A Review of the Impacts of Off-Road Vehicles on Quiet Users

Editor’s Note: This BiblioNote is an excerpt from Wildlands CPR and Wild Utah’s ORV BMPs published in 2008. To see a list of Best Management Practices for planning and management of ORV routes or to view the full report click here.

Quiet recreational users include hikers, hunters, anglers, bird watchers, horseback riders and others for which “natural quiet” is an important element of the recreational experience. Despite significant growth during the 1990s, ORV use comprises only 3 percent of recreational visits to all U.S. national forests when such use is the primary activity, and 6.6 percent of all visits where ORVs are used in concert with other activities such as hunting and fishing (USDA 2003). With few exceptions, quiet users comprise the vast majority of recreational visitation on public lands.

Conflict can be defined as an emotional state of annoyance with another group or person that can result in dissatisfaction with a specific experience (Yankoviak 2005). For example, a hiker seeking quiet in nature could experience conflict after encountering an ORV user on the same trail because the ORV use could be perceived as preventing the hiker from attaining his or her goal of a quiet, natural experience.

Feelings of conflict often occur among quiet users when they hear motor vehicle noise, witness acts of great speed and/or reckless  behavior, smell exhaust, and see visible environmental damage. This all can lead to the displacement of non-motorized recreationists from places they would normally frequent (Moore 1994, Gambill 1996, Stokowski and LaPointe 2000).

Use conflict often can be “asymmetrical” in that one user group is generally more impacted by conflict than another. For instance, cross-country skiers may be bothered by snowmobile riders but snowmobile riders are not generally bothered by cross-country skiers. This “asymmetrical conflict” is most likely to occur between motorized and non-motorized recreation activities, where ORV riding in particular is considered incompatible with every other land-based activity but snowmobiling (WDNR 2006). Consequently, non-motorized users often are disproportionately affected by the presence of motor vehicles (especially loud ones), which can cover a lot of ground quickly (Badarraco 1976, Webber 1995).

Both motorized and quiet recreationists prefer that trails be managed for multiple uses but with motorized and non-motorized activities separated (Andereck et al. 2001). Where trails are designated as multiple-use, heavy motorized use tends to cause other trail users to pursue opportunities at other locations in order to realize the desired experiences (USDI 2004). There are numerous citations in the literature of non-motorized recreationists being displaced or leaving an area altogether where motorized use is frequent (Adelman et al. 1982, Moore 1994, Webber 1995, Stokowski and LaPointe 2000, Manning and Valliere 2002).

A non-invasive and cost-effective method for measuring and evaluating the level and extent of ORV-related conflict is required to  adequately assess conditions on public lands, rather than reliance on the occasional reporting of conflict to Law Enforcement Officers or agency personnel. Before deciding which trails to designate for motorized recreation, managers must be able to ascertain whether any conflict exists or might exist, what groups are experiencing conflict and the degree or severity of the conflict. Thus, it is essential to undertake proactive and systematic outreach to both motorized and non-motorized visitors in order to facilitate mutual understanding of the preferences and desired experiences of public land visitors in conjunction with (as compatible with) the resource protection obligations of the agencies. Only through proactive outreach can the agency identify emerging conflicts before a critical flash point is reached that requires immediate management action.

—Allison is Conservation Biologist for the Wild Utah Project and Adam is Science Coordinator for Wildlands CPR.

References

Adelman, B., T. Heberlein, and T. Bonnicksen. 1982. Social psychological explanations for the persistence of a conflict between paddling canoeists and motorcraft users in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Leisure Sciences 5: 45-61.

Andereck, K.L., C.A. Vogt, K. Larkin, and K. Freye. 2001. Differences between motorized and nonmotorized trail users. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 10(3): 62-77.

Badaracco, R.J. 1976. ORVs rough on visitors. Parks and Recreation 11(9): 32-35, 68-75.

Gambill, P. 1996. Multi-Use Trail Management Policy: User-Group Conflict and Resource Impact Issues. Wheaton, IL: The Wheaton Center.

Manning, R., and W. Valliere. 2002. Coping in outdoor recreation: causes and consequences of crowding and conflict among community residents. Journal of Leisure Research 33(4): 410-426.

Moore, R.L. 1994. Conflicts on multiple-use trails: Synthesis of the literature and state of the practice, Report No. FHWA-PD-94-031. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration.

Stokowski, P.A. and C.B. LaPointe. 2000. Environmental and social effects of ATVs and ORVs: An annotated bibliography and research assessment. School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont. 31p. http://www.anr.state.vt.us/anr/atv_nov20_final.pdf

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2003. National Forest Visitor Use Monitoring Program, National Project Results, January 2000 through September 2003.

USDI (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2004. Bureau of Land Management, Proposed Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, July 2004, page 4-38.

Webber, P.C. 1995. Report to the Board of Environmental Management on the Policy for Off-road Vehicle Use in Massachusetts Forests and Parks. Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Department of Environmental Management. Boston, MA.

WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources). 2006. Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), Chapter 4, Compatibility & Conflict in Wisconsin Outdoor Recreation.

Yankoviak, B.M. 2005. Off-road vehicle policy on USDA National Forests: evaluating user conflicts and travel management. M.S. Thesis. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.