Biking-hiking conflicts and their mitigation in urban recreation areas: Results of a quasi-experimental long-term evaluation in the Zurich forest

Abstract

Increased recreational use of green spaces in and around cities leads to conflicts between user groups such as bikers and hikers. This study evaluates a broad set of measures to reduce such conflicts in the Uetliberg urban forest in Zurich. Data about conflict perceptions of hikers, bikers and people involved in both activities from three surveys were compared: immediately before (2005), 1.5 years (2006) and 12 years (2017) after the implementation of the visitor management measures. The results show that not only on short term after the implementation (2006) but also in longer term (2017) there was a broad consensus on the acceptance of the visitor management measures and a high level of satisfaction with the recreation area and other users’ behaviour. Soft measures like the opening of forest paths for bikers and an official bike trail were better accepted than the hard measure of a transport ban for bicycles. Conflict-relevant factors such as a compliant behaviour and the tolerance of others as well as the danger posed by bikers were perceived differently by the user groups. The conflict between bikers and hikers was asymmetrical and experienced more strongly by hikers. Respondents reported mainly out-group conflicts, while in-group conflicts were rarely perceived. The number of reported disturbances by bikers decreased thanks to the measures implemented, in particular due to the separate bike trail as additional infrastructure for bikers. Hikers and bikers move at different speeds. Especially on routes that allow fast biking (e.g., downhill trails), this can cause anxiety among hikers. At least in heavily used recreational areas, such routes should be separated for the two user groups. A combination of different spatial, communicative, and legal measures can reduce conflicts; prohibitions are the least popular. As far as evaluation is concerned, it seems worthwhile to measure the actual effects of mitigation measures on attitudes and behaviour of the target groups and not only the acceptance of the measures.