Some very interesting research into how mountain biking is treated by other outdoor recreation types and by land managers.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213078016300354
Although the research was carried out in the Cairngorms National Park, the implications have a much broader reach and are particularly relevant for Wales given the potential for a review of land access there.
Note: free access to this report is available until 29th December.
Interesting that, cheers!
50 word summary?
Read it.
The danger identified in this paper is that measures to curtail ‘less desirable’ recreationists – commonly mountain bikers – can create a disengagement tipping point: a sense of resignation to feelings of non-belonging that can be accompanied by abandonment of effort to co-exist positively with other trail users. Attempts to limit mountain biking – especially within the legal entitlement – can therefore be ineffective or even have the opposite effect if destructive affective economies prevail. Inducing guilt or ‘feeling bad’ in such a recreationist perceived to be acting inappropriately does not necessarily lead to more appropriate behaviour.
Costs $31.50 for me...
$31.50 even after I registered, summary available only 😐
Thanks for heads up. I would certainly agree, anyone restricting me from legal access is likely to receive an "adverse" responce
^^ yes possibly currently abroad, will try (cough) uk vpn later
It wants to charge me too.
Interesting summary, makes sense in my head.
Funny thing the Cairngorm National Park: I think most visitors notice the bulldozered tracks up most of the hills (those not NT or SSSI) before they get annoyed by a tiny handful of bikers. Do any of these eyesores have planning permission??
Also needed the alternate link, downloaded to pdf for consumption tomorrow
There's nothing as good as a nice clear and concise summary to a report 🙄
can't work out if this is a parody or serious? Hopefully the former.
Is science direct loosely equivalent to sports direct?
Ive only glanced at the summary but I think there may be a point.
So far this year I have had a farmer moaning at me for completely legally crossing his land by bike, a walker moaning at me for completely legally cycling in the hills, a fisherman moaning at me for completely legally launching a canoe where he didn't like it and a canoeist moaning at me for completely legally swimming in a river (this one surprised me most).
Most of them came in all arsey, then when asked to justify their position gave it Harumphs and walked off.
What it made [i]me[/i] think was '**** 'em'
Is science direct loosely equivalent to sports direct?
Er, no. Paper comes from one of the best land use research institutes in Europe. And yes, the worries about mountain biking seem disproportionate to the lack of concern about landrover tracks, heather burn and vast numbers of suicidal pheasants. But all this stuff is normal in-group I guess, whereas we are strange outsiders.
Please play nicely everyone
Best in Euorpe?
Notably, we find that a'disengagement threshold’ can be reached when a mountain biker’s experience of feeling'alien’ (‘other’ or less-than-citizen) develops into more entrenched feelings of being alienated, whereupon they give up striving for acceptance and became disconnected from informal normative agency. The paper thus re-centres emotions as crucial in understanding how outdoor recreation is regulated through the formal and informal disciplining of moving bodies, and highlights belonging as an under-acknowledged and under-utilised mechanism of management
Sorry, this is Friday night and a well created windup? Seems quite authentic granted, but no one really writes like that outside a piss-take, do they?
Tomorrow I shall be travelling deep into the Surrey Hills as I strive for acceptance and connection with informal normative agency. Any tips on appropriate tyres for my quest?
I was offered a similar article on levels of stoke/amp induced by various types of mtb trails, [url= http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213078016300391 ]here[/url] (haven't read it, don't blame me if it's kack
a sense of resignation to feelings of non-belonging that can be accompanied by abandonment of effort to co-exist positively with other trail users. Attempts to limit mountain biking – especially within the legal entitlement – can therefore be ineffective or even have the opposite effect if destructive affective economies prevail
Sounds spot on to me.
Seems quite authentic granted, but no one really writes like that outside a piss-take, do they?
Oh but they surely do. This is actually quite mild by comparison with some of the stuff written by qualitative researchers in sports science that I work with ( I do numbers, so sometimes feel a bit perplexed by this stuff!) Anyway, here's Katrina's home page, so judge for yourself.
http://www.hutton.ac.uk/staff/katrina-brown
Thanks scardy - obviously a piss-take. Here's a bit from your link
By adopting[b] a post-modern subcultural approach[/b], our analysis reveals the link between rider affect and different components on mountain bike tracks.
It close enough to be plausible though, which is kind of scary! Awesome nonetheless. 😀
Seems quite authentic granted, but no one really writes like that outside a piss-take, do they?
LOL!! TMH getting perturbed by things like socially, psychology and emotion.... whoulda thunk it! 🙂
Perturbed? Amused more like - excellent stuff.
yah yah... mere trifles all those thinkins and feelins 🙂
2nd link worked. Downloaded. Thanks.
Sorry, this is Friday night and a well created windup? Seems quite authentic granted, but no one really writes like that outside a piss-take, do they?
Having recently registered to start the process of becoming Doctor Duckman, I am afraid they do. Indeed;that report is actually couched in quite plain terms. What is a worry is that it discusses attitudes in an area that other users are well aware we have a legal entitlement to access. It also makes me realise how lucky we are to have that access, the whole framework of paths/bridleways/RoW in less enlightened parts of the UK would actually take some of the fun away for me.
>Do any of these eyesores have planning permission??<
Doubt it - no need. In theory they need planning consent - unless it's for forestry or agricultural use. Which has given many of the so called sporting estates carte blanche to doze thousands of km across the Scottish Highlands. The scale of it is actually quite breathtaking. One that really sticks to mind is the hill above Achnasheen (very recent)The guy there (Ledgowan Estates) doesn't want anyone on his land far less bikers.
Oh I agree your point btw.
You only have to read some posts on the forum when it comes to access to see that disengagement in action.
Duckman/blackmount (and others)
You may be interested in following parkswatchscotland. It's a bit repetitive but recent issues include the planning/approval process for tracks on the Dinnet estate near Ballater.
I already do Scotroutes. I had the "pleasure" of taking a Gold DoE through good old Invercauld first week of Oct.
Tomorrow I shall be travelling deep into the Surrey Hills as I strive for acceptance and connection with informal normative agency. Any tips on appropriate tyres for my quest?
😀
Actually I am interested in the psychology surrounding this, for a very different reason. I am mostly an ex-mountainbiker now due to injuries, thefts, more interest in hiking/camping/road cycling etc.
Weirdly, I actually find myself resenting MTBs in the hills now, however irrational I know it to be. Recent features on another website of an old friend of mine riding bikes in Skye annoyed me more than amused me, and seeing the evidence of someone throwing the anchor out the back and skidding most of the way down Beinn Mheadhoin in the Cairngorms had me muttering dark nothings to myself.
Funny thing is, only a few years ago I was the one lugging myself, my bike and a lot of bikepacking gear over the neighbouring Ben Macdui, and shrugging off the sniffy comments from trail runners that went past me. Amazing how quickly the tribalism sets in when you change 'sides' in the hills. 😕
The paper thus re-centres emotions as crucial in understanding how outdoor recreation is regulated through the formal and informal disciplining of moving bodies, and highlights belonging as an under-acknowledged and under-utilised mechanism of management.
Translation into English, please.
Respect people's feelings, try to be inclusive?
Must admit I've had very few sniffy comments from Trail Runners or Hillwalkers i.e those largely responsible for most of our eroded hill paths:-) I doubt mtb usage will ever by a major contributory factor to erosion in the Central Cairngorms - it's just too demanding to access for most. Routes like Rothiemurchus > Picadilly different ball game of course but then look at those in the context of the path network at large.
As Chickenman points out the biggest acts of environmental vandalism have been at the hands of the landowners themselves. The link Scotroutes gave is more the norm than the exception ime.
Great post... very much worth a read. Seem's to say I need o pay too?
Try the second link.
It came to me via Twitter so the referral link might be what gives free access (until 29the Dec IIRC)