Abstract
Recreational activities have undergone a change from mainly passive forms (e.g. rest, relaxation, reinvigoration, solitude and escape) to more active forms (e.g. mountain biking, climbing and running). Correspondingly, the demand for forest recreation infrastructure to support the more active forms has increased. However, very little is known about what features characterise the planning and management of forest recreation infrastructure. This study takes four in-depth mountain-bike trail cases in Switzerland to characterise the planning and management of forest recreation infrastructure. The analysis is performed using the institutional analysis and development framework (Ostrom in Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1990) and qualitative data based on cases and interviews. We argue that by considering the identified external features (formal and informal rules, location) and process features (partnerships, public participation, conflicts, profitability perspectives, time frame of process, funding of process and approval), we can better plan and manage active forms of forest recreation. Conflict situations and response strategies associated with mountain-bike-trail planning and management are also identified. The findings are relevant for other regions facing the growing use of forests for recreational and leisure activities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Source compiled by the author (adapted from Ostrom 2009: 420)
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andersson K (2006) Understanding decentralized forest governance: an application of the institutional analysis and development framework. Sustain Sci Pract Policy 2(1):25–35
Ballantyne M, Pickering C, Gudes O (2014). http://mmv.boku.ac.at/refbase/files/2014-Ballantyne_How_formal_and_informal_mountain_biking.pdf. Accessed 22 Dec 2015
Beitl CM (2011) Cockles in custody: the role of common property arrangements in the ecological sustainability of mangrove fisheries on the Ecuadorian coast. Int J Commons 5(2):485–512
Bruña-García X, Marey-Pérez MF (2014) Public participation: a need of forest planning. iForest 7: 216–226 [online 2014-02-27] http://sisef.it/iforest/contents/?id=ifor0970-007
Burgin S, Hardiman N (2012) Extreme sports in natural areas: looming disaster or a catalyst for a paradigm shift in land use planning? J Environ Plan Manag 55(7):921–940
Cantiani MG (2012) Forest planning and public participation: a possible methodological approach. iForest 5:72–82. doi:10.3832/ifor0602-009
Civil Code (1907) Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch vom 10. Dezember 1907. SR 210. Stand 21. Dezember 2004
Clement F (2010) Analysing decentralized natural resource governance: proposition for a “politicized” institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Sci 43:129–156
Clement F, Amezaga JM (2008) Linking reforestation policies with land use change in northern Vietnam: why local factors matter. Geoforum 39:265–277
Coleman EA, Steed BC (2009) Monitoring and sanctioning in the commons: an application to forestry. Ecol Econ 68:2106–2113
FAO-ECE-ILO (2000) Public participation in forestry in Europe and North America. Report of the FAO/ECE/ILO Joint committee team of specialists on participation in forestry. Working paper 163, Sectorial activities departement, International labour office, Genève, Switzerland, pp 137
Fielman P, Evans L, Fabinyi M, Foale S, Cinner J, Rosen F (2012) Governing large-scale marine commons: contextual challenges in the Coral Triangle. Mar Policy 36:42–53
Hardy SD, Koontz TM (2009) Rules for collaboration: institutional analysis of group membership and levels of action in watershed partnerships. Policy Stud J 37(3):393–414
Harshaw HW, Sheppard SRJ, Kozak RA (2007) Outdoor recreation and forest management: a plea for empirical data. For Chron 83(2):231–238
Imperial MT (1999) Institutional analysis and ecosystem-based management: the institutional analysis and development framework. Environ Manag 24(4):449–465
Jay M, Schraml U (2012) Managing city forests for or in spite of recreation? Perspectives of forest managers. Eur J For Res 132(1):93–105
Kooiman J (1993) Modern governance: new government society interactions. SAGE, London
Koontz TM (2005) We finished the plan, so now what? Impacts of collaborative stakeholder participation on land use policy. Policy Stud J 33(3):459–481
Leskinen LA (2004) Purposes and challenges of public participation in regional and local forestry in Finland. For Policy Econ 6:605–618. doi:10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00009-1
Mayring P (2010) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken [Qualitative content analysis. Theoretical foundation and basic procedures]. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Verlag, pp 144
McGinnis MD (2011) Networks of adjacent action situations in polycentric governance. Policy Stud J 39(1):51–77
Mehring M, Seeberg-Elverfeldt C, Koch S, Barkmann J, Schwarze S, Stoll-Kleemann S (2011) Local institutions: regulation and valuation of forest use-Evidence from Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Land Use Policy 28:736–747
Mokhtar MB, Toriman MEH, Hossain MAA, Tan KW (2011) Institutional challenges for integrated river basin management in Langat River Basin, Malaysia. J Food Agric Environ 10(2):866–870
Mulazzani L, Curtin R, Andres M, Malorgio G (2012) Multilevel governance and management of shared stocks with integrated markets: the European anchovy case. Mar Policy 38(1):407–416
Newig J, Fritsch O (2009) Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level- and effective? Environ Policy Gov 19:197–214. doi:10.1002/eet.509
Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, New York
Ostrom E (1999) Institutional rational choice. An assessment of the institutional analyses and development framework. In: Sabatier PA (ed) Theories of the policy process. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 35–71
Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, p 376
Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325(5939):419–422
Ostrom E (2011) Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Stud J 39(1):7–27
Pröbstl U, Wirth V, Elands B, Bell S (eds) (2010) Management of recreation and nature based tourism in European forests. Springer, Berlin, p 343. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03145-8_2
Pütz M, Schmid S, Bernasconi A, Wolf B (2015) Urban forestry: definition, trends und Folgerungen für die Waldakteure in der Schweiz. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen 166(4):230–237
Raheem N (2014) Using the institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework to analyze the acequias of El Río de las Gallinas, New Mexico. Soc Sci J 51(3):447–454
Rudd MA (2004) An institutional framework for designing and monitoring ecosystem-based fisheries management policy experiments. Ecol Econ 48:109–124
Ruppert-Winkel C, Winkel G (2009) Hidden in the woods? Meaning, determining, and practicing of ‘common welfare’ in the case of the German public forests. Eur J For Res 130:421–434
Schroff U, Ammann S, Bernasconi A (2005) Bikerwaldpass Rheinfelden. Grundlagen und Umsetzung eines innovativen Finanzierungsmodells, pp 18
Schuett MA (1997) State park direktors´perceptions of mountain biking. Environ Manag 21(2):239–246
Sekher M (2001) Organized participatory resource management: insights from community forestry practices in India. For Policy Econ 3:137–154
Snell M, Bell K, Leahy J (2013) Local institutions and lake management. Lakes Reserv Res Manag 18(1):35–44
Thiele G, Devaux A, Reinoso I, Pico H, Montesdeoca F, Pumisacho M, Andrade-Piedra J, Velasco C, Flores P, Esprella R, Thomann A, Manrique K, Horton D (2011) Multi-stakeholder platforms for linking small farmers to value chains: evidence from the Andes. Int J Agric Sustain 9(3):423–433
Toriman ME, Mokhtar MB, Hossain MdAA, Abdul Aziz NA, Mohamad S, Hashim NMd, Ahmad S, Ali N, Fuad M, Habibah MJA, Hamzah J, Hussainet A (2012) Social leaning approach in integrated river basin management-lessons from the Langat River Basin, Malaysia. Adv Nat Appl Sci 6(1):42–51
Verlic A, Arnberger A, Japelj A, Simoncic S, Pirnat J (2015) Perceptions of recreational trail impacts on an urban forest walk: a controlled field experiment. Urban For Urban Green. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2014.12.004
Wilkes-Allemann J, Pütz M, Hirschi C, Fischer C (2015a) Conflict situations and response strategies in urban forests in Switzerland. Scand J For Res. doi:10.1080/02827581.2014.1002217
Wilkes-Allemann J, Pütz M, Hirschi C (2015b) Governance of Forest Recreation: analysing the role of stakeholders and institutions using the institutional analysis and development (iad) framework. Environ Policy Gov. doi:10.1002/eet.1668
Yin RK (2009) Case study research: design and methods, vol 5. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Acknowledgements
We thank all interview participants for their essential contribution to the study, Christian Hirschi, Susanne Menzel and Stefanie Engel for comments on an early draft of the manuscript for helping us to improve this paper. The Swiss State Secretariat for Education and Research, to whom we are very grateful, funded the research presented under COST Action FP0804 Forest Management Decision Support Systems (FORSYS).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Handling Editor: Martin Moog.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wilkes-Allemann, J., Hanewinkel, M. & Pütz, M. Forest recreation as a governance problem: four case studies from Switzerland. Eur J Forest Res 136, 511–526 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-017-1049-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-017-1049-0