability. J For 103(4):169–173

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the US Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service, WRNF for providing primary funding to evaluate winter recreation. Additional funding and support was provided by the Rocky Mountain Research Station, Vail Associates Inc., Colorado BLM state office, USFS R2 Regional Office Renewable Resources Department, 10th Mountain Huts, and Colorado Department of Transportation. The Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources at Colorado State University provided support for the administration of the survey for the article. Spatial movement data for this and related studies were collected as a collaboration between the US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, University of Montana, and other project cooperators. We acknowledge the field technicians who distributed GPS units to recreationists and who also surveyed people’s opinions. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers who provided valuable comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, 1480 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA

    Aubrey D. Miller & Jerry J. Vaske

  2. US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 800 E. Beckwith, Missoula, MT, 59801, USA

    John R. Squires & Lucretia E. Olson

  3. US Forest Service, White River National Forest, 900 Grand Ave, Glenwood Springs, CO, 81601, USA

    Elizabeth K. Roberts

Authors
  1. Aubrey D. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jerry J. Vaske
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John R. Squires
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lucretia E. Olson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Elizabeth K. Roberts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aubrey D. Miller.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miller, A.D., Vaske, J.J., Squires, J.R. et al. Does Zoning Winter Recreationists Reduce Recreation Conflict?. Environmental Management 59, 50–67 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0777-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0777-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation