PROFILE AND INTEREST OF MOUNTAIN BIKERS IN THE MOUNT MAKILING FOREST RESERVE

PAOLO S. MENDIORO

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS BAÑOS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE (Natural Resource Conservation)

APRIL 2013

The thesis manuscript attached hereto, entitled “PROFILE AND INTEREST OF MOUNTAIN BIKERS IN THE MOUNT MAKILING FOREST RESERVE”, prepared and submitted by PAOLO S. MENDIORO, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE (NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION), is hereby accepted.

ROBERTO P.CERENO Member, Guidance Committee ________________________ Date Signed

ELSA P.SANTOS Member Guidance Committee ________________________ Date Signed

DIOMEDES A. RACELIS Chair, Guidance Committee ________________________ Date Signed

Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE (NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION)

Dean, Graduate School University of the Philippines Los Baños _________________________ Date Signed
ii

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Born on December 27, 1985 in Los Baños Laguna, the author was born to Engr. Luis M. Mendioro and Dr. Merlyn S. Mendioro. He is the eldest of three siblings. Described as precocious as a little boy, the author repeatedly badgered his parents with questions about many things in life, and his curious nature continues on until today. Having a knack for memorization he memorized car brands and models, history dates, people, events, geographical locations, and license plates of family members, relatives, and friends. He studied pre-school and elementary days at the Morning Star Montessori School in Los Baños Laguna, where he was in his element at quiz bees, winning in Science, Spelling, and Sibika (now Makabayan). He became the Quiz Bee Grand Champion in Grade 6. He completed his high school education in South Hill School Inc; and his college education at the University of the Philippines at Los Baños in 2007 with a Bachelor‟s degree in Forestry. He passed the Forester‟s Professional Licensure examination the same year. He also became a CFNR College Student Councilor in 2005 and also a ROTC Non-Comissioned Officer. The author is an avid mountain biker, hence his topic. He has competed in a few events, namely downhill and four cross events and somehow ended up in the middle all the time. He has met a lot of friends from mountain biking, and he made this thesis in gratitude to the people who bike.

PAOLO S. MENDIORO

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank God for the strength and will to keep going even if my motivation wavers, a human can only go so far. I would like to thank my family for being there for the whole time this thesis was being made. To the 4th Light Armor Battalion, I thank you for helping me out with the data collection and introducing me to the huge mountain bike groups we have in Quezon and in Northern Laguna. You deserve to be called Masigasig. To the many different mountain bike groups I talked to: TBAC, Haooh, OneIlocos, MAKBOYS, Elbi Bikers, Team Groundzero, and the many others, thank you for being honest and willing to answer, I remember the overwhelmingly positive reaction when I mentioned “New Bike Trails” once this thesis is complete. I tell you I will do my best to make this happen. Makiling‟s too good a mountain to let this pass. Thank you again for all your help. To Green Planet Bikeshop, Ulyby Bikeshop, and Endless Bikeshop, these shops sell not only good bike parts, and they are also helpful to my thesis. I thank you deeply. I learned even a thing or two in organizing an event from Ulyby‟s owner, Ulysses Liquigan. I owe you my future parts purchases… To Dr.Diomedes Racelis, Prof. Elsa Santos and For. Roby Cereno, thank you for being patient, with me. I sure need all the help I can get, and the way we organized the thesis last December gave me a clearer picture on what to do. And to Sir Medic thank you for accepting me on such short notice. To the Makiling Team Gravity boys: I decided to do this as a way of saying thank you for the rides, the races, and the alcohol we all shared. We will get a Mudspring replacement soon, and then some. To Ybet, who I dedicate all of this to. I decided when I got serious into finishing this thesis, my mantra was: “Do it for her.” It was the thing I was looking forward to when I finally finish this and get that Master‟s diploma. Not the job, not the money, not the shiny new bike parts, or that go kart. I did this not for myself this time. I chose do this for you. I love you Ybet.

For Tita Cecille.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TITLE PAGE APPROVAL PAGE BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION REVIEW OF LITERATURE Mountain Biking History Classification of mountain bikes and mountain biking Cross Country and All-Mountain Downhill and Free-ride Peculiarities of mountain biking Benefits of mountain biking The mountain biker Mountain biking in the Asia-Pacific Region The Mount Makiling Forest Reserve
v

i ii iii iv v vii viii x 1 8 8 8 10 10 11 11 12 14 19 19

Organization and Personnel Ecotourism in the MFR Mountain biking in the MFR METHODOLOGY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION RECOMMENDATIONS LITERATURE CITED LIST OF ACRONYMS APPENDICES

24 25 25 28 36 91 94 95 96 99

vi

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 2 3 4 5 Breakdown of respondents from their home provinces Age Profile of Mountain bikers Gender Classification and Civil Status of Mountain Bikers Highest Educational Attainment of Mountain Bikers Chi-square test for civil status, age range, and educational attainment. Chi-square test for gender and income of respondents. Estimated cost/s of mountain bikes of mountain bikers PAGE 37 35 36 37 42

6 7

46 46

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Length of mountain bike riding experience Preferred riding discipline by mountain biker Mountain biker skill levels Racing experience of mountain bikers Preferred MTB racing events No. of days allotted for mountain bike riding by bikers Primary usage of MTB Reason for starting MTB Chi-square test for rider skill level and primary use of MTB Chi-square test for riding days and primary usage of MTB Chi-square test for bike configuration, estimated costs, preferred discipline Chi-square test for MTB config,, racing experience, and MTB cost

48 49 49 50 51 51 52 52 53 56 59

19

61

vii

20

Social network of mountain bikers MTB org‟s willingness to assist in trail work MTB org‟s method to promote MTB riding in MFR Chi-square test for MTB org membership, willingness to help, and promote MTB riding Chi-square test for traveling, awareness of MFR and what the MFR needs to be a MTB destination Travel to MTB destinations by mountain bikers Awareness of the MFR as a MTB destination by MTB riders Mountain biker‟s opinionon what MFR needs to be a MTB destination Hazards encountered by mountain bikers in M.Makiling Trail Opinion on trail sharing by mountain bikers Mountain biker‟s opinion on new MTB trail Mountain biker‟s opinionon what a MTB trail should have Mountain biker‟s preference to trail exclusivity Mountain biker‟s willingness to pay for access Accepted price range for access fee Mountain biker‟s willingness to pay for a year long pass

63

21 22 23

63 64 67

24

68

25 26 27

68 69 70

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

71 71 72 72 73 73 74 74

36 37 38

Price range for a year long pass Other facilities desired by MTB riders in the MFR Chi-square test for traveling, awareness of MFR, and what the MFR needs to be a MTB destination

75 76 76

viii

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Location map of the MFR PAGE 20

2

Conceptual Framework of the Study

31

3

Frequency of single respondents and their age bracket together with educational attainment. Frequency of married respondents from different provinces and their average income. Frequency of female respondents from different provinces and their average income.

41

4

44

5

45

6 7 8

Rider skill level and primary use of mountain bikes Riding days and primary use of mountain bike. Association between mountain bike discipline, cost, and the hardtail bike configuration.

54 56 57

9

Association of full suspension bikes, bike discipline and estimated costs.

58

10

Bike configuration, costs, and mtb racing experience.
ix

60

11

Full suspension bikes, racing experiences, and estimated costs.

61

12

Association of willingness to help, promotion of riding, and active membership in an MTB organization.

65

13

Association of willingness to help, promotion of riding, and active membership in an MTB organization.

66

14

Travel to MTB sites, awareness of MFR, and what MFR needs to be a MTB destination. Hazards, sharing, and opening a trail in the MFR.

76

15

77

16 17 18

Hazards, trail sharing and not opening a trail in the MFR. Trail exclusivity, trail features and payment for access association. 79 Non-exclusivity of trail, willingness to pay, and trail features

78

80

19

WTP for a year pass and other non-MTB facilities in the MFR.

82

20 21

Map of the Mariang Makiling Trail. Mountain biker visits to the MFR in the year 2012

84 86

x

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX

PAGE

I

Survey Form used in data collection

72

II

List of mountain biking clubs and organizations

76

III

List of MTB events organized by clubs and organizations

77

IV

List of popular mountain biking destinations

78

V

MCME Organizational Chart

79

VI

xi

ABSTRACT

PAOLO S. MENDIORO. University of the Philippines Los Banos. April 2013. Profile and Interest of Mountain Bikers in the Mount Makiling Forest Reserve

Major Professor: Diomedes A. Racelis

To determine the compatibility of the Mount Makiling Forest Reserve (MFR) and the outdoor recreation activity of mountain biking, this study used basic interview design and secondary data collection. The results showed that mountain bikers mainly consist of young (60.54%) to middle aged men, of working and professional backgrounds , have higher educational backgrounds (96.95% ), a family , and due to the lower costs of entry of mountain biking in the past decade or so, have one to five years of mountain biking experience, and most are beginners (44.46%) with no racing experience (71.59%). Crosscountry riding is the dominant form of mountain biking (67.24%). The Mountain bikers are also aware (80.18%) and willing to help out promote biking in the MFR (77.25%). Using cross tabulation and using chi-square, there are several strong associations with mountain biker attributes. The MFR however, is mainly unaware of the mountain biking phenomenon despite its growing numbers. The only place to ride for mountain bikes in the MFR, the Mariang Makiling Trail was recently paved leaving mountain bike riders out in the cold. Also, the Maquiling Quest, despite the use of mountain bikes is advertised and deemed as an adventure race and is not a mountain bike centered event. Hence, the

xii

MFR needs to work with the growing group of mountain bikers to create a different, mountain bike-centered event and facilities in the MFR.

xiii

INTRODUCTION

Mountain biking (MTB) is growing as a veritable form of outdoor recreation. It is a popular physical activity on an international scale, with participation rates continuing to increase (Tourism Tasmania, 2008). Despite the inevitable link to road cycling, mountain biking has branched off into something more specialized and diverse. This diversity among mountain bikes and the mountain bikers themselves pose a whole new challenge to managers, policy makers, and operators of parks and other outdoor recreation areas. The early 1990s saw an explosion of the popularity of mountain biking and mountain bikes itself. A 2010 survey by the Outdoor Foundation indicated that bicycling in the US creates a major economic growth. Its annual contribution to the economy is worth $133B, supports 1.1 million jobs across the country, 53.1B annually in retail sales and services, 46.1 B in bicycling related expenditures and provides sustainable growth in rural areas (American Trails, 2012). In the Rocky Mountain region alone, bicycling contributes $6.2B annually to the regional economy and supports 60,000 jobs across the region (Kaliszewski, 2010). The International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) estimated around 2.5 million to 3 million avid trail riders in the United States alone (Morey et al., 2002). A decade or so later, the trail riders in the US reached an estimate of around 14 million riders, which is around 4-6% of the US population (Tourism Tasmania, 2008). In

Europe, the United Kingdom and Germany boast of high and growing mountain bike use and purchases. The UK has 11.8 million mountain bike owners with 1.3 million avid trail

users, while in Germany the number is at 3.5 million (Tourism Tasmania, 2008). In Australia, an approximate 70% of new bicycle acquisitions were mountain bikes (Tourism Tasmania, 2008). The Resort Municipality of Whistler in British Columbia in Canada is home to the world‟s most famous mountain bike park, the Whistler Mountain Bike Park; and the community is more than capable in the handling of tourists (approx. 100,000 visitors every summer), yet remain highly conservationist. Despite the creation of the park, wildlife has flourished, as well as mountain bike trails. The Philippines with its rugged terrain consisting of vast natural formations of hills and mountains is already well suited for various outdoor recreation activities, and are located close to major urban centers like Manila. Compared to temperate countries where most of the riding season is done a couple of months in summer, the Philippines can truly boast of almost year long riding. Planners, administrators, and even local government units should be able to recognize and utilize these new partnerships and markets. Unfortunately, there has been no hard data on mountain bike activities and sales in the Philippines. The Mount Makiling Forest Reserve (MFR) is an interesting case. It is used primarily as a laboratory for research and instruction of the University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB), but it is also an integral watershed and is also well known as an ecotourism site. People who hike the trails in the MFR are either there for scientific purposes, or for tourism. To travel around the MFR, the main path is the Mariang Makiling Trail. The trail is considered multi-use. For hikers, mountain bikers, and the people of Barangay Bagong Silang, the Mariang Makiling Trail is the only way of access.
2

Conflict among trail users can happen when travelling along the Mariang Makiling Trail. When a mountain biker rides downhill at a high amount of speed meets a group of hikers standing or walking along in the middle of the trail then an accident can occur. Trail use and access is a hotly contested issue in foreign countries, where different interest groups lobby against each other for sole access of trails. Mountain biking gets a bad reputation among fellow trail users, especially on its supposed environmental impacts. But the statistics show that though bikes are perceived to be dangerous, they do not significantly add up to the tallies of accidents listed and known by managers of such parks (Cessford, 2002). Statement of the Problem The study will attempt to look at the state of mountain biking in the MFR, and to look at mountain biking as an ecotourism activity. Specifically, the study will try to address the following questions: 1. Who are the mountain bikers? a. What are their educational background, age, location relative to the MFR, income, riding experiences and skill level, etc.? b. What are their bike-related social networks, if they have one c. What are their motivating factors to ride mountain bikes, specifically in the MFR? 2. What is the state of mountain biking in the MFR? a. What attracts bikers to the MFR? What are the things that do not attract bikers to the MFR?

3

b. What kind of mountain biking experience appeals to bikers who go to the MFR? c. How can it improve the protection and conservation practices in the MFR? 3. What is the capability of the MFR‟s management system to handle mountain biking? a. What are the current policies and rules in the management of the MFR, that cover ecotourism and mountain biking? b. Is mountain biking being given any attention by MFR management? That the MFR management is willing to work with bikers in the future for mutual beneficiation? d. Are there any programs initiated by the MFR management to increase awareness of mountain biking in the MFR (i.e. contests, marketing, etc.)?

Objectives of the Study The study was conducted to create a profile of the mountain bikers that travel to the MFR, know their interest in the MFR according to the mountain biker‟s point of view and to assess the level of compatibility of the MFR and mountain biking. The specific objectives were as follows: 1. to characterize the mountain bikers, their socio-economic standing, preferences and motivation, and their social networks; 2. to identify the programs and initiatives of the Mount Makiling Forest

Reserve‟s management system that supports or hinder mountain biking, and

4

3. to recommend management strategies and actions to provide bundled services in support of ecotourism that incorporates mountain biking.

Scope and Limitations The study focused on the mountain biking activity in the MFR and the attendant management system applied by the Makiling Center for Mountain Ecosystems (MCME) to deal with mountain biking. The qualitative nature of data gathering by means of survey and other primary data collection may be subject to the resource person‟s availability and reliability. It may be biased, and it can affect the reliability and accuracy of the data. Hence, it is proposed that more diverse group of resource people will be tapped for the surveys and key informant interviews. Ideally, a sample needs a sampling frame or a listing for it to be statistically significant. However, a true listing of all mountain bikers is not feasible due to logistical reasons and mountain bike organizations, though having membership; do not account for non members. Therefore, this study uses a non-probability sample and can only use descriptive statistics. A true listing of all mountain bike owners and riders is needed.

Significance of the Study Despite the presence of mountain biking in the Philippines, studies about the activity itself and the people who ride are non-existent. Most studies about mountain biking has
5

been done in developed countries, where mountain biking is more widely practiced and common. The mountain biker in the Philippines is still very much an unknown entity. There have been no studies on the individuals who ride mountain bikes, from the people who ride them for fun, for work; or for competition and sport; in recent years or even at any given time in the Philippines. Park managers, especially those who do not offer mountain biking trails, are clueless on what to do when these tourists arrive. Managers should have a database on which to plan a course of action to accommodate mountain biking, be it for trail access and/or access fees. In the case of the MFR, the MCME has no study and no data on the mountain biking population that enters the MFR. The lack of information on this particular group of tourists may slow down any move by the MCME to improve its existing ecotourism facilities and to plan actions built to the specifications of mountain bikers. Ecotourism is mentioned in Chapter 11 of the Makiling Conservation and Development Master Plan (EO 349), in which one of the goals is to establish and provide quality outdoor recreation opportunities and tourism facilities with the requisite services to the public. Hiking and camping are already well known, and recently bird watching. The EO 349 listed ecotourism and outdoor recreation as one of the major management objectives. In terms of natural resource conservation, ecotourism is a very useful tool to increase awareness and appreciation towards nature, as well as other benefits. Developing countries in particular have looked to tourism to help increase national foreign exchange earnings, GDP and employment rates, and to improve socioeconomic conditions in peripheral regions (Weaver, 1998, as cited by Stone, 2002). Ecotourism is activity-based, and one of these activities is mountain biking. Mountain bikers ride because they believe
6

it is fun, healthy, it provides a physical challenge and it is a social activity (Goeft and Alder, 2001). The last point is important because social networks can help in the dissemination of information related to conservation. The goal here is twofold: one is to provide recreation and physical activities for people, and the other is to educate and to make more people appreciate nature. Mountain biking as an ecotourism activity can also be used to help in community development, with spinoff support services that can provide employment and business opportunities. In the MFR, stores near the Mudsprings provide food and refreshment not just to hikers but to mountain bikers as well. However, these stores are the only auxiliary services found inside the MFR. Mountain biking provides a different challenge to the tourism industry, where the biggest and most profitable form is beach-based tourism, but ecotourism and other nature-based adventure tourism ventures are gathering momentum and mainstream attention. This study attempts to link up the mountain biker, the mountain biking activity, and the area together with its management system to find how these information will fit in the grand scheme of ecotourism inside the Mount Makiling Forest Reserve and how these information will be coherent with the existing situation in the MFR and will give tourism researchers, managers, and conservationists the right product mix, the right management plan, and especially, the best conservation strategies that can accommodate mountain bikes and still achieve the overall objective in managing the MFR. For the stakeholders, understanding and harmonizing the different traits and parameters is critical if a mountain bike specific product will be introduced in the MFR in the future. For the mountain bikers, awareness that they are part of the grand scheme of nature conservation

7

will encourage them and their existing social networks to promote the cause of nature conservation.

8

REVIEW OF LITERATURE This chapter will explain about mountain biking, ecotourism, and the MFR. The history, kinds, and peculiarities about mountain biking will be looked upon in this chapter. Ecotourism and its peculiarities and potentials will be reviewed, as well as the current state of the Mount Makiling Forest Reserve. Mountain Biking A mountain bike or mountain bicycle (abbreviated MTB or ATB (all-terrain

bicycle)) is a bicycle created for off-road cycling. This activity includes traversing of rocks and washouts, and steep declines, on dirt trails, logging roads, and other unpaved environments—activities usually called mountain biking. The bicycles have evolved rapidly through the introduction of different technologies, and have therefore branched out into several different specialist disciplines. History of mountain biking The history of the mountain bike and mountain biking is not as long as other forms of outdoor recreation, but the origins are earlier than most think. Off-road bicycles have been referenced a lot of times in the 20th century, it was a derivative of the road cycling and obstacle event called cyclo-cross in France, and the Roughstuff Fellowship in the United Kingdom in 1955 (Griffith, 2010). In Oregon, one Chemeketan club member, D. Gwynn, built a rough terrain trail bicycle in 1966. He named it a "mountain bicycle" for its intended place of use. This may be the first use of that name (The Chemetekan, 1966).

9

In the United States in the 1970s, there are several groups of riders who claim that they contributed to the sport and hobby known as mountain biking today. In Crested Butte, Colorado and Cupertino, California, bicyclists got old cruiser bicycles of 19301940s vintage, fitted fatter tires and bigger, improved brakes. To add, gearing and motocross-like handlebars were fitted. These bikes were called “Klunkers”, as the term “mountain biking” or even the term “mountain bike” was not invented yet (Amici Design, 1999). Early forms of racing these klunkers would be downhill, as the riders would ride down fire roads and use their hub brakes so much they had to repack the bearings after every run, giving these races the name “Repack Races.” (Berto, 1998) In 1978 however, the first bicycle purpose-built for mountain biking was created by Joe Breeze. The first mountain bikes were basically road bicycle frames (with heavier tubing and different geometry) with a wider frame and fork to allow for a wider tire. The handlebars were also different in that they were a straight, transverse-mounted handlebar, rather than the dropped, curved handlebars that are typically installed on road racing bicycles. Also, some of the parts on early production mountain bicycles were taken from the BMX bicycle (Crane and Kelly, 1988). The trend continued on until the 1990s, when the popularity and technology of mountain bikes exploded. Disc brakes, suspension systems, and new frame construction has pushed mountain biking to something that is today. Classification of mountain bikes and mountain biking Classification of mountain bikes are dependent on the suspension used, specifically suspension travel. There are hard tails, mountain bikes with front suspension

10

but a rigid frame, Full-suspension, where both front and rear suspension are present, and rigid, which is a mountain bike but with no front and rear suspension. A rarer kind is the soft tail, wherein their frame allows for some flex to act as suspension. In classifying mountain bikes and mountain biking, the amount of suspension travel and the preferences of the rider are the references to look into.

Cross Country and All-Mountain The most common form of mountain biking is Cross Country (XC). These bikes have the lightest weights and lowest suspension travel (80-120mm) of all mountain bikes. However, with the improvements in bicycle technology more sophisticated bikes offer more travel yet has lower weight relative to XC bikes (McCormack and Lopes, 2010). In XC racing, lightness is paramount, and bike companies are already offering frames and parts made of carbon fiber instead of the usual aluminum or steel. Trail bikes, being slightly beefier and heavier than XC bikes, are the next step in the ladder. They offer moderate travel (110-150mm) and have frame geometries that can handle downhill terrain slightly better than XC bikes (McCormack and Lopes, 2010). However this is being blurred by the appearance of the All-Mountain (AM) category. These bikes are capable of handling downhill trail sections a lot better except the most dedicated downhill bike, but have the climbing ability of an XC bike. They offer the most variations of suspension travel (120-170+mm) and most of these bikes suspension travel can be adjusted by adjusting the existing components found on the bike and its suspension characteristics (McCormack and Lopes, 2010).

11

Downhill and Free-ride Downhill (DH) and Free-ride (FR) bikes represent the extreme spectrum of mountain biking. Both bikes offer extremely robust frame construction, advanced and robust suspension systems and travel (170mm- above 200mm), and specific downhill oriented geometry to handle the most technical of terrain in high speed (McCormack and Lopes, 2010). Free-ride bikes however, are more diverse as it can include dirt jumping hardtails to short travel frames with DH frame construction and geometry, to full Downhill racing frames with slightly shorter travel and modified geometry for better maneuverability in tight trails (McCormack and Lopes, 2010). In terms of difficulty, Downhill and Free-ride are the most difficult and advanced riding disciplines because of the terrain features used and technical features like large jumps and drops. In downhill racing, speed is also the most important factor: a race against the clock from the top to the bottom.

Peculiarities of mountain biking Mountain bike riding, by its very nature, is an activity mainly pursued on trails and similar features like old logging roads or fire tracks (Goeft and Alder, 2001). Mountain biking is regarded as a form of adventure recreation (Priest and In developed countries, mountain biking is one of the fastest growing outdoor recreation activities, with 25 million Americans owning one in 1992, andith an estimated 2.5-3 million trail users in 1994 (Morey, et al, 2002). The range of riding opportunities in such settings is one of the main reasons such natural settings have experienced such biking growth (Cessford, 2002). However,
12

creating trails solely for mountain bikes is a very expensive affair, so managers opt for the incorporation of bike use through shared use tracks (Cessford, 2002). This setup causes conflicts among the trail users because of the concept of recreation conflict (Goeft and Alder, 2001). The theory of “goal interference” is the foundation of this theory (Geoft and Alder, 2001). The theory proposes that conflict arises when the presence and/or behavior of one group of users is incompatible with the social, psychological, or physical goals of another group (Goeft and Alder, 2001). User conflict, as a concept, is fairly well understood and demonstrably real (Sprung, 2004).

Most of these conflicts are centered on the perceived negative impacts of mountain bike riding, and it is peculiar that most people regard mountain biking as one of the worst, if not the worst offenders. In developed countries, lobbying from hikers and environmental groups have caused some land managers to ban trails to mountain bikes because of that perception, though studies have demonstrated that all forms of outdoor recreation cause impacts to the environment (Sprung, 2004).

Benefits of mountain biking

Like other forms of outdoor recreation, mountain biking can prove to be a wise investment for the communities in which they pass, as it can stimulate local economies by attracting fellow mountain bikers and other outdoor recreationists to an area. Opening trails and facilities attracts and revitalizes businesses, creates jobs, and increases public revenue. In the United States, many people prefer to visit places such as greenways and

13

trails that are safe, yet offer scenic recreation and transportation. Businesses that can thrive and succeed with a trail or trail network include: restaurants, convenience stores, bicycle shops, campgrounds and bed-and-breakfast establishments. Traveling and access fees also contribute to the economic gains of having mountain biking. The study of Loomis and Fix in 1998 showed the potential economic impacts of a mountain biking trip to a well-known place for mountain bike riding, Moab, Utah. In 1998, a mountain biker has an estimated per trip value of $197-$205. And with an average number of visitors totaling 158,681 people yearly (Loomis and Fix, 1998), the estimated annual impact is around $8,422,800- $8,770,300 (Loomis and Fix, 1998). Adjusted for 2010 inflation, the single biker‟s estimated per trip value would be $262.19$272.84, and the total annual economic impact would be $11,209,947-$11,672,436. In one year, the site; Moab, Utah‟s Slickrock Trail has produced a very good amount of income, considering that riding in temperate countries is more limited by the seasons. Bike trails and other related facilities improve the quality-of-life among individuals as these places are meant for outdoor recreation, as well as encouraging people to use non-polluting transportation alternatives when it comes to short trips. This change of mindset among people improves the local environment and a healthier population. In some cases, it can be a source of local pride among the community, as the case of popular resort towns such as Whistler, B.C. in Canada, as well as Los Baños, which is already well known for other tourism activities. People who live close to these trails also benefit the same way as tourists, and more people living in suburban and urban areas want to have these kinds of recreation facilities nearby.

14

The mountain biker Perceptions In developing a mountain bike-specific ecotourism product, the mountain biker has to be taken into account. Particularly important are biker‟s motivation and preferences when riding. Multi-use trails where hikers, bikers, and other users have to share the road can be a mistake for land managers, due to the concept of perceived crowding (Cessford, 1995). Mountain bikers tend to get a bad reputation for other trail users, and these perceptions remain. These perceptions are listed as the following: perceptions of environmental impacts, perceptions of safety hazards, and the perception that mountain biking is “inappropriate” (Cessford, 1995). For environmental impacts, this perception would come from several factors, such as tire tracks, which are distinctive, which may lead to a conclusion that mountain biking is causing the most damage without objectively looking at the other important processes taking place in the trail (Cessford, 1995). This can also be looked upon as “scapegoating”, where perceived conflicts were disproportionately attributed to particular groups (Cessford, 1995). When it came to the perception that mountain bikers are safety hazards: There were safety concerns about mountain bicycle use on trails, first would be cyclists going too fast for the conditions, cyclists not slowing down when going to blind corners, and mountain bikes move quietly and fast, surprising other trail users (Cessford, 1995). In a widely cited study in 1989 known as the “Los Padres Study”, the safety issues came from the habit of a few rogue bikers that go to the top of the trail and go downhill as fast as possible. Education (in the form of a brochure) and supplementary trail design dealt with the few rogue bikers, but out of the 1400 trail users surveyed, most of the mountain

15

bikers they saw were polite and not safety hazards (Cessford, 1995.). To add, familiarity with mountain bike riding and cumulative experience with off-road encounters with bikes can change the perceptions of non-riders (Cessford, 1995). The third perception is the complex claim that mountain biking is inappropriate, even wrong. The earlier two concerns mentioned may be in part reflections of an underlying feeling that mountain biking “should not be permitted in this area” (Cessford, 1995). This third main type of conflict perception is based upon assumptions by walkers and also managers that personal characteristics, motivations, behavior types, environmental attitudes, and activity styles of mountain bikers are fundamentally different from their own (Cessford, 1995). To add, conflicts arose when the presence and behavior of other users was perceived to be disruptive to the physical and social components of recreational experiences (Cessford, 1985). How conflicts arise between outdoor recreationists depend on their individual and/or group interpretation of the actions, motivations, preferences, and appearance of others. Simply put, the perceived conflict depends on how “different” others are perceived to be (Cessford, 1995).

Profile Visually, mountain biking appears to be very different, the difference mainly is in the use of bicycles and associated equipment (Cessford, 1995). The difference in equipment can or is the basis of the perceptions of difference between people of different activities, or perceptions of different experience levels and commitment within the same activity (Cessford, 1995).

16

1.1 Age

Though very generalized, mountain bikers are over represented by males and younger age groups more often than all but the most extreme walkers (Cessford, 1995). Although stereotypical, this descriptive difference has been associated with the “wild teenager” image of mountain biking in many comments and commentaries (Cessford, 1995). The average ages though would be around 30-38 years old, and with a wide range of ages, from 15 to 39 years of age (Green, 2003; Morey et al, 2002; Goeft and Alder, 2001). 1.2 Personal assessment of experience When it comes to riding experience, mountain bikers tend to categorize themselves as intermediate to advanced, and would claim that they are mountain bikers (Green,2003; Morey et al, 2002). An average cost for a mountain bike would be $831, and would be 2-5 years old (Morey et al, 2002).

1.3 Income and education In the market study by Donna Green in 2003, fifty percent of the riders she interviewed are earning more than $75,000 a year in their respective households, which makes them part of the upper middle class in America, which are mostly white collar professionals most of whom are highly educated, salaried professionals whose work is largely self-directed. Many have graduate degrees, with educational attainment serving as the main distinguishing feature of this class. Household incomes commonly exceed $100,000 (Thompson and Hickey, 2005). In the same study, most of the respondents own

17

multiple bikes. Canada, particularly the British Columbia region has similar numbers in the income and educational brackets, though the Canadians are much younger (18-34) when it comes to their American travelling counterparts whose majority of ages range from 45-54 (Tourism British Columbia, 2009).

1.2 Social networks

Social networks in the form of clubs are also noted, and the people who joined clubs tend to be more competitive and join more races compared to non club members (Goeft and Alder, 2001).

Preferences The various styles of mountain biking gives a very confusing picture for managers who would want to offer a mountain biking specific product, as these various styles would also have different preferences. The range of riding opportunities is one of the main reasons why natural settings have experienced such biking growth (Cessford, 2002). 2.1 Criteria for site selection People do travel to certain areas just to ride their mountain bikes, a significant trend in developed countries (Green, 2003). When it comes to trends of choosing a mountain biking destination, word of mouth and existing reputation deliver the strongest recommendations, and travel agencies are the least likely to help (Green, 2003).

18

2.2 Trail feature preferences As mentioned earlier, mountain bikers prefer the variety of terrain and difficulty found in a destination, with downhills, curves of various radii, slopes, jumps, rocks, roots and some climbing sections (Green, 2003; Goeft and Alder, 2001). The number of trails are also important, as well as scenery (Green, 2003).The reputation of the area for riding, as well as the mountain biking community scored also quite high (Green, 2003).

Mountain bike riders would also prefer to see wildlife, and avoid mechanized transportation (Goeft and Alder, 2001). Muddy, sandy, and paved surfaces are undesirable to mountain bikers, as well as overhanging branches (Goeft and Alder, 2001). Mountain bikers also tend to perceive that there are not enough mountain bike trails and that mountain bikes should be allowed in all trails. Single track trails were desirable for recreational riders who race, and they also consider plantation forests to be desirable settings. Plantations are also desirable for purely recreational riders but don‟t prefer single track trails compared to others Recreational riders are more open to where they ride, be it on plantation forests or natural settings, and stay away from artificial, plantation forests (Goeft and Alder, 2001).

2.3 Riding style preferences Preferences also vary with age. Younger riders aged twenty four and below preferred downhill racing and freeride, while older riders aged fifty-five and above liked riding on cycle paths and touring, and the middle range of 25-54 prefer cross country and all-mountain riding (City of Kelowna et al., 2007).

19

Mountain biking in the Asia-Pacific Region Asia‟s biking routes are constantly redefining itself to cash in on the demands of visitors. Here you will find not only the highest mountains in the world, but isolated tribal regions, lush jungles, and dense forests. The terrain in Asia is very diverse and could be tapped for mountain biking, not to mention major bicycle and bicycle component manufacturers like Shimano and Giant Bicycles are founded and based in Asia, the former in Japan and the latter in Taiwan. Most European and American bicycle manufacturers have factories based in Taiwan or China or in Shimano‟s case, Malaysia, to outsource their manufacturing duties. Unfortunately, there has been no clear cut studies about mountain biking or the mountain bikers in the Asia-Pacific Region aside from Australia and New Zealand. Though mountain bike tours based in Asia have arrived and are now offering tours in various places like Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, and many other countries.

The Mount Makiling Forest Reserve Located in Luzon and is 65 kilometers south of Manila, Mt. Makiling is an inactive volcano 1,090m in height (Figure 1). Regarded as one, if not the most well known biological area in the Philippines (Lapitan, et al., 2010) Mt. Makiling is well known as the home of the University of the Philippines Los Baños as well as other important offices and facilities like the ASEAN Biodiversity Centre headquarters, a

20

Figure 1. Location map of the MFR (photo from MCME) geo-thermal energy resource, a watershed and water source of industrial, agricultural, and residential sectors of the CALABARZON region and as a major ecotourism site (Lapitan, et al., 2010). The mountain also serves as an important catchment area for SE Asia‟s largest freshwater lake, Laguna de Bay (Lapitan, et al., 2010). Landscape The Mount Makiling Forest Reserve has a total land area of 4,244.97 hectares, and is delineated by law to have a buffer zone (1,652 ha) to protect the existing forest reserve inside (Lapitan, et al., 2010). The buffer zone is located from the areas with 0% slope to the maximum of 18% slope. Any higher than 18% makes it part of the forest reserve itself. Prior to the 1998 declaration of the buffer zone however, fringe areas of the

21

reserve have already been encroached either by farming or real estate (Lapitan, et al., 2010). Generally, the MFR is rugged and mountainous. Being a watershed, the MFR is further divided into 4 subwatersheds, each of them located in a municipality inside the MFR‟s borders. These are the Molawin-Dampalit, Tigbi, Greater Sipit, and Cambantoc subwatersheds. All of these subwatersheds provide water for many purposes among the populace of the 4 municipalities in 2 provinces where the MFR is located: Calamba, Los Baños and Bay in Laguna, and Santo Tomas in Batangas. Climate Mt. Makiling has 2 main seasons: A rainy season starting from May to December and dry months are from January to April. Wind patterns are dry, and it causes the lower elevation areas to be dry but the higher elevation areas wet due to continuous light density precipitation and vapor condensation (Lapitan, et al. 2010). During the wet months, the southwest monsoon will provide most of the rainfall in the area due to its circulation of cyclonic winds (Lapitan, Fernando et al., 2010). Temperatures in 2006 show a mean temperature range from 26.2 to 28.8 degree Celsius. April is the warmest month, with a maximum of 36.1 and low of 22.2, while January was the coldest with the lowest at 20.4 and a high of 31.8 degree Celsius (Lapitan,et al., 2010). measurements were taken in the National AgroMet Station in UPLB. The

22

Rainfall In 2006, the annual rainfall recorded by the National Agro-Met Station in UPLB was 2,299mm. According to the CDM-SSC-PDD study of 2007, the reading for 2006 was lower than the average taken from 3 areas in UPLB which was 2,397mm in the 1990s (Lapitan, et al., 2010). The same study also mentioned that the MFR got a total of 188 rainy days in 2006, with the heaviest rains falling in September, and the most number of rainy days a month is July, with 22 days of rain. Extreme events have yet to happen in these areas, according to the study. Soils and Geology Mt. Makiling‟s soil belongs to 4 series: Lipa, Macolod, Gulugod, and Makiling. Macolod is the dominant series in the area, which is a clay-type of soil (Lapitan, et al., 2010). Legal Framework Under Republic Act 6967 of 1990, the MFR is under the control, jurisdiction and administration of the University of the Philippines Los Baños (Lapitan, et al. 2010). The law stipulates that the reserve‟s primary role is to be a training laboratory for scientific and technical knowledge on the preservation, conservation, and development of the forest and natural forest therein, including the flora and fauna (Lapitan, et al. 2010). Another source of information is the MFR and Laguna de Bay Master Plan created in 1996 through EO 349 of then President Fidel V. Ramos (Lapitan, et al. 2010).

23

Another legitimizing action is Presidential Decree No. 705, or the Philippine Forestry Reform Code. This law governs forest management in the country, while Proclamation 1257 of 1998 sets the guidelines on the activities inside a buffer zone to ensure the integrity of these areas from further damage and encroachment. Biodiversity Flora There is an amazing amount of flora present in the MFR. Both endemic and foreign, it has been estimated that 2,038 vascular plant species are present in the MFR (Lapitan, et al. 2010). Dipterocarp species are found here, even IUCN-listed as critically endangered ones like Parashorea malaanonan, and Myristica philippinensis, and vulnerable species (Diospyros blancoi, Diplodiscus paniculatus, Artocarpus rubiovenius, Celtis luzonica, Macaranga bicolor, to name a few). Undergrowth species found in all of the MFR include Arenga pinnata, Donax cannaeformis, Neotrewis cumgii, Selaginella plana, and Strombosia philippinensis. The Rafflesia manillana, thought to be extinct in the MFR was found again in 2002 (Lapitan, Fernando et al., 2010)), but it is only found in Molawin-Dampalit and the Greater Sipit subwatersheds only. Fauna The MFR also boasts of impressive numbers of fauna. Prior to 2004 it was reported to be home to more than 45 species of mammals, 181 species of birds, 65 species of reptiles, and 22 species of amphibians, together with at least 7,000 species of insects (Lapitan, et al. 2010). A survey done in 2004 in just the Greater Sipit Watershed yielded a surprising amount of endemism: 62 species in this subwatershed are known to
24

be only endemic to the Philippines, with 14 only endemic to the Greater Luzon faunal region (Lapitan, et al., 2010). Some species found are considered rare or threatened: the Philippine Eagle-Owl (Bubo philippinensis), the Philippine Warty Pig (Sus philippnensis) is considered endangered, and the Philippine Pygmy Fruit Bat (Haplonycteris fischeri) (Lapitan, et al., 2010).

Human The MFR has its own share of people living inside its borders, and it has been legitimized by the municipality of Los Baños by giving it official status as a barangay. Ecotourism is also seen as a tool for development, and an activity such as mountain biking can give these people different means of income to supplement whatever they have by means of services to mountain bikers and the maintenance, construction and improvement of trails. There is a caveat however; especially in the case of the MFR. Protected areas (like the MFR) are important destinations for a growing tourism like ecotourism given that it uses diverse nature, landscapes and biodiversity as major attractions. In these protected areas, there might be a potential threat to, and an opportunity for conservation of natural resources.

Organization and Personnel The Makiling Center for Mountain Ecosystems (MCME) is the specific unit of UPLB to handle the responsibility of managing the MFR. It was designated in the meeting of the Board of Regents in 1998 (Lapitan, Fernando et al. 2010). Aside from management of the MFR, the MCME aims to conduct research and demonstration
25

programs on mountain ecosystems development, and to develop and execute plans of sustainable management of the MFR. MCME is also partially responsible to generate resources and income for its continued operations and management of the MFR. The 4 subwatershed divisions are MCME‟s doing. They have 50 people working in the institution (Appendix V).

Ecotourism in the MFR Ecotourism is present in the MFR. Activities like hiking and camping are the most popular activities, and recently bird watching has become popular (Cereno, 2010). Peak season comes during summer months, as many people climb and trek during the Holy Week gatherings. Another attraction is the Makiling Botanical Garden (MBG), a well known picnic spot and park. With new and existing facilities built and repaired, the MBG is a favorite nature viewing spot away from Manila, and a favorite destination of educational trips. The MFR also has some events that encourage people to come. The Makiling Challenge, a trail running challenge, and the Makiling Quest, a long distance adventure race has been a fixture among nature enthusiasts. During the Holy Week period, an initiative called Make It Makiling is done to encourage hikers to keep the MFR‟s hiking trails clean and safe.

Mountain biking in the MFR Mountain biking in the MFR is present the whole year, as the Mariang Makiling Trail is multi-use. The only time that it is closed for mountain bikes during the Make It Makiling event in Holy Week to prevent unwanted accidents between hikers and bikers,

26

and when typhoons come. XC up to DH riders go to the Mariang Makiling Trail to ride, so varying speeds and skills of mountain bikers are seen in the trail. With the variety of bikers coming up and down at various speeds, it is imperative that conflict be managed in the form of trails that branch off the multi-use Mariang Makiling Trail. An example of government intervention to develop a trail network for mountain bikes is the work done by the Hong Kong SAR Government to develop trails for the Tai Lam Country Park. Mountain bicycling in Country Parks is controlled under Regulation 4 of the Country Parks and Special Areas Regulations (sub. Leg. A of Country Park Ordinance, Cap 208 of Hong Kong Laws), any person interested in cycling on the designated mountain bike trails in country parks can apply for a permit from the Country and Marine Parks Authority. No permit fee is required. At present, there are about 7,000 valid permits. With mountain biking getting more and more attention in Hong Kong, the SAR government decided to assess the existing trails at the Tai Lam Park with the help of the International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA).

27

METHODOLOGY

Descriptive research was used for this study, using primary and secondary data. The primary data comes mainly from a mountain biker survey and key informant interviews, and the secondary data coming from records of the MCME‟s Botanic Gardens, Parks, and Ecotourism division. For comparison, foreign based mountain biking studies coming from journals were also used. A simple survey form is used because it can provide direct answers to the questions relevant to the objectives. Data collection was carried out from September 2012 to February 2013. The end of the wet season is when mountain biking starts to pick up again, and mountain biking events like races and fun rides come up to take advantage of cooler weather. The most number of respondents came in the months of September and October 2012. Prior to

this, permission from the Makiling Center for Mountain Ecosystems (MCME) was obtained to check on existing primary data, particularly the visitors‟ log of the MFR from 2012. Mountain biker Survey The information taken from the different kinds of mountain bikers in the area was the focal point of this study. The socio-economic profile and opinions of the mountain bikers, the future beneficiaries of this study were considered. Their opinions on trail design, trail facilities and amenities, ecotourism, and willingness-to-pay for these kinds of facilities were accounted for. No restrictions and criteria to respondents were implemented, as long as the person has a mountain bike. Riding style was also not a

28

restriction, as mountain bikers tend to follow different riding styles and disciplines, each of them requires a certain mountain bike for the task. To ensure better participation of the mountain biker population, grouping them by riding style was not done. Survey description Survey research is a commonly used method for collecting information about a population of interest and to describe its characteristics. It is mainly used for its versatility, efficiency and ability to generalize data. For this study, the group of people who is the focus of this study are the mountain bikers. These people were found in social areas like rest stations and eateries like in Baker Hall in UPLB, bike shops like Green Planet Bikeshop in San Pablo and Los Baños, Laguna; and Ulyby Bikeshop in Manila. To characterize mountain bikers and mountain biking; a questionnaire with open ended questions was given to the respondents (Appendix Table I). Survey forms were also distributed through mountain bike related events like the Nuvali Dirt Weekend in Santa Rosa, and the Spyder Downhill Cup in Binangonan, Rizal. Social media sites like Facebook and mountain biking forums like Philippine Mountain Bike Forum (www.philmofo.org) was also used to distribute survey forms and get feedback. The mountain biker survey was designed to assess and look at the different points and views and opinions of the different mountain bikers that travel within and inside the MFR. Their choices and preferences were considered, together with: possible future trail design, features, and access (Goeft and Alder, 2001) to the MFR. It also assessed the awareness and possible cooperation of the mountain biker to possible current, and future

29

MTB-centered activities like trail building and maintenance, and MTB-related nature advocacy. First, the survey tackled the demographics of the different mountain bikers, such as their name, age, gender, and address. Their cycling experience, bicycle type; and number of bikes can tell a lot on how a mountain biker takes this activity seriously. Their experiences in mountain biking competitions were looked upon, as well as their favored events (Morey et al.,2000; Goeft and Alder, 2001). The estimated cost of their bicycle/s and their average yearly income were considered for this information can tell on how much mountain bikers want to pay for an additional mountain bike specific facilities and amenities in the MFR. Mountain biking can be prohibitively expensive, especially with the amount of sophistication of modern and contemporary mountain bikes, and people who can pay for such bicycles can also in theory pay for such facilities. Also a direct question on the mountain biker‟s willingness to pay by the means of a price range was used. Another question set tackled the awareness of the mountain biker on his/her known riding areas. A mountain biker will have knowledge of trail networks that he/she can use, not just travelling by bicycle to a certain location by road (disparagingly called “XC-road” by some). Is the MFR a well known enough place for mountain bikers? And if mountain bikers are aware of the MFR as a mountain bike destination, do they think the existing Mariang Makiling trail is enough for them, or do the mountain bikers want something for themselves? Opinions on what mountain bikers want in a trail were also considered.

30

A trait of mountain bikers is a presence of a social network; many would band together to form a club or organization. A question set delved into the social aspect of the mountain biker. The name of the MTB groups and organizations was listed, together with the activities done by the said groups and organizations, if there are any. The survey also asks these groups opinions on assisting the MFR in creating and maintaining a mountain bike trail inside the MFR, and how these groups will promote MTB riding in the MFR. Key Informant Interview People who work inside the MFR have the best sources of information on how the situations unfold in the field. Therefore key informant interviews were done to know the workings of the MFR and how can a future manager worked on this to cater to mountain biking inside the MFR and provide these services to their target audience. Interviews with the Botanic Gardens, Parks, and Ecotourism Division head, For. Leilani A. Castillo and For. Roberto P. Cereno were conducted. Their opinions and experiences with mountain biking were noted. For. Castillo also has access to the logbook of entries to the Mariang Makiling Trail, and the entries of mountain bikers in the logbook are also duly noted. Secondary data collection Together with the mountain biker survey, the records of the MCME especially mountain bike related visits was checked and analyzed. The time frame was from January 2012 until December 2012. The number of mountain biking visits provided information on existing traffic of mountain bikers to the MFR and their potential earning to the MCME and the MFR. There was a 100% increase in the access fee of the trail, from 5 pesos to 10 pesos starting in 2011, and its effect on mountain biker visits was looked into.
31

Conceptual framework Based on the general objective to create a profile of the mountain bikers that travel to the MFR, the study will look into the side of the mountain biker, and the side of the Mount Makiling Forest Reserve. The mountain biker‟s characteristics like age, income, and the various preferences will be examined together with the characteristics present in the MFR which is divided into two: physical features, which comprise of the trail, the terrain, the access to the trail, the trail users and their perceptions; and the administrative features, which comprise of existing policies, amenities, organization and management, and partnerships. These two sides will be analyzed to create a working definition and profile of the mountain biker in the MFR, as well as to propose new policies, strategies and management schemes to accommodate mountain bikers in the overall scheme of ecotourism and outdoor recreation in the MFR (Figure 2).

32

THE MOUNTAIN BIKERS Age Income Location relative to MFR Riding experience Preferred trail features Motivation for riding MTB design Current trends in riding Social networks THE MOUNT MAKILING FOREST RESERVE

PHYSICAL FEATURES Trail difficulty and features Trail access Traffic flow inside trails Competing trail users

METHODS Mountain biker survey Statistical analysis Key informant interviews Purposive Sampling

Perceptions on other trail users

ADMINISTRATIVE FEATURES

Existing policies Amenities Links with private sector Mountain bike related events Conflicts among trail users

RESULTS Creation of a mountain biker profile for MFR Assessment of MFR compatibility with mountain biking Give suggestions and new courses of action to MFR to accommodate mountain biking

Feedback

Feedback

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework of the Study

33

Statistical analysis As mentioned earlier, the lack of a true sampling frame or the total number of active mountain bikers makes this study use non-probability sampling, specifically judgmental or purposive sampling. Purposive sampling is used when the researcher chooses the people to be sampled in the study. This is primarily used when there are a limited number of people that have expertise in the area being researched, and is synonymous with qualitative research (Palys, undated). Since this study focuses on mountain bikers, purposive sampling is used. This study used criterion sampling, where individuals and cases are selected if a criterion matches the said individual or case (Palys, undated). In this study focused on mountain bikes, the respondents are grouped into one specific criterion; which is the use and ownership of a mountain bike. The criterion is enough for a mountain biker to be involved in the study. Purposive sampling however

is limited to descriptive statistics, so the mean, median, percentage, frequencies and distribution of percentages are described, as well as contingency tables to describe the relationships between variables. The computer program IBM SPSS Statistics is used to calculate the data found from the mountain biker survey. In order to determine the right sample size the formula presented below was used. n= zxpxq d2

where : d is the margin of error from unknown true value p and q are proportions both set at 0.5

34

n = (1.96)2 x 0.5 x 0.5 (.05)2 n = 384.16

z= 1.96 (obtained from the z Table)

In this type of study, what is critical is the sampling size. Hence, the formula presented above to compute for the sampling size was used. The answers to the questions in the survey were converted into percentages. The same procedure was followed by Barry G. Tiedeman in Central Michigan University, where they analyzed the characteristics of the typical mountain bike enthusiast, and to measure the involvement of the mountain biker using descriptive analysis. Another study done by Nadia Kaliszewski in 2010, also used survey forms to analyze the economic impacts of mountain bike trails in Jackson Hole, Wyoming in the USA. The relevant sample population was composed of bikers who own mountain bikes or at least have some interest in riding mountain bikes.

35

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

General Personal Profile of Mountain Bikers Based on the survey conducted, the total respondents were 389. The most number of respondents came from the province of Laguna, the most number coming from the municipalities of Pakil (101), Kalayaan (55), and Los Baños (51) (Table 1). The next highest number of respondents came from Metro Manila (36), and then Rizal Province (23) . The close proximity of the MFR made finding respondents from Laguna easier than other locations. Mountain bikers tend to live relatively close to actual mountains or ridges, or have places of higher elevation, especially the respondents from Rizal Province. Pakil, Kalayaan, and Los Baños in Laguna, the three biggest sources of respondents share the same trend. Mountain bike riders who live in Metro Manila tend to travel away to places like Rizal and Laguna to get their mountain bike fix. Age groups of mountain bikers are also defined through the survey. The biggest numbers come from riders coming from the age group of 31-40 years of age at 31.54%, then the 21-30 age group at 23.18%, and the 41-50 group 20.49% (Table 2). It paints the picture of a mountain biker as a young adult or a relatively young adult activity. Cessford (1995) in New Zealand, and Tourism Tasmania (2008), show these characteristics in age, majority of active mountain bikers are in ages from mid 20‟s to mid 40‟s, with a high percentage in the mid 30‟s age group (Tourism Tasmania, 2008). In New Zealand, the most numerous are found in the under -20 until the 30-39 age group (Cessford, 1995). The same trend showed up in another study by Tiedeman (2002) of the Central Michigan University, where 69% of the respondents are from the 20-29 and the 30-39 age groups.
36

Table 1. Municipalities of respondents MUNICIPALITY OF RESPONDENTS LAGUNA Alaminos Bay Biñan Cabuyao Calamba Calauan Famy Kalayaan Mabitac Magdalena Los Baños Pakil Pangil Paete San Pablo San Pedro Santa Cruz Santa Rosa Siniloan Total RIZAL Antipolo Binangonan Cainta Taytay Total METRO MANILA Parañaque Taguig Pasig Quezon City Las Piñas Makati Marikina Manila Total BATANGAS Batangas City Tanauan Total FREQUENCY %

6 7 2 5 11 3 2 55 1 2 54 101 3 6 8 1 1 3 25 296 5 6 3 9 23 1 1 2 8 2 6 3 13 36 2 7 9
37

1.54 1.80 0.51 1.29 2.82 0.77 0.51 14.13 0.25 0.51 13.88 26.0 0.77 1.54 2.05 0.25 0.25 0.77 6.42

1.29 1.54 0.77 2.31

0.25 0.25 0.51 2.05 0.51 1.54 0.77 3.34

0.51 1.80

Table 1. Continued. PROVINCE COMPOSTELA VALLEY BULACAN ILOILO ZAMBALES PAMPANGA DARAGA, ALBAY CAMARINES SUR Naga City Pili Total PANGASINAN NUEVA ECIJA ILOCOS NORTE QUEZON Lucena City Tiaong Tayabas Pagbilao Total TOTAL FREQUENCY 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 5 4 1 1 1 7 389 % 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.51 0.51 0.25 0.25 0.51 1.29 1.02 0.25 0.25 0.25 100.00

Table 2. Age profile of mountain bikers AGE GROUP 12-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 Total FREQUENCY 23 86 117 76 55 12 2 371 % 6.20 23.18 31.54 20.49 14.82 3.23 0.54 100.00

In British Columbia, a hotbed for mountain biking and mountain bikers, American and Canadian travelers who go to British Columbia to ride mountain bikes are mostly people who are 18-34 (Tourism British Columbia, 2009).

38

Mountain biking is totally dominated by male riders (Table 3), with 91.85% of the respondents are male, with only 8.15% of the respondents in the sample size female. Mountain biking generally tends to have male dominated populations (City of Kelowna,

Table 3. Gender classification and civil status of mountain bikers GENDER Male Female Total CIVIL STATUS Single Married Total FREQUENCY 248 22 270 FREQUENCY 115 219 337 % 91.85 8.15 100.00 % 34.43 65.57 100.00

2007). Males thoroughly dominate the sport (Tiedeman, 2002) with his population set getting an 88% representation rate among males. Males also dominate when the motivation to travel and have a vacation is related to cycling; however females are more willing participants in a cycling-based vacation (Tourism British Columbia, 2009). In Australia, women are much closer to men when it comes to mainstream cycle tourism, but not for mountain bikes (Tourism Tasmania, 2008). The study also mentioned that though the majority still consists of men, there will be a considerable gender shift in the future years, citing the increase of female participation in the US by 33.9% starting in 2002 (Tourism Tasmania, 2008). It will be interesting to note if the Philippines will follow the trend as shown in foreign countries. Having a family is a noticeable trait among mountain bikers in the study (Table 3), with 65.57% of the respondents having a family of their own, compared to 34.43% of mountain biker respondents who are single. There are many cases when one family

39

member will influence another member to take up mountain biking, if not the whole family. In the US, particularly in the state of Michigan, the majority of these mountain bikers live in a household of two to four people (Tiedeman, 2002). In the study, the sample showed a higher level of educational attainment, with 54.24% of the respondents having college or tertiary education, and 37.28% have secondary education (Table 4). Having formal education is a trait shared by a lot of

mountain bikers, especially tertiary or at least secondary level education (Cessford, 1995) (Tourism Tasmania, 2008) (Tourism British Columbia, 2009) (Tiedeman, 2002).

Table 4. Highest Educational Attainment of mountain bikers EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Elementary High School College Post Graduate Total FREQUENCY 9 110 160 16 295 % 3.05 37.28 54.24 5.43 100.00

A high quality mountain bike is expensive, and a good sized income is necessary to progress in the activity. But nowadays, a mountain bike of good quality is more affordable to at least the professional working class and blue collar workers, hence the proliferation of riders in the sample earning in the Php. 100,000-200,000 range, which is 59.05% of the sample (Table 5).

40

Figure 3. Frequency of single respondents and their age bracket together with their educational attainment. In Figure 3, most mountain bikers with single status are college graduates and belonging to the 21-30 year old age bracket (35). The same trend is shown in age brackets 31-40 (17), 41-50 (4), and 51-60 (3).

The Chi-square test (Table 5) showed that there is strong evidence to support a relationship between age, civil status, and educational attainment, as shown by the Pearson Chi-square values of 15.377 and 41.437 for single and married respondents respectively.

41

Table 5. Chi-square test for civil status, age range, and educational attainment.
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2civil status Single Married Pearson Chi-Square Pearson Chi-Square Value 15.377 41.437
a b

df 12 18

sided) .221 .001

a. 14 cells (70.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .04. b. 19 cells (67.9%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .04.

In Figure 4, college graduates are still the most numerous among the married mountain bikers (105). Married mountain bikers with a college degree mostly belong to the 31-40 years old (42) and 41-50 year old (33) age bracket (Appendix Table VI).

in developed countries however, mountain bikers are characterized as high earners (Tourism Tasmania, 2008) (Tourism British Columbia, 2009) (Tiedeman, 2002) with a baseline of $60,000 and above. The Philippine baseline is much lower compared to these numbers.

42

Figure 4. Frequency of married respondents and their age bracket together with their educational attainment.

43

Figure 4. Frequency of male respondents from different provinces and their average income.

Male mountain bikers from Laguna have the highest frequency (86), and they earn less than 100,000 pesos to 200,000 annually (Figure 4). The same trend can be observed in the next range of salary (28).

44

Figure 5. Frequency of female respondents from different provinces and their average income. In Figure 5, female mountain bikers from Laguna showed the highest frequency (8), but all are earning in one income bracket. Female bikers from Metro Manila had one respondent earning around 401,000 to 600,000 pesos a year.

45

Table 6. Chi-square test for gender and income of respondents.
Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2gender of respondent Male Female Pearson Chi-Square Pearson Chi-Square Value 39.306 2.438
a

df 16 2

sided) .001 .296

b

a. 17 cells (68.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .29. b. 5 cells (83.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .08.

The chi-square test presented in Table 6 showed that there is strong evidence of a relationship between income and the gender of respondents with the value of 39.306 and 2.438 for males and females, respectively. Table 7. Estimated cost/s of mountain bikes of mountain bikers COST ESTIMATE OF MTB (In PHp) ≤10,000- 20,000 21,000-40,000 41,000-60,000 61,000-100,000 ≥100,000 Total FREQUENCY 137 64 30 39 44 314 % 43.63 20.38 9.55 12.43 14.01 100.00

As mentioned earlier, mountain bikes are quite expensive. But the trend is that there are more people riding mountain bikes, mainly because the cost of entry has become lower the past few years or so. The largest number of mountain bikers on the sample (43.63%) claims their estimated costs of their bikes close to ≤10,000 pesos to 20,000 pesos (Table 6). The most expensive mountain bikes (≥100,000 Php.) are not the

46

minority in the sample, with 14.01% of respondents claiming that their mountain bike is that expensive. The amount that the household can earn in one year is a reflection on what kind of mountain bike they can afford. Table 5 showed the majority of the respondents earn ≥100,000-200,000 a year, and the majority of the respondents in Table 6 claimed they can afford a mountain bike worth ≤10,000- 20,000Php. The next highest earning range (201,000-400,000 Php) is the second largest group. This group can afford a mountain bike in the 21,000-40,000 range. Mountain Bike Preferences and Experience The survey also looked at the preferences of the mountain bikers as well as their experience in using their mountain bikes. The variety among mountain bike riders; be it on their length of experience, bike design preferences, and motivation were noted. Table 7 shows that the majority of mountain bikers who took the survey are new to the sport, or has at most 5 years experience, with 69.37% of respondents belonging in that experience bracket. It could be that the relatively lower cost of entry to mountain biking, as well as more places to ride nowadays has encouraged people to try mountain biking, even at the lower income brackets. There are still long-time cycling enthusiasts who have spent many years riding, but this influx of new blood the past few of years is encouraging.

47

Table 8. Length of Mountain Bike riding experience in years by mountain bikers LENGTH OF MOUNTAIN BIKE EXPERIENCE (Years) <1- 5 6-10 11-15 16-20 >20 Total FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

179 51 16 2 10 258

69.37 19.77 6.21 0.78 3.88 100.00

Table 9 shows the favored mountain biking discipline by the respondents. The dominant discipline is cross country (XC) riding, with 67.24% of the respondents‟ share. Downhill mountain biking (DH) the next largest group, with 18.08% of the respondents saying that they prefer DH riding. However, the fairly new All-mountain category is not far behind with 12.63% of the total respondents. Mountain bikers also tend to choose multiple disciplines to improve their overall skill set. An XC rider will do some DH riding to improve his bike handling skills, while a DH rider will do XC to improve his/her endurance and strength. Age is also a factor in determining a mountain biker‟s preference in riding style and discipline. Bikers from Kalayaan, Pakil, and Pangil, Laguna prefer XC riding because most the respondents came from the aforementioned towns and they travel long distances using their bicycles. Younger groups tend to favor downhill and freeride mountain biking and older groups favor cross country riding (City of Kelowna, 2007) but both age groups enjoy allmountain.

48

Table 9. Preferred riding discipline by mountain bikers PREFERRED DISCIPLINE XC AM DH/FR Trials DJ Total FREQUENCY 197 37 53 4 2 293 PERCENTAGE 67.24 12.63 18.08 1.37 0.68

Rider skill is a highly subjective word and a point of contention among mountain bikers, especially during competition (Table 10). In the sample, the majority of riders listed themselves as a beginner (44.46%), which also matches the majority of the riders getting

Table 10. Mountain bike rider skill levels RIDER SKILL LEVEL Beginner Novice Advanced I don‟t know Total FREQUENCY 137 84 35 21 277 % 44.46 30.32 12.64 7.58 100.00

one to five years of riding experience (Table 8). Thirty percent of the sample size consider themselves as novices or intermediate skill riders, and around 13% consider themselves as advanced riders. Surprisingly there is a small group of riders (7.58%) who don‟t have any idea on what their skill level is on a mountain bike. The results in other countries show that mountain bikers rate themselves rather highly. Tiedeman (2002) used a scale of 1 to 10 to ask mountain bikers about their skill levels on a mountain bike and the mean amounted to 6.56, which is, according to Tiedeman is considered as a “high-

49

intermediate”. In Canada, skill levels tend to regress when age advances, as younger riders who prefer downhill and freeride tend to “mellow down” and enter cross country and at least all-mountain (City of Kelowna, 2007). Changes in rider age and gender did occur across different experience levels. In age, the proportion of riders aged 20-29 increased with experience. However, this may not reflect a stable pattern, as the activity is very new, and current rider numbers amongst the young may be maintained into the older age-groups with time. High interest in mountain biking by women was indicated by their high proportion amongst the "Beginners" (42%). But their numbers declined to only 7% amongst experts. This could represent reluctance amongst women to acknowledge their experience, a high activity "drop-out" rate, or a more recent interest in riding amongst women which with time will translate into greater numbers of more experienced women riders (Cessford, 1995) Mountain bike racing is an integral part of the sport (Table 11). However, as the sample shows, the majority (71.59%) does not participate in mountain bike racing or competitions. When mountain bikers join and compete in races (Table 12), it would be either in XC or in DH; 42.44% of mountain bikers prefer the former and 40.98% prefer the latter. Experience of racing is not extensive even in other countries. Less than 25%

Table 11. Racing experience of mountain bikers RACING EXPERIENCE With race experience No race experience Total FREQUENCY 100 252 352 % 28.41 71.59 100.00

50

had done more than 20 races. This may reflect the recent development of the activity. However, when compared to the number of days riding, these results suggest that racing is not currently a big part of mountain biking activity for most riders (Cessford, 1995).

Table 12. Preferred MTB racing events by mountain bikers FAVORED RACING/COMPETITION EVENT XC race DH 4X/ Dual Slalom Enduro DJ Total FREQUENCY %

87 84 17 15 2 205

42.44 40.98 8.29 7.32 0.97 100.00

Most of the respondents would ride at least 2-3 days a week (Table 13); where 38.81% of the sample would allot 2 days of riding, while 27.77% of the respondents in the sample would allot 3 days of riding. This pattern is quite consistent with studies in other countries (City of Kelowna, 2007) (Tiedeman, 2002) (Tourism Tasmania, 2008). Table 13. Number of days allotted for mountain bike riding by mountain bikers MTB USAGE IN ONE WEEK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total FREQUENCY 56 137 98 32 14 6 10 353 % 15.86 38.81 27.77 9.07 3.96 1.70 2.83 100.00

The primary use of a mountain bike and the motivation to start mountain biking are closely related to each other (Table 14, Table 15). Most of the respondents use their
51

Table 14. Primary usage of the MTB by mountain bikers. PRIMARY USE OF MTB Hobby Sport Exercise Others Total FREQUENCY 147 82 171 53 453 % 32.45 18.10 37.75 11.70 100.00

Table 15. Reason in starting mountain bike riding REASON TO START MTB Exercise/Health Hobby Competition Peer influence Other I don‟t know Total FREQUENCY 185 131 25 21 36 0 398 % 46.48 32.91 6.28 5.28 9.05 0.00 100.00

mountain bike as their form of exercise (37.75%), or as a form of recreation or as a hobby (32.45%). Competitive riders took up 18.10% of the sample, and people who use their bikes for other than the reasons mentioned were the least at 11.70%. Mountain bikers claimed that they started riding because of health factors, as represented by 46.48% of the people in the sample; or as a hobby, as answered by 32.91% of the respondents. The City of Kelowna in 2007 made a study about their mountain biking community, and they found out that „Fun/Enjoyment‟ was the leading reason for participating in mountain biking, followed closely by „Health/Fitness; which also mirrors the results in the sample.

52

Hardtails are the most common form of mountain bikes in the Philippines, with 66.88% of the respondents using them (Table 16). Full suspension users account for 33.12% of the sample size. Hardtails are arguably the most versatile form of mountain bike. It is also a good base to start learning basic skills in bike handling, a hardtail is very easy to maintain and run, and is light enough to build endurance and strength. It is also the cheapest way to get into mountain biking. Full suspension bikes are easily2 to 4 times the price of an entry level hardtail, hence the lack of people getting one. Riders who own multiple bikes, with intermediate to advanced skills and experience, with enough income will have a full suspension bike and a hardtail at home. The most preferred types were hard tail, road bikes, and full suspension with Specialized and Trek being the most popular brands. The average amount spent for a respondent‟s last bike was $1,859, with $773 on equipment and accessories last year. Before purchasing bikes, components, and tires, research was conducted. Information was typically obtained by asking other riders. Other sources included bike shops, the Internet, and company materials (Tiedeman,2002).

Table 16. Mountain bike configuration used by mountain bikers MOUNTAIN BIKE CONFIGURATION Hardtail Full Suspension Total FREQUENCY 210 104 314 % 66.88 33.12 100.00

53

Figure 6. Rider skill level and primary use of mountain bikes. Figure 6 shows beginner riders use their mountain bikes primarily as a hobby (82) or as a form of exercise (51). Novice riders are more balanced in their motivation to ride, there are similar frequencies for hobbyists (37), sport (27) and exercise (28). Advanced riders use their mountain bikes mainly for sport and competition (16). For people who don‟t know their skill level, their main purpose is for exercise and fitness.

54

Table 17. Chi-square test of rider skill level and primary use of mountain bikes.
Chi-Square Tests

Value Pearson Chi-Square 65.181
a

df 9

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .000

a. 3 cells (18.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.24.

The Chi-square test results in Table 17 showed a strong evidence of a relationship between rider skill level and the rider‟s primary use of their mountain bike, with a value of 65.181 in the test. As expected, a beginner rider would prefer to ride for fun or use the mountain bike as a form of exercise. A novice rider, with some years of experience will diversify in their motivation, namely competition and sport. An advanced rider will look to push his skill to the best that he can, and the best way is through competing regularly. The majority of riders who choose to ride as a hobby (71) or as a form of exercise (46) will mainly allot 2 days to ride (Figure 6). The next highest set would be for 3 days worth of riding in one week, again with hobby riders (32) and exercise riders (37). Sport riders choose to allot 2-3 days worth of riding.

55

Figure 7. Riding days and primary use of mountain bike.

Table 18. Chi-square test for riding days and primary usage of mountain bikes.
Chi-Square Tests Pearson Chi-Square 27.295
a

18

.074

a. 14 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .30.

The value of the chi-square test in Table 18 showed not very strong evidence of a relationship between the number of days allotted for riding and the primary use of the mountain bike.

56

Figure 8. Association between mountain bike discipline, cost, and the hardtail bike configuration.

Hardtails are the most common form of mountain bike. They are cheap to run and purchase (Figure 8) and is a good starting point for skills. XC riders choose hardtails because of that same purpose, with the costs estimated between 10,000-20,000 pesos (23). There could be a misnomer with the high number of respondents for MTB trials, as they could have misunderstood the word “trials” as “to try”. Hardtails are not recommended for downhill mountain biking, hence the low respondents. Dirt Jumping is also low on respondents as it is perceived as a very dangerous activity on a mountain bike.
57

Figure 9. Association of full suspension bikes, bike discipline and estimated costs.

Full suspension mountain bikes are more expensive than hardtails. The advantage of relative comfort over rough terrain makes full suspension almost mandatory in mountain biking, as well as its different disciplines (Figure 9). The most expensive mountain bikes usually belong to downhill riders (30); who spends and can spend as much as 100,000 pesos on their bikes, upgrades, and spare parts. XC and AM bikes can be as expensive as downhill bikes, but with DH riding‟s propensity for higher speeds and greater risk of accidents, broken parts and broken riders raise the costs.

58

Table 19. Chi-square test for bike configuration, estimated costs, and preferred discipline.
Chi-Square Tests bike configuration hardtail full suspension Pearson Chi-Square Pearson Chi-Square Value 36.421 20.078
a b

df 16 12

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .003 .066

a. 18 cells (72.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .09. b. 13 cells (65.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .08.

The chi-square values (Table 19) indicate a slightly stronger evidence of relationship between hardtails, costs, and preferred discipline (36.421) than full suspension bikes (20.078). Cheap hardtails (79) are used mostly by mountain bikers without any racing experience (Figure 9), while people who have hardtails yet race are low in number. The highest numbers come in the middle ranges from 21,000-40,000 (16) and the low ranges (12). Extremely hardtails are very few and people with and without racing experience do not use 100,000 peso hardtails for competition, unless probably they are sponsored by a cycling team. When bikers would join mountain bike races, having the best equipment can be a big help, be it physically or psychologically. Mountain bikers that have full suspension bikes with racing experience will have bikes at the extreme end of the price range (39). Cheap full suspension bikes are considered dangerous and unsafe (3) for competition due to weak overall construction. People with full suspension bikes but have no competition experience have more balanced numbers than the top heavy racers.

59

Figure 10. Bike configuration, costs, and mtb racing experience.

60

Figure 11. Full suspension bikes, racing experiences, and estimated costs.

Table 20. Chi-square test for MTB configuration, racing experience, and MTB costs.
Chi-Square Tests bike configuration hardtail full suspension Pearson Chi-Square Pearson Chi-Square Value 18.804 28.823
a b

df 4 4

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .001 .000

a. 4 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.29. b. 1 cells (10.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.43.

61

There is strong evidence of relationship between bike configurations, racing experience, and mountain bike costs (Table 20). Hardtail and full suspension riders know better than to use cheap bikes to a mountain bike race, be it cross country or DH. A cheap mountain bike has inferior parts and overall construction, and may not work well or last a proper mountain bike race. In a DH race this problem is magnified. Social Networks of Mountain Bikers Social networking among mountain bikers is an important part of the mountain biking “lifestyle”. Tiedeman (2002) found out that mountain bikers are very much involved in the sport or the activity, and is a part of the highly active lifestyle that mountain bikers maintain. An important implication of club membership is the role clubs may play in enhancing the self-regulation of riding attitudes and behavior (Cessford, 1995). The sample showed an overwhelming majority of mountain bikers, with 81.96% of the respondents claiming to be a member of a mountain biking club or organization (Table 21). There are 46 clubs and organizations listed in the sample (Appendix II). This list shows what kind of mountain biking they favor and prefer. Some are location based (Kalayaan Bicycle Club, Elbi Bikers, Alaminos/La Trenchera, TBAC) some are colleagues sharing the same interest (Fat Tyre, Team EXO, MAKBOYS, Sunpower Bikers, PMTB, 43Bikes), teams with sponsorship (Team Groundzero, Isuzu DMAX/Prima Cycling Team, John Wilkie, Team Green Planet, Papi‟s Ride/Faren), and discipline-specific groups (DROP, MTG, DH Crew, Team Haooh, DIRT-TEK are DH oriented groups). However, 18.04% did not claim any membership to any organization. Some of these organizations sponsor or organize MTB events (Appendix III). Some of

62

these are non competitive fun runs (Padyak LB, Takbo at Padyak Para sa Project Shoebox, Padyak PWU, Tour de Bonpen) while others are more keen on full-on racing and competition (Nuvali Dirt Weekend, DROP National DH Series, Philippine Bike Adventure Race, Allan Purisima Cup, Alaminos XC race, MTG Big Daddy Cup). The sample also showed that these club members are very willing to lend their assistance in trail building and maintenance, with 77.25% of the sample size responding positively (Table 22).

Table 21. Social network of mountain bikers. MTB ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP YES NO Total FREQUENCY 318 70 388 % 81.96 18.04 100.00

Table 22. MTB organization‟s willingness to assist in trail construction. GROUP‟S WILLINGNESS TO ASSIST IN TRAIL WORK YES, will help NO, will not help Total FREQUENCY %

163 48 211

77.25 22.75 100.00

Increased club involvement by the more experienced riders is notably high when compared with that apparent for other outdoor activities; further commitment is indicated by the increasing investments made in bikes and modifications by the more experienced riders (Cessford, 1995).

63

Table 23 shows the preferences of these MTB clubs and organizations when it comes to promoting MTB riding in the MFR. The respondents prefer organizing events like races and fun rides, with 43.75% of the respondents saying so. The next popular choice was

Table 23. MTB organization‟s method to promote MTB riding in the MFR PROMOTION OF MTB RIDING IN MFR Trail Maintenance and Building Marketing and Publicity Event Organization Biking Advocacy Other I don‟t know Total FREQUENCY 33 26 126 102 1 0 288 % 11.46 9.03 43.75 35.42 0.34 0 100.00

Creating mountain biking advocacy among the people, 35.42% of the respondents agree with advocacy work using mountain biking as the medium. Despite the lack of a trail in the MFR for mountain bikes, creating a trail or a trail network is not considered a priority for these groups, with only 11.46% of the sample listing it as a priority.

64

Figure 12. Association of willingness to help, promotion of riding, and active membership in an MTB organization.

Figure 12 shows that bikers who are members of biking association are willing to help in event organization (78), biking advocacy (33), trail maintenance (21) and in marketing and publicity (14).

65

Figure 13. Association of willingness to help, promotion of riding, and active membership in an MTB organization.

Mountain bike riders who are not group members have shown that they are not willing to help in any mountain bike riding promotions in the MFR. However, there are still people who will help out despite their lack of affiliation (Figure 13).

66

Table 24. Chi-square test for MTB organization membership, willingness to help and promotion of MTB riding.
Chi-Square Tests bike organization member Yes, a member No, not a member Pearson Chi-Square Pearson Chi-Square Value 14.488 14.377
a b

df 5 4

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .013 .006

a. 7 cells (58.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .09. b. 5 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .71.

The chi-square test revealed that whether or not someone is a member of a mountain bike group, club, or organization; it is not a hindrance for promoting mountain biking in the MFR (Table 24). The Chi-square test values show a near equal result 14.488 for members and 14.377 for non-members, respectively.

Mountain Biking Preferences Mountain biking, with its various disciplines will have an impact on the people who ride. An XC rider may not have the same preferences as a DH rider; an AM rider may find XC a bit too boring and DH way over his head. Or a rider prefers to ride all MTB disciplines with no complains. Here the sample‟s preferences about mountain biking are tallied and analyzed. Travelling is synonymous with mountain biking. People ride their bicycles around places for various reasons, but a sense of adventure is evident when travelling by mountain bike. The respondents prefer to travel to various places (Table 25) to ride mountain bikes. The

67

Table 25. Travel to MTB destinations by mountain bikers TRAVEL TO MTB DESTINATIONS YES NO Total FREQUENCY 226 117 343 % 65.89 34.11 100.00

people who said no (34.11% of respondents) are actually living close to mountainous areas. The majority of the riders (65.89% of the respondents) still prefer to travel to different areas (Appendix IV). In Kelowna, British Columbia a large majority of the respondents (76%) claim that they have mountain biked in areas outside of Kelowna at least a few times in the last year. A number (6%) claim they did mountain bike outside the area 5 or more times per month (City of Kelowna, 2007). These mountain bikers tend to travel to destinations within half day to day away from home or base for the majority of mountain bike trips, but will travel further for unique experiences or competitions (Tourism Tasmania, 2008). Mount Makiling is already known as a hiking destination, but with only one multi-use trail to speak of, it may not be a well known mountain biking spot. However it was surprisingly well known to people who ride mountain bikes, with 80.18% of people in the survey responding yes (Table 26). Table 26. Awareness of the MFR as a mountain biking destination among mountain bikers AWARENESS OF MFR AS MTB DESTINATION Aware of MFR Not aware of MFR Total FREQUENCY 263 65 328 % 80.18 19.82 100.00

68

When asked what the MFR needs to become a mountain biking destination, people answered that the MFR needs mountain biking centered events to boost its reputation (42.60%), while the next biggest group is clamoring for a trail network inside the MFR (33.95%) and the presence of support structures like lodging took the third largest number of respondents (14.81%) (Table 27). The presence of a trail is crucial, as mountain bike riders will look for a place to ride their mountain bikes.

Table 27. Mountain bikers opinion on what the MFR needs to become a MTB destination WHAT DOES MFR NEED TO BE A MTB DESTINATION Trail Network Support Structures Events Others I don‟t know Total FREQUENCY %

110 48 138 16 12 328

33.95 14.81 42.60 4.94 3.70 100.00

Over 80% of the respondents felt that the provision of bike facilities like trails was “important” or “very important.” Less than 2% of the respondents felt it was “not important” (City of Kelowna, 2007). Also, these riders expect a relatively high level of trail infrastructure and associated services at MTB destinations (Tourism Tasmania, 2008).

When asked about trail hazards encountered in the Mariang Makiling Trail in the MFR, opinions were divided. Motorized vehicles were the most commonly observed hazard, with 33.96% considering motorized vehicles a hazard, the second most observed hazard in the Mariang Makiling Trail would be hikers (29.74%). but surprisingly, a good
69

number of people were unaware (21.57%) to hazards in the Mariang Makiling Trail (Table 28) Interviews with the officer of the day at Station 1 show that despite the large speed difference between mountain bikers riding downhill and hikers, accidents between them were few and far between. There has been a long standing problem that fast moving mountain bikes are perceived as a safety hazard (Cessford, 1995) but in many cases, these are overestimated and are mainly caused by a few, reckless and isolated incidents (Cessford, 1995). Table 28. Hazards encountered by mountain bikers in the Mariang Makiling Trail HAZARDS IN THE MARIANG MAKILING TRAIL Hikers Motorized Vehicles Animals Others I don‟t know Total FREQUENCY %

91 103 31 15 66 324

29.74 33.66 10.13 4.90 21.57 100.00

In the Mariang Makiling Trail, which is multi-use, this trail user problem can surface and conflicts can occur. However, mountain bikers are very much open to share trails with non-mountain bikers (Table 29), be it with a code of conduct and etiquette (36.57%) or having non-mountain bike users free rein on the trails (49.25%). Opening a new trail is always good news for mountain bikers, and when asked the question of whether the MFR will open mountain bike specific trails, the response was overwhelmingly positive (84.44%), though there were still some dissenters to the idea (15.56%) (Table 30).

70

Table 29. Opinions about trail sharing by mountain bikers in the Mariang Makiling Trail TRAIL SHARING AMONG NON-MTB USERS Sharing OK Sharing OK but with rules and etiquette No sharing of trails I don‟t know Total FREQUENCY 132 98 12 26 268 % 49.25 36.57 4.48 9.70 100.00

Table 30. Mountain bikers opinion on new MTB trails in the MFR OPENING AN MTB TRAIL IN MFR YES NO Total FREQUENCY 255 47 302 % 84.44 15.56 100.00

Related to the earlier question on what is needed in the MFR to become a MTB destination is the design of a trail and its related features. Most riders prefer natural settings to ride in, with a variety of features (Goeft and Alder, 2001) and the most common choice among mountain bikers in the sample are obstacles (45.48% of respondents) like slopes and curves (Table 31) be it natural or man-made. Having visible trail markers and signage (35.07% of respondents) were considered important, then water supplies coming from springs. Water sources are third most wanted trait in an MTB trail in the MFR (16.32% of respondents).

71

Table 31. Mountain bikers‟ opinions on what a MTB trail in MFR should have WHAT FEATURES PRESENT IN TRAIL Trail Signage Water Sources Obstacles Others I don‟t know Total FREQUENCY 101 47 131 9 0 288 % 35.07 16.32 45.48 3.13 0.00 100.00

As mentioned earlier, the mountain bikers found in the study are very open to sharing the trail openly with non-MTB users, meaning that the future MTB specific trail be not exclusive to just one particular specialization of mountain biking (76.01% of respondents). The respondents believe that one trail should be enjoyed by all forms of mountain bikers, be it XC, AM, or DH (Table 32). Table 32. Mountain bikers preference on trail exclusivity EXCLUSIVITY OF TRAIL (XC-Only, DH-Only) YES, Trail should be exclusive NO, Trail should not be exclusive Total FREQUENCY 77 244 321 % 23.99 76.01 100.00

Like skill level, willingness to pay for services is also a rather contentious topic. The Mariang Makiling Trail only charges 5-10 pesos just to enter the MFR. But when a mountain bike specific trail charges a different rate compared to the old one, there will be a different response. In Table 33, the result was a near 50/50 split, with the affirmative (50.48%) barely edging out the negative (49.52). For an MTB specific trail, 71.11% respondents prefer to pay in the price range below and between 99 pesos and 25.56% selecting to pay in the next price level range, from 100-199 PHp. (Table 34). In Canada,
72

access fees were also a point of contention, with most of the responses at the extreme ends of the continuum: “Will not pay a fee” and “more than $40” (City of Kelowna, 2007). Table 33. Mountain bikers‟ willingness to pay for trail access WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR TRAIL ACCESS YES, will pay for access NO, will not pay Total FREQUENCY 159 156 321 % 50.48 49.52 100.00

Table 34. Accepted price range on access fee for the MFR ACCEPTED PRICE RANGE OF FEE ≤99- 99 Php 100-199 200-299 ≥300 Total FREQUENCY 128 46 5 1 180 % 71.11 25.56 2.78 0.55 100.00

In the sample, majority of the people who said yes are willing to pay fees in the lowest end of the price range (71.11%) and the middle end of the price range (25.56%). When it comes to paying for a year-long pass (Table 35), the negative holds a slight advantage (52.04%) over the affirmative (47.96%). The majority of the people who said yes are willing to pay at a price range of 100-199 Pesos (54.96%), but it is noted that the distribution is more even compared to the decreasing amount of respondents per increase in price range (Table 36).

73

Table 35. Mountain bikers‟ willingness to pay for a year-long pass for mountain bike riding in the MFR

WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR YEAR LONG PASS YES for year long pass NO for year long pass Total

FREQUENCY 141 153 294

% 47.96 52.04 100.00

Table 36. Price range for a year long pass for mountain biking in the MFR PRICE RANGE OF YEAR LONG PASS 100-199 200-299 300-399 400-499 Total FREQUENCY 72 24 13 22 131 % 54.96 18.32 9.92 16.80 100.00

Mountain bikers do not just go to an area just to ride bikes; what they do after the ride is also as important. Socialization, as mentioned earlier is a big part of mountain biking and that happens mostly in areas away from the trail (Table 37). In the sample the respondents preferred either food establishments (38.59%) or campsites (38.88%) as complementary facilities inside the MFR to enhance the riding experience.

74

Table 37. Other facilities desired by mountain bikers in the MFR OTHER DESIRED FACILITIES INSIDE MFR Hotel/ Accomodation Food establishments Campsites Social Areas Others Health services I don‟t know Total FREQUENCY 20 137 138 10 5 45 0 355 % 5.63 38.59 38.88 2.82 1.41 12.67 0.00 100.00

As shown in Figure 14, people who travel to MTB destinations are well aware of the existence of the MFR (195). These people believed that in order for the MFR to be an MTB destination, a trail network (80) must be present, together with MTB related events (63) and other support structures (26). The Chi-square test values of 23.073 for bikers who travel and 16.143 for the people who do not travel and the asymptotic significance point to a strong evidence of relationship between the variables (Table 38). People who are willing to help are also members of mountain bike groups and organizations. These people would usually travel together or at least meet at one spot. Downhill, free-ride, and dirt jumpers tend to make their own trails and jumps, and are willing helpers to provide a trail for themselves and for others.

75

Figure 14. Travel to MTB sites, awareness of MFR, and what MFR needs to be a MTB destination.

Table 38. Chi-square test for traveling, awareness of MFR, and what the MFR needs to be a MTB destination.
Chi-Square Tests travel to mtb destinations Yes, travel done No, does not travel Pearson Chi-Square Pearson Chi-Square Value 23.073 16.143
a b

df 5 5

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .000 .006

a. 4 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.34. b. 6 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .58.

76

Figure 15. Hazards, sharing, and opening a trail in the MFR. Mountain bikers who want the MFR to open a trail would allow trail sharing. For these people (46), they consider vehicles to be the biggest hazard going along (Figure 15). For people who would allow a trail but would have specific trail etiquette (76 total), the distribution is more towards hikers (22), vehicles (23) and unknown hazards (20). The mountain bikers who would not like to open a trail (Figure 15); though these people are also willing to share, they consider animals to be biggest hazard (6).

77

Figure 16. Hazards, trail sharing and not opening a trail in the MFR.

Table 39 showed that the chi-square data has a strong evidence of relationship, especially on the mountain bikers who were positive about the MFR opening a trail or trail network in the MFR (41.137). However, the relationship gets weaker when the people who said no to the MFR creating a trail was asked. It is possible that despite the negative response to opening a MTB trail in the MFR by some, these people would share the existing Mariang Makiling Trail to other non-MTB users.

78

Table 39. Chi-square test for hazards, trail sharing, and opening a trail in the MFR.
Chi-Square Tests MFR opens trail Yes No Pearson Chi-Square Pearson Chi-Square Value 41.137 21.654
a b

df 16 16

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .001 .155

Figure 17. Trail exclusivity, trail features and payment for access association. Mountain bikers who want an exclusive trail, with features is generally open for access fees (Figure 17). These mountain bikers prefer trail signs (23) and obstacles (20).

79

People who chose not to pay but want the trail to be exclusive want obstacles (7) and signages (4).

Figure 18. Non-exclusivity of trail, willingness to pay, and trail features In Figure 18, mountain bike riders who do not want the trail to be exclusive mainly want obstacles, and at the same time, do not want to pay for this trail feature (71) For people who paying an access fee is acceptable, they would pay for trail signs (31). This can lead to a situation called as the Tragedy of the Commons, where an open and free resource would be overused and abused that it can no longer sustain the population. Bike trails have their limits to limit erosion and damage; a manager must know how to fine tune the accessibility and technical limits of a trail.
80

Table 40. Chi-square test of trail exclusivity, willingness to pay, and trail features.
Chi-Square Tests trail exclusivity yes, exclusive no, not exclusive Pearson Chi-Square Pearson Chi-Square Value 3.883
a b

df 3 4

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .274 .000

29.209

a. 6 cells (75.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .85. b. 4 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .46.

The chi-square test in Table 40 showed a strong relationship between people who say the trail is not exclusive, has a certain trail feature, and its willingness to pay any access fee (29.209). In this case, the people who want exclusivity are willing to pay for a trail, and on the other side of the coin, the people who want the trail to be non-exclusive do not want to pay for any access. People who chose to pay for a year pass and people who chose not to pay for one have the same preference to a non-MTB related facility in the MFR (Figure 19). Both parties prefer food establishments like restaurants and eateries. People who don‟t like to pay for a year pass have a preference for campsites (73). The Chi-square test in Table 41 showed strong evidence that the willingness to pay for a year pass and the preferences for non-MTB related facilities has a relationship with one another. People who would have a year pass prefer food establishments because there is an assumption that they will come back often. The non-paying mountain biker is not expected to come back as often, hence the preference for campsites, which offer a different experience than just mountain biking.

81

Figure 19. WTP for a year pass and other non-MTB facilities in the MFR.

Table 41. Chi-square test for WTP for a year pass and non-MTB facilities in the MFR.
Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square 29.136
a

df 6

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .000

a. 4 cells (28.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .84.

82

The Mount Makiling Forest Reserve Physical Aspects-Trail features and difficulty The MFR has only one major thoroughfare: The Mariang Makiling Trail (Fig 3). It measures 8.7 kilometers long; from Station 1 which is the entry point located in front of the TREES and MCME offices, to Station 30, also known as Peak 2. Hiking to Peak 2 takes 4-7 hours depending on the trail conditions and the hiker. There are two major campsites along the trail: the Malaboo campsite and the Tayabak campsite. The former is located closest to the Wilderness Zone of the MFR and considered the jump-off point for people who want to climb to the summit, while the latter is located in Station 7 near the Mudsprings, another well-known MFR tourist spot. The trail surface is heavily broken asphalt and gravel, with a lot of sharp rocks and during the rainy season, mud. However, a large part of the trail (from Station 11-Aguila Base to Station 1) was graded and paved albeit with no impermeable surface as a result of Chevron Philippines doing maintenance

83

Figure 20. Map of the Mariang Makiling Trail (Photo from MCME).

84

work that required the use of heavy equipment in December 20, 2012. Typhoon Milenyo in 2006 also changed a lot of sections of the Mariang Makiling Trail and the trail had to be closed in for the majority of 2007. For mountain bikes, the riding area would be from Station 1 until Station 11, Agila Base. The length is estimated at around 6 kilometers. Being wide enough for vehicles, the trail is conducive for high speed biking, and beginner downhill mountain bikers in Laguna are advised to practice here in the past so that they can get used to high speeds going downhill. A typical mountain biking run in the Mariang Makiling Trail would start with a ride or hike, if on a DH bike, from Station 1 until Station 7, where the sari-sari stores are located then ride downhill. Agila Base is not always traveled by mountain bikers due to the lack of refreshments there. From Station 7 to Station 1 a lot of the corners are blind and a mountain bike ridden by a confident and competent rider will clear the corners at high speeds, which has the potential for bad accidents. XC riders tend to travel downhill with a much lower pace, owing to their equipment and skill. A rider riding an AM, DH, and FR bike will go much faster because of its better suspension. The common description of the Mariang Makiling trail to most riders is bumpy and rough. It is not extremely technical, but the constantly rough surface prior to December 20, 2012 takes a toll on the riders‟ body to take constant impacts, especially when most mountain bike riders use hardtails (Table 9).

85

Trail Access People use the Mariang Makiling Trail everyday for various purposes. The most common use is for hiking. Mountain bikers are also well represented enough in the MFR, but it‟s still dwarfed by the number of hikers who go to the MFR. Just recently, bird watchers have also started coming in the MFR, and they also use the trail. Bird watchers tend to be static for a long time before moving out to another area, which also increases the risk of a collision between a fast moving mountain biker going downhill and them. Figure 4 shows the number of visits made by mountain bikers to the MFR in the year 2012. The highest number of visits came in May (31), while the lowest came in December (0), which when the Chevron-led road works began in earnest. Mountain biker

Visits of mountain bikers per month in the MFR in 2012
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Figure 4. Mountain biker visits to the MFR in the year 2012 (courtesy of MCME).

86

visits in the MFR share a consistent trend of around 20-30 visits a month with the exceptions being April, wherein mountain bikes are not allowed to enter the Mariang Makiling Trail in the “Make it Makiling!” activity during the Holy Week. The entrance fee for using the Mariang Makiling trail in 2012 is 10 Php, starting late 2011. But despite the increase to 10 pesos, the visitations have been consistent for 8 of the 12 months. Competing Trail Users and Perceptions There are three main trail users in the Mariang Makiling Trail: hikers, vehicle users, and mountain bikers. In the MCME records, hikers dominate the people who travel and use the Mariang Makiling Trail. Mountain bikers do not have the numbers that hikers do, but their presence is substantial enough to affect hiking activities and vice versa. MCME and MBG personnel also claimed that some mountain bikers do not actively list on the logbook and pay the 10 peso entrance fee provided in Station 1; some ride very recklessly, with excessive amounts of speed going downhill. During the “Make it Makiling!” season mountain bikers are left out because of the sheer number of hikers going to the campsites and Peak 2, and the speed of mountain bikers downhill is a potential safety hazard. Some mountain bike riders even defy rules of the MCME in places where they could and could not ride. An example is the trail heading to the Mudsprings in Station 8. The trail does not allow mountain bikes or any form of transportation there, yet some mountain bikers still try to push their luck and ride the unrideable trail and worse, make their own trail. These actions inadvertently give mountain bikers a rather unsavory reputation in the MFR.

87

Administrative Features of the MFR Existing Policies of the MFR The Mount Makiling Forest Reserve was established from then the Makiling National Park in 1963 by virtue of Republic Act 3523 (RA 3523) then issued by President Diosdado Macapagal to promote programs of public education and information in forestry, with the end goal of promoting general public appreciation of forest values (UPLB, 1996). The University of the Philippines Los Baños is the sole administrator of the MFR due to RA 6967 issued by President Corazon Aquino for the advancement of scientific and technical knowledge on the preservation, development of our forest, flora and fauna, and natural resources (UPLB, 1996). In 1994, Executive Order 121 created a Presidential Commission on Laguna Lake and Mt. Makiling Development to address urgent problems affecting the resource and to formulate a master plan for the development of the lake and the reserve which are seen as integrated ecosystems (UPLB, 1996). There are five principal management objectives in the master plan: Education and Scientific Research, Watershed Protection, Biodiversity Conservation, Geothermal Power Generation, and Ecotourism and Outdoor Recreation (UPLB, 1996). As a result of this Master Plan, the Makiling Center for Mountain Ecosystems (MCME) was created on June 25, 1998 and is the sole unit of the University that manages the MFR (Paglia, 2011). In the Mt. Makiling Master Plan for Conservation and Development made by UPLB in 1996, there is a clause about the “Botanic Gardens, Parks, and Recreation Development Program”, where certain parts of the MFR are designated as recreation and
88

ecotourism areas. One such location is the 26.8 hectare Makiling Rainforest Park near Station 8 and the Mudsprings, and is in close proximity to Station 7, where the mountain bikers have refreshments after the climb up and also serve as their starting area before going down. This park however has not been maintained and is ideal to cover the outdoor recreation and ecotourism opportunities of the Mudsprings area as well as the nature trails to the summit of the mountain (UPLB, 1996). As a result, the master plan stated that one of its goals was to provide quality recreation and ecotourism opportunities and facilities to the public. The master plan identified potential areas such as the Mudsprings, the Flatrocks area and the Molawin Creek; and the development and promotion of outdoor recreation and ecotourism programs to be used by the general public (UPLB,1996). However, this Linkages with the Private Sector The MCME, MBG, and UPLB have worked with the private sector and private donors to get improvements done to existing facilities as stated in the master plan (Paglia, 2011). Most of these would be tree planting and forest adoption programs. The Mudspring trail was modified and improved by Fujitsu Philippines. The MBG‟s new facilities, like the Nature Education and Ecotourism center were bankrolled by donors, mainly the Philippine Tourism Authority. The Future Makiling Ecotourism Village needs private sector support in order to start building.

89

Mountain biking activities in the MFR There is only one major mountain bike-related activity in the MFR: the Maquiling Quest, a long distance adventure race from Lipa City, Batangas until UPLB. There are a few other events held outside of the MFR boundaries, using private land among the foothills of Mt. Makiling, both downhill race events organized by local mountain biking groups: The Makiling Team Gravity (MTG) holds the MTG Downhill Cup; which is also known as the Big Daddy Cup in Los Baños, and the Lagunos Downhill Challenge by the Tanauan Biking Adventure Club (TBAC). The Big Daddy Cup is a yearly event that started in 2008, and is considered one of the toughest DH races in Luzon, and possibly the Philippines, and the Lagunos Downhill Challenge is fast becoming a fun favorite among riders since its first event last year.

90

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION To create a profile of mountain bikers that travel to the MFR that also assesses the compatibility level between the two, a descriptive analysis was done by using a survey, using non-probability sampling to get data from mountain bikers. The answers of the mountain bikers were analyzed using descriptive statistics, primarily cross tabulation and using a Chi-square from the obtained primary data from the mountain bikers to know the possible association between or among the variables. Next, secondary data collection from known sources and key informant interviews from personnel from the MCME were conducted. The Mountain Biker From the survey, the mountain biker looks like this: they are predominantly male, 21-40 years old, is mostly earning from the 100,000-400,000 Php range, has at least a college education and lives in a household with a family. The typical mountain biker

has at most 5 years of experience, rides XC at least 2 times a week, and is usually a beginner with little or no racing experience. The mountain bike that they own and use is directly related to their income and is a hardtail. The typical mountain biker primarily rides for exercise and for fun, and is likely to be a member of a mountain biking group or organization. The mountain biker is well aware of the MFR as a mountain biking destination and is willing to travel to the MFR to ride, and is very positive on opening a new trail for them to ride on, as well as help out in promoting it to fellow bikers. The mountain biker is capable of paying the MFR for access to a MTB specific trail, but not all are willing.

91

The MFR A lack of personnel, funding, and knowledge about the mountain bikers save for the rogue bikers and the Maquiling Quest, the MFR hasn‟t done much to entice new bikers to the MFR. However, the MFR is not hindering mountain bikers to enter its slopes. The MFR is in a state of inertia when it comes to mountain biking. But in the recent past, the MFR may lose its mountain biking patrons; because the Mariang Makiling Trail, the main thoroughfare for mountain biking in the MFR is no longer an enjoyable mountain bike trail, as the road surface changed dramatically after December 2012. Because the trail that made the MFR an attractive enough destination for mountain bikers was removed, and there is no plan to accommodate MTB riding by opening up a trail, the MFR risks losing its already existing clients and potential mountain bike riding clients. The Maquiling Quest is a start, but the description for it is an adventure race, not a mountain bike related event. The MFR is not a hindrance to mountain bikers and mountain biking, but its inaction is not helping its cause to the former. The existing partnerships of the MFR, MBG and the MCME are to be retained, and a lot of mountain bikers are in the professional working class, can be used to tap corporate sponsorship and support for mountain biking centered projects. To open new doors for corporate backing, the right people must be found, and the MFR will provide the start towards new working relationships with the corporate sector through means of mountain biking. Mountain biking and the MFR has a good deal of compatibility with each other but in this case, the MFR comes up wanting because of different factors: a lack of staffing, resources, and knowledge about mountain biking will keep the growing number of mountain bikers out in the cold and just looking at the MFR as “just another
92

mountain” because there is little attention paid to them, or they would reinforce the “rogue” image that the MFR has them by creating illegal trails inside the area. The study proved that these various mountain bike groups and riders are willing to talk and are willing to work with the MFR or any organization as long as they get a place for mountain bikers to ride on. SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Opening a part of the MFR for mountain biking is a process. The various stakeholders and the MFR must work together in making sure that the whole process goes as well as it should. Here are some suggestions and recommendations on future actions done by the mountain bikers and the MFR. 1. Open dialog with mountain bikers and the MFR. The MFR and mountain

bikers need to work together to establish common ground to make the planning process for making a mountain bike specific amenity in the MFR smooth and direct. 2. Recognize the presence of mountain biking by raising the profile of mountain biking events in the MFR. The existing form of the Maquiling Quest is already a good beginning, but being an adventure race primarily slightly diminishes the fact that competitors use mountain bikes to get around. Instead, a mountain bike race that is sanctioned by the MFR together with corporate sponsors and support from the community would do wonders. 3. Improve existing facilities in the MFR. The Mariang Makiling Trail in its current form is no longer considered a mountain bike trail by local mountain
93

bikers. The upside of this is more people can travel up, but as mountain bikers the climb is not enough. A trail that provides fun for riders as well as a challenge is something a mountain biker is willing to pay for and work toward to. Utilize the biker‟s ability to help, and provide incentives for people who help in periodic maintenance and building. The International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) has several guides on building bike trails of various styles and disciplines. Some riders actually have done training from IMBA. Once the MFR makes its intentions felt, people will help out, as mentioned in the study. 4. Continue to look out for new trends in mountain biking and trail design. Mountain bike design continues to evolve at a rapid pace, new suspension designs, wheel sizes, and other components. Trails do not change as fast as mountain bikes, but mountain bike riding trends like Enduro and All-Mountain are here to stay. 5. Recruit the help of LGUs. The Local Government Units, should also be recruited to help in planning and development of a mountain bike centered product in the MFR. In places where mountain biking is a part of the lifestyle of the populace, like in British Columbia in Canada, the local leaderships of cities are actively creating state owned bike parks or operating those in conjunction with private entities. This not also raises the profile of the city as a mountain bike destination, it also earns the city or town revenue.

94

LITERATURE CITED AMERICANTRAILS.ORG, 2012: Economic Benefits of Trail Tourism. March 2013. http://www.americantrails.org/resources/economics/ AMICI DESIGN, 1999. FAT TIRE: A CELEBRATION OF THE MOUNTAIN BIKE. Chronicle Books; 1st edition. ISBN: 0811819825 pp. 144 BERTO, F. 1998. THE BIRTH OF DIRT: ORIGINS OF MOUNTAIN BIKING. Van der Plas Publications / Cycle Publishing; 2nd Edition, ISBN: 1892495619, pp.128 BUKENYA, J.O. 2012. :from the Pearl of Africa. Natural Resource Economics Program, West Virginia University,WV.CDM-SSC-PDD, 2007. CERENO, R.P. 2010. Lecture notes in NRC 232. CESSFORD, G. 1995. Offroad Impacts of Mountain Biking. A Review and Discussion Science & Research Series No.92. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand CESSFORD, G. 2002. Perception and Reality of Conflict: Walkers and Mountain Bikes on the Queen Charlotte Track in New Zealand. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand CITY OF KELOWNA, REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL OKANAGAN AND BC PARKS. 2007. Mountain Bike Community Profile. CRANE, N. and KELLY, C. 1988. Richard‟s Mountain Bike Book. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0946609780 Pp. 192 FIX, P. and LOOMIS, J. 1998. The Economic Benefits of Mountain Biking at one of its Meccas: An Application of the Travel Cost Method to Mountain Biking in Moab, Utah. Colorado State University Colorado. GOEFT, U. and ALDER, J. 2001. Sustainable Mountain Biking: A Case Study from the Southwest of Western Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol.9 No.3. GREEN, D. 2003. Travel Patterns of Destination: Mountain Bikers. Internet Article. Ride the Shore Tours Inc. GRIFFITH, S. 2010. Off Road Origins. Rough Stuff Fellowship KALISZEWSKI, N. 2010. The Jackson Hole Trails Project Economic Impact Study. Master‟s Thesis. University of Wyoming. Pp. 47

95

LAPITAN, P.G., FERNANDO, E.S., SUH, M.H., FUENTES, R.U., SHIN, Y.K., PAMPOLINA, N.M.,CASTILLO, M.L, CERENO, R.P., LEE, HAN, S., CHOI, T.B., and LEE, D.K. 2010. Biodiversity and Natural Resources Conservation in Protected Areas of Korea and The Philippines. ASEAN-Korea Environmental Cooperation Unit. LOPES, B. and MCCORMACK, M. 2010. Mastering Mountain Bike Skills, 2nd Edition. USA. Human Kinetics: pp.264 MCDILL M., SILVA G., FINLEY J.,and KAYS J., 1999. Promoting Ecotourism on Private Lands: Final Project Report. Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development The Pennsylvania State University. MOREY, E.R., BUCHANAN, T. and WALDMAN, D. 2002. Estimating the benefits and costs To mountain bikers of changes in trail characteristics, access fees, and site closures: choice experiments and benefits transfer. Journal of Environmental Management, 64: 411-422. NATIONAL ECOTOURISM STEERING COMMITTEE. 2002. National Ecotourism Strategy. Philippines. PAGLIA,S. 2011. External Review of the Mt. Makiling Master Plan for Conservation and Development. United States Peace Corps. Pp. 128 PALYS,T. Undated. Purposive Sampling. Internet article. Simon Fraser University. RAHMAN, M.A. 2010. Appliocation of GIS in Ecotourism Development: A case study in Sundarbans, Bangladesh. MS. Thesis Mid-Sweden Univ. SPRUNG, G. 2004. Natural Resource Impacts of Mountain Biking: A summary of scientific Studies that compare mountain biking to other forms of trail travel. Trail Solutions: IMBA‟s Guide to Building Sweet Singletrack. Pp.273

THOMPSON, W. and HICKEY, J. 2005. Society in Focus. Boston, MA: Pearson TOURISM BRITISH COLUMBIA. 2009. Cycling and Mountain Biking Product Overview. TOURISM TASMANIA. 2008. Mountain Bike Tourism Market Profile for Tasmania. Inspiring Place Pty Ltd Environmental Planning, Landscape Architecture, Tourism & Recreation 208 Collins St Hobart TAS 7000. Pp. 57 UPLB, 1996. Master Plan for Mt. Makiling Conservation and Development: Main Report.Pp 170
96

LIST OF ACRONYMS AM ASEAN BMX CALABARZON DH ERSG All-Mountain Association of South East Asian Nations Bicycle Motocross Cavite-Laguna-BatangasQuezon region Downhill racing Environmental Remote Sensing and Geoinformatics Laboratory Freeride Gross Domestic Product Geographic System Information

FR GDP GIS IMBA MCME MFR MTB TREES

International Mountain Bicycling Association Makiling Center Mountain Ecosystems for

The Mount Makiling Forest Reserve Mountain Bike Training Center for Tropical Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability University of the Philippines Los Baños Cross-Country

UPLB XC

97

APPENDIX I

Good day! I am Paolo S. Mendioro, a MS Natural Resource Conservation student currently studying in the University of the Philippines at Los Baños. I am doing my Master’s Thesis entitled “Potentials and Challenges of Mountain Biking as an Ecotourism Activity in the Mount Makiling Forest Reserve.” One part of my thesis is to make a Mountain Biker’s survey to get some relevant information regarding mountain bikers and mountain biking. Please answer as truthfully as you can. All answers will be considered confidential. Thank you very much for your cooperation. If you wish, you can answer the survey via email: paolothreezero@gmail.com or paoloxpaolo@yahoo.com. Thank you very much for your cooperation. SURVEY sa(Please encircle all answers) I.Personal Information Name: Age: Gender: Marital status: Address: Highest educational attainment: Graduate Occupation:__________________ What is your average yearly household income (in Php)? 400,000 400,000- 600,000 >900,000 >100,000-200,000 200,000Elementary High School College PostSingle Married

600,000- 900,000

II. Mountain Bike preferences and experience Length of MTB Experience: Preferred discipline (multiple choices OK): XC 98 AM DH/FR Trials DJ

Do you own multiple bikes: If yes, how many: _____________ Do you also have a road bike: Racing/Competition Experience:

YES

NO

YES YES

NO NO

If yes, how many times/years competing: What would you think your current skill level is: know Favored MTB racing/competition discipline: DJ How many days do you ride in a week: Beginner Novice Advanced Don’t

XC race

DH

4X/DS

Enduro

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 Other Don’t

What is the primary use of your mountain bike: Hobby know Do you have a Hardtail or Full Suspension bike: Estimated cost/s of your MTB/s: <10,000-20,000 Php. Php.

Sport Exercise

Hardtail 20,000-40,000 Php.

Full Suspension 40,000- 60,000

60,000-100,000 Php. >100,000 Php How many months/years did you have your current MTB: <6 months 1-2 years >2 years What is your reason to start MTB riding: influence Exercise/Health Hobby Competition Don’t know Peer 7mos- 1 year

Other:___________ III. Social networks Are you a member of a MTB club/association/organization: If YES, what is the name of your group: YES

NO

Does your club organize MTB-related events? If yes, please list the title of the event and/or type of competition. 1.

99

2. 3. Will your MTB group be able to assist in trail building and maintenance? YES NO

How will you or your MTB-oriented group promote MTB riding in Mt Makiling? Trail maintenance/building Marketing and Publicity Event organization Other:____________ Biking Advocacy Don’t know

IV. Mountain Bike Riding Preferences Do you have to travel to a certain area just to ride mountain bikes? YES NO

If YES, please list down some of your favored riding areas (regardless of distance) 1. 2. 3. YES 4. NO

Are you aware of Mt Makiling as a MTB destination?

In your opinion, what does Mt Makiling need to do to be a MTB destination? Trail network and access rides, etc) Affordability of services Support structures (lodging, etc) Other:______________________ Events (races, fun Don’t know

When you ride in the Mariang Makiling Trail, what are the hazards that you encounter? Hikers Motorized vehicles Animals Other:_____________ Don’t know

What do you think of sharing trail usage with non- MTB users? Sharing OK know Sharing OK, but with rules and etiquette No Sharing of trails Don’t

Do you like to open a MTB-specific trail/s inside the Mount Makiling Forest Reserve? YES NO If YES, what facilities/features do you think that this MTB- specific trail/s should have? Trail Signage know Water sources Obstacles (natural & man-made) Other:________ Don’t

100

Is this trail/s only for a specific group for mountain biking (XC-only, DH-only)

YES

NO

Are you amenable to access fees when you want to use the trail/s and related facilities? YES NO If YES, what price range would you prefer: <99- 99PHP 100-199PHP 200-299PHP >300PHP YES 400NO

Would you prefer a year-long (or multiple year) season pass for trail access?

If YES, what price range would you prefer: 100-199 PHP 200-299 PHP 300-399PHP 499PHP How will you or your MTB-oriented group promote MTB riding in Mt Makiling? Trail maintenance/building Marketing and Publicity Event organization Other:____________

Biking Advocacy Don’t know

What other facilities not necessarily related to mountain biking would you like to see in Mt. Makiling? Hotel/Accomodation services Social areas (Bars, etc.) Food establishments Campsites Health

Other:____________

Don’t know

101

APPENDIX II LIST OF MTB ORGANIZATIONS/CLUBS/TEAMS DH Crew Team Groundzero Makiling Team Gravity (MTG) VMobile Elbi Bikers STK Pakil Turumba Bikers‟ Club LSGH 99 Downhill Riders Organization of the Team Haooh Philippines (DROP) Team Los Baños Team Antipolo Green Planet Team Batibols Bikers/One Ilocos La Trenchera Alaminos Biker Mice Club Quezon Bikers Team SCOM Sunpower Bikers Boondatz Padyak Elbi PMTB IRRI Bikers Antenna MTBikers Sabak Bikeshop John Wilkie Tanauan Biking Adventure Club (TBAC) UPLB Vultures Alaminos Cycling Team (ACTC) Kulas.com 43Bikes Team Endless Racing PBAR Leon Arcillas Bikers MAKBOYS Isuzu DMAX Prima Cycling Team Papi‟s Ride/Faren Masigasig Bikers Dirt Bros. Executive Offroad Racing Association DIRT-TEK Fat Tyre Kalayaan Bikers Club (KBC) Sampaloc Bikers Club Team EXO

102

APPENDIX III LIST OF EVENTS DONE BY MTB GROUPS/ORGANIZATIONS Nuvali Dirt Weekend Philippine Bike Adventure Race MTG Big Daddy Cup Takbo at Padyak Para sa Project Shoebox Fast din Kami DH race Executive XC race DROP National Downhill series Fun Ride with Tree planting and feeding 20:20 DH Fun races Pakil-Caliraya XC race I-On Mountain Bike Challenge Bike 4 Elections Quezon Extreme DH Lagunos DH Challenge Sinnalugan @ Sapat APEC XC race st 1 Allan Purisima Cup Mag Bike Tayo- Camp Aguinaldo The Battle Ground Jailhouse Rock DH Padyak Elbi Antenna DH race Ycad-100km Bike Clinic for kids XC @ LB Padyak PWU LaLaguna Baloc All Mountain Race Escudero Cup Mt. Banoy DH race XC Race Alaminos Tour de Bonpen

103

APPENDIX IV

LIST OF POPULAR DESTINATIONS LAGUNA Caliraya UPLB Nuvali San Antonio, Kalayaan Bugarin Hidden Valley Tayak Hill, Rizal QUEZON Lucban Padre Burgos Dolores Lucena RIZAL Patiis Antenna Angono Timberland Tanay Taytay San Mateo MINDANAO Cagayan de Oro Davao Gen. Santos City Iligan NORTHERN LUZON Baguio Laoag Pangasinan Bataan La Union Batac

Binangonan Montalban BATANGAS Tanauan Lagunos, Santo Tomas Lipa Balete San Juan Banoy, Batangas City Laiya CAVITE Tagaytay Alfonso Hamilo Coast Silang PAMPANGA ZAMBALES Subic BICOL REGION Iriga Sorsogon METRO MANILA Fort Bonifacio Camp Aguinaldo McKinley Marikina Filinvest VISAYAS Ormoc Iloilo OVERSEAS California, USA

La Mesa Ecopark

104

APPENDIX V

105

APPENDIX VI

Average household income * location * gender of respondent Crosstabulation Count location gender of respondent Male Average household income less than 100,000-200,000 201,000-400,000 401,000-600,000 601,000-900,000 greater than 900,000 Total Female Average household income less than 100,000-200,000 401,000-600,000 Total Rizal 9 0 2 3 1 15 Laguna 86 28 7 4 2 127 8 0 8 Metro Manila 7 2 6 1 3 19 3 1 4 Batangas 4 1 0 0 1 6 Others 11 5 2 1 2 21 1 0 1 Total 117 36 17 9 9 188 12 1 13

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful