Does Zoning Winter Recreationists Reduce Recreation Conflict?

• Published in: Environmental management (New York) 2017, Vol.59 (1), p.50-67
• Main Authors: Miller, Aubrey D., Vaske, Jerry J., Squires, John R., Olson, Lucretia E., Roberts, Elizabeth K.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aquatic Pollution; Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution; Colorado; Conflict (Psychology); Conservation of Natural Resources - methods; Earth and Environmental Science; Ecology; Education; Environment; Environmental Management; Forestry Management; Geographic Information Systems; Global positioning systems; GPS; Humans; Interpersonal Relations; National parks; Nature Conservation; Noise pollution; Parks & recreation areas; Planning; Recreation; Recreation - psychology; Regulation; Seasons; Snow Sports - psychology; Surveys and Questionnaires; Travel - psychology; Waste Water Technology; Water Management; Water Pollution Control; Winter; Zoning
• ISSN: 0364-152X; 1432-1009
• DOI: 10.1007/s00267-016-0777-0

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.