Trails 1

Cost of Outdoor Recreation On Trails in Millcreek Canyon, Utah

Alexander C. Spears

Westminster College
Trails 2

Abstract

Outdoor recreation is a big part of life here in my home state of Utah. As our population

increases, more and more people will venture into our mountains and recreate on our trails.

Although I would say getting outdoors is a good thing there are consequences to creating and

using trails. In this study we look at how recreation and different types of recreation effect

different soil characteristics on and around trails in Millcreek Canyon near Salt Lake City, Utah.

Focusing on two trails dedicated to hiking and two multi-use trails where bikers are allowed, we

took core samples on and off-trail. We tested these samples for bulk density, water retention,

pH, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Our findings show that although there is no significant difference

between biking and hiking trails in any of the tested characteristics there were significant

differences when it came to on-trail and off-trail. On-trail we saw higher bulk density (p =

1.6e-09), ​nitrogen (p = .028), and phosphorus (p = .040). These results indicate that trails in

general have more of an impact then the type of recreation done on them.

Introduction

Recreation has always had an impact on the environment. One study on ski runs found

impacts on plant community composition and diversity, nutrient cycling and retention, and

erosion potential increased as intensity of use increased (Burt & Rice, 2009). Other studies

have focused on recreations effect on wildlife (Cole & Landers, 1985). There have been many

studies conducted about soil compaction and how it influences various other properties of the

ecosystem. As humans further expand into more wild areas we often take ourselves or heavy

vehicles that compact the soil under them. This compaction affects not only the soil’s physical
Trails 3
properties but can have an effect on the soil ecology as well. Much of these studies have been

done in relation to agriculture and the impact large agricultural vehicles have on crop

production (Soane & Ouwerkerk, 1994). Under three levels of compaction 1.10, 1.25, and 1.40

Mg/m^3, nitrogen decreased by .07% while phosphorus decreased by about .02%, pH also

decreased from 6.89 to 6.84 (​Canbolat, Bilen, Çakmakçı, Şahin & Aydın, 2005). This

decreased effectiveness of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer had an effect on root length and

root and shoot weight. Soil compaction has also been linked to reduction in permeability to air,

water and roots (Batey, 2009). Soil erosion is also a major concern for recreational trails (Olive

& Marion, 2009) and is currently a factor taken into consideration under some trail management

guides (Marion & Leung, 2004). Soil compaction in forest plantations was shown to have a

negative impact on water permutation in almost all soil types (Smith, Johnston & Lorentz,

2001). I was only able to find one study that tried to assess the difference in impact between

biking and hiking trails. This study concluded that one year after treatment biking and hiking

generally had similar effects on vegetation and soil (Thurston & Reader, 2001). Another study

showed that although compaction from human trampling, biking, and off-road vehicle traffic

affected bulk density, compaction , and percent pore space, the different disturbance types did

not change them significantly (Lei, 2004).

Outdoor recreation has always been a major part of my life as well as many of my peers

in my home state of Utah. Head thirty minutes out of any city and you will be surrounded by

dozens of trails to hike, bike, ride horses, or drive off-road vehicles. For people that enjoy

being outdoors it's paradise. But that paradise might come with a cost. As more and more

people venture out into the mountains and our trails are increasingly traveled on there may be
Trails 4
impacts on soil properties on these trails that have an impact on the ecosystem. In this paper, I

will be looking at data collected from Millcreek Canyon located on the Wasatch Front. Using

this data I will look to see if there are any significant impacts between trails and off-trail areas,

as well as type of locomotion, mainly dedicated hiking trails and mixed trails that allow biking.

The hypothesis I will be testing for this study are that: soil compaction will be greater on-trail

than off-trail; compaction will be greater on biking trails rather than hiking trails; on-trail will

have lower nitrogen and phosphorus then off-trail; pH will be lower on-trail thean off-trail;

water retention will be greater off-trail than on-trail.

Methods

This study was conducted in Millcreek Canyon located in the Salt Lake Valley in Utah,

U.S.A. For this study, four trails were selected for test sites, two that were hiking trails only

and two that were mixed-use where bikes were allowed. The two hiking-only trails were

Rattlesnake and The Terraces. The mixed-use trails were Pipeline and Burch Hollow.
Trails 5

We collected at six sites at Rattlesnake and Pipeline, and three at the Terraces and Burch

Hollow. These sites were located on various parts of the trail at least 200 meters away from any

other site. At each of these sites, six samples were taken, three on the trail itself and three 10

meters perpendicular to the trail to act as a control. Each sample was taken roughly 1m from

the other samples. This process resulted in 108 samples in total.

Trails 6

The method used for collection is a common one that can be found in ​Developments in

Agricultural Engineering II: Soil Compaction in Crop Production ​(Soane & Ouwerkerk, 1994).

This method uses a soil core to collect a known volume of soil that is then weighed after drying

completely to get a bulk density. I chose this method as it not only allowed me to get bulk

density by weighing the sample beforehand I was able to get moisture content as well. To

calculate bulk density I took the dry mass in grams and divided by the volume in cm^3 then

converted it from g/cm^3 to kg/m^3. To get the moisture content I took the wet soil mass in

grams and subtracted it by the dry soil mass in grams which gave me the amount of water lost in

grams. Once bulk density and moisture content were completed for each of the 108 samples I
Trails 7
mixed the dirt from each of the three samples taken at each site to run Nitrogen, Phosphorus and

pH test on them. I did this mainly for time and resource restraints. Using nitrogen, phosphorus,

and pH test kit I ran all samples through each test resulting in 36 samples per test.

Once my data was collected I worked on methods for statistical analysis. With the type

of data that I had, it made the most sense to run a T-test for my numerical variables, bulk

density, water retention, and pH. These will all give me a p-value that I can use to determine

the statistical significance of my data. For my categorical data, Nitrogen and Phosphorus, I

decided to us a Chi-squared test. This will tell me how likely it is the difference in the results is

due to chance. I plan on running these for both site type and control type to help me answer the

questions put forth.

Results

Differences in Site Type

The main question I asked in this paper as if there was a difference in soil characteristics

between hiking and biking trails. There seems to be no statistically significant difference

between any of the variables tested between site types. When run through a T-test bulk density,

water retention, and pH all had p-values greater the 0.05 (Fig. 1a-c). The same is true for

Nitrogen and Phosphorus. Using the observed counts and expected counts (Table 1, Table 2) I

was able to do a Chi squared test where I found that both Nitrogen and Phosphorus had p-values

of p = .77, p = .135 respectively.

Trails 8
Trails 9
Differences in Control Type

The secondary question asked in the paper deal with the difference between the

treatment group which is on-trail and the control which is off-trail. Unlike the difference

between site type, we do see some significant differences in our soil properties. There were

statistically significant differences between the control group and the treatment group in bulk

density (p = 1.6e-09), nitrogen (p = .028), and phosphorus (p = .040). We did not see

statistically significant differences in water r retention (p = .19) or pH (p = .96).

Trails 10
Trails 11
Discussion

Overall we have seen mixed results, some I expected and fit with what was hypothesized

and some were not. There was no difference in any category when comparing site types

however this is consistent with the two studies referenced in the introduction ( Lei ,2004) and

(Thruston & Reader, 2001). When looking at our hypothesis we can accept the null hypothesis

that there is no difference in soil compaction between site types, no difference in moisture

content between site types, and no difference in nutrient content between site types.

Additionally we can accept the null hypothesis that there is no difference in moisture content

between treatment sites. We can reject the null hypothesis and say there are statistically

significant differences in phosphorus, nitrogen, and bulk density between control types.

Thinking about it further I am not very surprised I did not see that much variability between the

hiking and biking sites. This probably has to do with bikes not weighing enough to compact the

soil significantly more than just walking. Additionally, there is no guarantee that there are not

bikers that ride on the trails designated for hikers only, especially Rattlesnake as it meets up

with Pipeline which is mixed-use. The result that surprised me the most was that there was not

a significant difference between the control group and the treatment group when it came to

water retention. Based on my observations while collecting I was fairly confident that there

would be. My only explanation for that is that the only precipitation that had fallen recently in

the area was snow meaning that all of the soil could have low moisture content. This result is

also different from other studies that showed increased compaction prevented water penetration

(Smith, Johnston & Lorentz, 2001). Even though this is mostly true Smith et al. also notes that

it is not true for all soil types and in some cases increased compaction increased available water
Trails 12
capacity. It is hard to say if we fell into one of those categories as we did not attempt to identify

the type of soil. The most meaningful result is that trails, biking, and hiking have significantly

more compaction than the surrounding forest. Based on our overall results it seems like we can

say trails in general have more of an impact on soil characteristics then the type of recreation

don on them. For future studies it may be useful to look at other forms of trail recreation such

as horseback and off-highway vehicles. If it is the case that bikes do not weigh enough more

than hikers compact the soil more. Increasing the weight of the vehicle should show different

results. In addition to weight both horses and off-highway vehicles produce waste that may also

have an impact on the nutrient content of the soil. Future studies could also focus more on the

biotic life and how it is impacted by type of recreation on trails. Like our own a study

conducted about the current literature surrounding trail infrastructure says that most of these

studies have been conducted on a local level and that there is a need for studies like this to be

conducted at an ecosystem level (Ballantyne & Pickering, 2015).

Trails 13

References

Ballantyne, M., & Pickering, C. (2015). The impacts of trail infrastructure on vegetation and soils: Current

literature and future directions. ​Journal Of Environmental Management,​ ​164,​ 53-64. doi:

10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.08.032

Batey, T. (2009). Soil compaction and soil management - a review. ​Soil Use And Management​, ​25​(4),

335-345. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2009.00236.x

Burt, J., & Rice, K. (2009). Not all ski slopes are created equal: Disturbance intensity affects ecosystem

properties. ​Ecological Applications​, ​19​(8), 2242-2253. doi: 10.1890/08-0719.1

Canbolat, M., Bilen, S., Çakmakçı, R., Şahin, F., & Aydın, A. (2005). Effect of plant growth-promoting

bacteria and soil compaction on barley seedling growth, nutrient uptake, soil properties and

rhizosphere microflora. ​Biology And Fertility Of Soils​, ​42​(4), 350-357. doi:

10.1007/s00374-005-0034-9

Marion, J., & Leung, Y. (2004). ​Environmentally sustainable trail management​ (pp. 229-244). Cambridge,

MA: CABI Publishing.

Olive, N., & Marion, J. (2009). The influence of use-related, environmental, and managerial factors on

soil loss from recreational trails. ​Journal Of Environmental Management,​ ​90(​ 3), 1483-1493. doi:

10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.10.004

Smith, C., Johnston, M., & Lorentz, S. (2001). The effect of soil compaction on the water retention

characteristics of soils in forest plantations. ​South African Journal Of Plant And Soil,​ ​18​(3),

87-97. doi: 10.1080/02571862.2001.10634410

Soane, B., & Ouwerkerk, C. (1994). Soil Compaction in Crop Production. ​Developments In Agricultural

Engineering,​ ​11,​ 116-118.

Trails 14
THURSTON, E., & READER, R. (2001). Impacts of Experimentally Applied Mountain Biking and Hiking

on Vegetation and Soil of a Deciduous Forest. ​Environmental Management,​ ​27​(3), 397-409. doi:

10.1007/s002670010157