Mike Vandeman
2012-05-06 04:12:12 UTC
"Assessing the impacts of mountain biking and hiking on subalpine
grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol"
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
April 29, 2012
Pickering et al did a study comparing hiking and mountain biking
impacts on plants and soil compaction. Like Thurston and Reader, they
found that "Mountain biking does cause more damage than hiking, but
only at the highest levels of use tested [500 passes] and only for
some variables" (p.3056). In the long run, of course, users will
exceed 500 passes. In fact, that could easily happen in a single day!
Their abstract, however, continued the tradition, popular among
mountain bikers, of using the unscientific, unquantifiable word
"similar": "hiking and mountain biking appear to be similar in their
environmental impacts" (p.3049). They also continued the tradition of
testing only gentle, straight-line mountain biking with no skidding or
speeding. That is not representative of real mountain biking.
It would seem that the authors were attempting to "greenwash"
mountain biking, by minimizing its impacts and comparing it favorably
with hiking. Whether mountain biking does more damage than hiking is
really irrelevant. That damage is additional damage that wouldn't
exist, if bikes weren't allowed on trails: mountain bikers always
claim to be discriminated against and "excluded", when bikes are
banned, implying that without bike access, they wouldn't use the
parks; they claim to be "bored" with hiking. In order to minimize harm
to the parks, the obvious conclusion is that bikes should be banned
from trails and restricted to pavement.
The article is full of euphemisms. Instead of admitting that
mountain bikers break the law, they say mountain bikers ride "beyond
formed trails", blaming it on the capabilities of their equipment: "a
result of diversification in equipment" (p.3049). Instead of "illegal
trails", they are called "social trails" (p.3050). Instead of "illegal
trail building", the euphemism "unauthorized trail technical features"
is used (p.3056).
Apparently the research was conducted, at least in part, by
mountain bikers. It is an ethical violation not to divulge this
conflict of interest. With only one exception that I know of (where
the conclusions didn't favor mountain biking), research on mountain
biking impacts is conducted by mountain bikers and is heavily slanted
to avoid admitting how much harm mountain biking does. The purpose of
the current article seems to be to support the last clause of its
abstract: "hiking and mountain biking appear to be similar in their
environmental impacts" (p.3049). This is a "sound bite" that mountain
bikers can (and frequently do) use to convince land managers to treat
mountain biking the same as they do hiking. Of course, the word
"similar" is unscientific and unquantifiable.
The authors misuse statistics to support this point: "Mountain
biking caused more damage than hiking but only at high use (500
passes)" (p.3049). Statistics cannot prove two effects to be equal; it
can only fail to prove them different. In the latter case, the failure
may be due to the methodology. For example, after 25 passes, the
mountain bikng and hiking impacts weren't found to differ. That could
be due to the insensitivity of the measuring tool. We can't conclude
that hiking and mountain biking have the same level of impacts. Those
measurements shouldn't even be reported. The goal is to use as many
cases as possible, so that the research will have the greatest chance
of detecting a difference. To exaggerate in order to make this point
clear, measuring after a single pass would be pointless.
The correct conclusion from this research should have been that
mountain biking has a greater impact on plants than hiking. One
wonders what the "peer reviewers" were thinking, that they missed
these glaring errors?
References:
Pickering, Catherine Marina (***@griffith.edu.au), Sebastian
Rossi (***@griffith.edu.au), and Agustina Barros
(***@griffith.edu.au), "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking
and hiking on subalpine grassland in Australia using an experimental
protocol". Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.92, 2011, pp.
3049-3057.
Thurston, Eden and Richard J. Reader (***@uoguelph.ca), "Impacts
of experimentally applied mountain biking and hiking on vegetation and
soil of a deciduous forest". Environmental Management, Vol.27, No.3,
2001, pp.397-409.
Vandeman, Michael J. (***@pacbell.net), 2004. "The Impacts of
Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature".
Available at http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm.
grassland in Australia using an experimental protocol"
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
April 29, 2012
Pickering et al did a study comparing hiking and mountain biking
impacts on plants and soil compaction. Like Thurston and Reader, they
found that "Mountain biking does cause more damage than hiking, but
only at the highest levels of use tested [500 passes] and only for
some variables" (p.3056). In the long run, of course, users will
exceed 500 passes. In fact, that could easily happen in a single day!
Their abstract, however, continued the tradition, popular among
mountain bikers, of using the unscientific, unquantifiable word
"similar": "hiking and mountain biking appear to be similar in their
environmental impacts" (p.3049). They also continued the tradition of
testing only gentle, straight-line mountain biking with no skidding or
speeding. That is not representative of real mountain biking.
It would seem that the authors were attempting to "greenwash"
mountain biking, by minimizing its impacts and comparing it favorably
with hiking. Whether mountain biking does more damage than hiking is
really irrelevant. That damage is additional damage that wouldn't
exist, if bikes weren't allowed on trails: mountain bikers always
claim to be discriminated against and "excluded", when bikes are
banned, implying that without bike access, they wouldn't use the
parks; they claim to be "bored" with hiking. In order to minimize harm
to the parks, the obvious conclusion is that bikes should be banned
from trails and restricted to pavement.
The article is full of euphemisms. Instead of admitting that
mountain bikers break the law, they say mountain bikers ride "beyond
formed trails", blaming it on the capabilities of their equipment: "a
result of diversification in equipment" (p.3049). Instead of "illegal
trails", they are called "social trails" (p.3050). Instead of "illegal
trail building", the euphemism "unauthorized trail technical features"
is used (p.3056).
Apparently the research was conducted, at least in part, by
mountain bikers. It is an ethical violation not to divulge this
conflict of interest. With only one exception that I know of (where
the conclusions didn't favor mountain biking), research on mountain
biking impacts is conducted by mountain bikers and is heavily slanted
to avoid admitting how much harm mountain biking does. The purpose of
the current article seems to be to support the last clause of its
abstract: "hiking and mountain biking appear to be similar in their
environmental impacts" (p.3049). This is a "sound bite" that mountain
bikers can (and frequently do) use to convince land managers to treat
mountain biking the same as they do hiking. Of course, the word
"similar" is unscientific and unquantifiable.
The authors misuse statistics to support this point: "Mountain
biking caused more damage than hiking but only at high use (500
passes)" (p.3049). Statistics cannot prove two effects to be equal; it
can only fail to prove them different. In the latter case, the failure
may be due to the methodology. For example, after 25 passes, the
mountain bikng and hiking impacts weren't found to differ. That could
be due to the insensitivity of the measuring tool. We can't conclude
that hiking and mountain biking have the same level of impacts. Those
measurements shouldn't even be reported. The goal is to use as many
cases as possible, so that the research will have the greatest chance
of detecting a difference. To exaggerate in order to make this point
clear, measuring after a single pass would be pointless.
The correct conclusion from this research should have been that
mountain biking has a greater impact on plants than hiking. One
wonders what the "peer reviewers" were thinking, that they missed
these glaring errors?
References:
Pickering, Catherine Marina (***@griffith.edu.au), Sebastian
Rossi (***@griffith.edu.au), and Agustina Barros
(***@griffith.edu.au), "Assessing the impacts of mountain biking
and hiking on subalpine grassland in Australia using an experimental
protocol". Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.92, 2011, pp.
3049-3057.
Thurston, Eden and Richard J. Reader (***@uoguelph.ca), "Impacts
of experimentally applied mountain biking and hiking on vegetation and
soil of a deciduous forest". Environmental Management, Vol.27, No.3,
2001, pp.397-409.
Vandeman, Michael J. (***@pacbell.net), 2004. "The Impacts of
Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature".
Available at http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm.