| |
|
A Modern County Trails System for Bland County
and Its Ranging Initiative
After returning from excellent conferences and working sessions, I was always bothered by having to leave the excitement and ideas of the conference to return to the immediate, pressing, and accumulated needs of the office while I was away. The conference notes were left for me to handle "some other day, real soon." That day rarely came. Now I have retired after 50 years of natural resource agency, consulting, and university teaching and research. I now have time to handle notes and to reflect on the flood of ideas from such meetings. In the past several years there has grown interest in ecotourism, new challenges to the Appalachian Trail, competing trail interests and conflicts. Questions, once hidden, now are asked about the role if any of trails for a healthy, vigorous, scenic rural community.
Reflecting on a first-aid squad being assigned "cure cancer!" I can imagine one such squad trying, maybe even one being successful, but prudence suggesting two options for the squad: (1) disband or (2) get a revised assignment. I sense the need for a revised assignment. The assignment that I think is critical to Bland County residents and planners is that of understanding the part of the major national Appalachian Trail (the AT) that they have and then designing and creating a modern trails system for the county that capitalizes on the found benefits (if any) of that trail.
I recently heard of a very unhappy biker in a group. All night she complained and all were disgusted by the noisy exchanges between her and her partner. Finally, all heard through the night air: "Then lower your standards!!" Reflecting further, the new need in Bland is not about lowering or changing standards. It is about clarifying objectives and bringing them into a realm of reasonableness, then discussing their meaning and uses to confront the major problems of a major county of Southwestern Virginia. The assignment is not to improve the AT in the County or significantly benefit the Trail Conservancy or the US Forest Service. Recent moves to charge significant fees of commercial users of public trails will work against the benefits to the County.
Good systems work starts with writing objectives, specific ones, that can be argued in court whether it had or had not been achieved or delivered. If an objective is stated and then no achievement can be shown to an increasingly litigious and accountability-prone society, then there will be evidence of incompetence or malfeasance. Dissatisfaction and problems arise within the gap between expectations and achievements. We can study and find the limits to three proposed objectives and then develop a new one.
Objective 1
We could state as an objective: 1. Restoring, managing, and protecting the AT's ability to produce human benefits, i.e., it as a world resource. Thoughtful readers will see this as a very physical objective, probably emphasizing the means for doing so, involving agency cooperators/helpers, legal work, volunteers, and investments of large sums of money for staff, travel to work areas, and working equipment. It requires direct in-the-field trail work. A performance measure will be difficult to develop. It implies just keeping on doing what we have done in the past.
Objective 2
We could state and reject as our second objective: 2. Maximizing opportunities for using and enjoying the AT resources. This one would create a difficult decision -- perhaps needing a re-wording… a different assignment… maybe to add "stabilize use" … maybe not "opportunities" but only counts of actual use…maybe needing a trick like restricting day hikes to good weather days only because the enjoyment of a hike-event will not score well on such days. Decisions about this objective are needed to allow work to be concentrated on parts of trails and may relate well to carrying capacity and
| TODs = Trail Opportunity Days |
The availability of TODs will open advertising potentials like "quality fishing days," and suggest unfulfilled capacities and opportunities of a trails system, offer potentials for monitoring success at achieving an objective, suggest alternative cost-cutting strategies that influence the score but without the high costs of modifying the tread or location of the AT. Impacts to the AT from proposed developments can be expressed in lost or foregone TODs.
Major conflicts exist and are growing as people from snowmobile, mountain bikes, recreational vehicles, and horse groups attempt to re-define the nature of the "footpath" for the future. Other uses and users such as wind farms on the crests and buildings within the viewscapes change the wilderness characteristics of the hiking environment and experience. Educating users, probably through levels of memberships in a new organization, opens awareness opportunities and events and allows the same physical resource (trails and their corridors) to achieve heightened benefits. Asking users about levels of enjoyment (scale of 0-10) of a classical set of named opportunities (say 12) can allow public monthly reports to be made for each working or staffed section of the trail system. (This avoids debates about whether such expressions reflect esthetic or willingness to pay. It is "what each person says"! That's all, and that's what counts!) The public has to know that the trails of the county are something more than things on a map, more than something beyond a sign once seen. The public has invested in the AT and others; their investment must payoff; their investment can improve…even without greater investment. It can decline without investment, akin to a large piece of equipment. It must be managed, maintained, and it must work. It can be enhanced by small private investments.
The original ideas and concepts for the AT have, in my opinion, now depreciated within society to an insignificant amount! (Increasing use-rates do not deny this opinion. The proportion of the population aware of the Trail and its potentials shrinks as the population increases and becomes more urban.) A shift is needed from the AT as the major topic to the ATas a means to other ends. Taking a hike is an end for some people; the trail is just a part of that action. A special few treat theAT as an end -- to walk the whole thing. Others find it like a treadmill for their health improvement. For others, the trail is almost irrelevant in quests for birds, insects, wildflowers, mushrooms, great views, fishing, hunting, experiencing wilderness, doing studies, painting, and others. The AT organization has had to concentrate on the trail itself. A modern system can capitalize on the diversity of users, the many benefits possible, the array of publics that can and will have their own personal reasons for supporting the AT system.
Because of changing and already-radically-changed human populations (past 20 years) people in urban centers have no AT Trail concepts or experiences. As agriculturists saw years ago the decline in farmers and created the 4-H program, it is time for those interested in hiking and trails, especially the AT to see declining quality experiences in involvement in the outdoors and a widening in the socioeconomic classes of the Eastern US. There is a need for an enterprise that brings The AT and informed hiking into view, at least as one end to programs and activities. Another organization or a program that integrates with existing groups (nature study, scouts, 4-H, hunters, anglers, garden clubs) may be the only effective means over time to bring the urban public into the forested mountains for all of the benefits that a managed system can provide for them. International groups are needed to function in the same way. Saying that the AT is "a world resource" does not assure that it is, will remain that, or that it will be experienced well. There are needs for supplementary and diverse trails, relieving peculiar pressures on the AT itself from joggers, dog-walkers, fitness devotees, quickie walks, and as a place for walking and standing conversations (as in golf). Such activities may be viewed as a customer base. They can be direct trail management, removing hiker-pounds per moisture-class day per trail-mile. Generally, rather than the role of the beggar for tax and foundation support (always unstable or in doubt), a trails system must gain the role of an institution that works for society and from which it derives its support.
Analyses of the mood of society toward the AT, ecological concerns, environmentalism, and outdoor recreation and also of the social and political forces and appropriate responses to them are an essential input-process pair. For the future, the still-viable "piece of equipment" , the AT can be oiled and polished and adjusted for new work and new production in the now urbanized, largely suburbanized, and increasingly globalized world.
A special challenge is to elucidate the current relevance of the ATand newly developed trails on private lands and to add to that relevance by placing it within the context of a modern county trails system . It has much relevance … it needs to be stated well and often and a market clearly identified and efforts not wasted trying to sell it to everyone. Everyone does not vote, or benefit, or participate in any aspect of the AT…or a new system or even have a high likelihood of doing so. Few people know what Appalachia is, what a wildland trail is, and few want to know. The Mississippi remains a mental as well as physical barrier in the US. There is a market; it can be increased; it is not "the people of the world," even those of the US. There are sub-markets. The cost of addressing each is very different. Cost effectiveness must rule.
Objective 3
We can confound the goals and objectives and say that the third objective is: 3. Providing financial incentives to people and communities in the AT corridor.
Everyone uses "sustainability" these days, almost as much as "like" or "you know." In the near future, maintaining and managing the AT cannot be stabilized because funding from grants, agencies, and trusts cannot be assumed to be stable. As a healthy plant or animal, health cannot be stable without fairly stable energy and food resources (diversity and a flow within bounds). A healthy trails system managed by a staff, must have stable funding to achieve the stated objectives. If objectives are added or increased, then new funds must be gained to achieve the additions. The only way to achieve stable funding for a planned 150 years (at least the lifetime of a tree planted to replace one lost along the AT) is from a computer-aided private rural resource conglomerate, Rural System, having the characteristics of:
To gain economic advantages for citizens and communities, there must be economic advantages provided by staff of a trails enterprise within the county, one that is part of Rural System. These include buying power, discounts, prizes and awards, recognitions, and group functions. Communities must see clearly trail jobs held and created and the related tax contributions. New jobs must be clearly announced. Private land owners must experience some financial gains - sales, percentage of product sales, catering opportunities, visitation fees, etc. The measured and expressed gains must be clear to the local community - motel sales, food sales, product sales, and gasoline sales. Ecotourism (AT use probably fits) has many disadvantages including increasing local service costs, low-wage jobs, seasonal demands, etc.(see Christian Science Monitor's "When Ecotourism Kills" to a diatribe in New Scientist). These must be countered. There is no need for the AT or trails system to be tarred by the increasingly negative "ecotourism-", "nature-", or "adventure-tourism" brush.
Changing staffs of National Forests holding land through which the AT passes often oppose hikers because their apparent costs and disturbances are at odds with perceived land management objectives. Clarifying their objectives may be needed as well as education for members on differences in responsible behavior on different sections of a trails system.
The Details
 |
The new objective: To create and manage a profitable permanent trails system within the county, one that is part of a large stabilizing group that seeks to improve local employment, stabilize the local economy, and improves the natural resources of the county and their benefits to future people.
Inputs
General system theory has the appearance in the nearby figure. The context may be the entire county or more narrowly just the designed system itself. It is convenient to address the state or national needs but the issues are now critical, local, and affect a small group of people in one county. We can imagine expanding the system, once it is developed, even if economies might be gained from a more broad approach. A section of the trail system may be treated as a subsystem. Inputs are energy, funds, ideas, etc. They are fairly well known but a modern system will probably include input subsystems related to:
Processes
Superior work over many years continues, from land acquisition to signs, to tread improvements, to structures. It must continue. Only awe is appropriate to the time, hardship, and contributions made over so many years. The new need seem to include:
A strike-force (e.g., the hot-shot fire crew) may be needed for quick response to emergencies, thus reducing the high local costs incurred by lost hiker, Trail-threatening wildfires, and related emergencies.
Financial incentives can allow a stable staff to be gained. Preserving local knowledge is essential, perhaps more so than knowledge of plants and animals or the Trail tread itself. Computer knowledge bases, text backups, oral tradition, TV images… all with backups are essential to avoid the deplorable losses and inefficiencies, thus high costs, of replacing dedicated staff and volunteers.
Crime prevention and security are needed. These are needed to allow staff to achieve some of the dimensions of Objective 2 (above). The needs are changing, vital in some areas, and need national and state law enforcement expert involvement. The need increases and, without major intervention (another high cost), will prevent achieving any of the above-listed objectives. There must be notable financial benefits from the trail system and its operation, an objective that was unstated and unimagined by the AT creators (equivalent to irresponsible parents turning over to society a child to raise …splendidly.)
Feedback
I'm not sure how "adaptive management" suppressed an ancient and functional idea of feedback. "Adaptive management" does not mean making replies to mail of phone calls. Feedback in a trails system is the function of seeing the present situation, checking the objectives, seeing the difference, if any, and then making corrections and changes to reduce the difference between the actual state and the desired state of affairs or situation. It can be thought of as a "least-squares approach to management" - reducing squared deviations.
Feedback is functionless without clear, written, largely agreed-upon objectives. It is badly needed. The new trails system can achieve leadership in clarifying this functional relationship and need throughout natural resource agencies. When a group sees feedback as normal and natural and essential for life (as in some mammalian temperature regulation system), nor " correction" as derogatory or evidence of evil performance, then the group can be unsurpassed in natural resource and outdoor recreation circles. Few have objectives, so " spending money" and " keeping busy" suffice.
Feedforward
Predicting the future and then using that prediction in the current decisions is " feedforward." For example, it looks at future urban populations (80%) (compared to 80% rural less than 50 years ago) and predicts use and then adjusts programs for managing Trail treads, signs, membership requirements, and to adjusting targets for brochures and Internet communications. Predictions are needed for vegetation change with global warming, international visitor use, gateway financial successes and new demands, staff attitudes and staffing requirements, the returning soldiers and their use and needs for trail experiences, increasing drug plant plots, deer population destruction of wildflowers. Prediction plus changed decisions and performance to respond to and use the prediction is the topic, either to change the future or despond to it by current investments.
A Modern Systems Approach " Approaches" come and go, but parallels, similarities, and consistencies in them suggest that managers over time have found things that work, no matter what the name. I think that there is a new opportunity to move the Bland srails system along with part of the AT into a position of international natural resource prominence by the suggestions presented here. Of course I'll be glad to discuss them further.
There are dimensions of the new world never dreamed by the creators of the AT or the AT Conservancy. There is an environmental awareness, a movement, new accountability, new pockets of money, new technology (GPS/ GIS/ broadband), new suburban pressures, unknown and Trail-unaware inner-city citizens, international travel, new thru-walkers…climatic stresses, invasive plants and animals. There are masses of students from single-parent families that have never had an outdoor experience, certainly not a Trail contact or experience.
In this age, specialization has had more advantages than disadvantages. " Managing the whole company" or " whole body" have a good ring to them, but few managers and doctors have been successful and they revert to divisions, departments, and specialists. The " whole trail system" may be the desired object of interest, but there will be major sales, marketing, efficiencies, loyalty and growth in membership and funding base if sections of the county trails are emphasized and specialists developed.
It is an exciting time that needs a common approach that allows communication and coordination. Duplication must be reduced. Subsystems need to be seen as modules for use elsewhere with minor changes. Things can be created that " fit." We need a learning system and one that communicates what is learned. We need to see learning as " changed behavior," not filled with facts. Much of what I have discussed here is related to decision making and that is very, very difficult and becomes more and more complex and multi-dimensional. It requires simulations and optimization, thus computer aids. There needs to be a notable modern emphasis - - a comprehensive modern computer-aided system - physical, biologic, administrative, and socioeconomic.
"Preserving" the AT is clearly a good idea. "Conserving it," much less clear, seems good, but that phrase becomes meaningless when discussed as "wise use" and also " preserving," but also as conserving and restoring items in a museum. " Conserving" has political usefulness, little other. The needs for intensive, well-informed, on-going management of the AT and its dynamic living corridor with daily changes and assaults from all sides is well known by all but " the general public." The general public cannot be taught enough fast enough to allow them to self-manage the AT. It will not sustain itself. Without major on-going work, it is unsustainable. To help it sustain itself it needs in Bland County of Virginia a prototype of a new modern trails system. It can present itself as a centralizing and linking concept for the AT. It will be seen as an independent non-profit organization, a public and private partnership, devoted to providing a continually-changing array of abundant benefits for the people of the world. The market changes with contact through the Internet and the e-Catalog. Excessive attention to the trail tread and its location, appropriate for the past, can be surrounded and replaced with a modern system that has a clearly accountable performance measure, one of sustained bounded profits.
The system is like a factory. The working platform for that factory is the land and water of the trail system and its corridors through public and private lands. We have a clear corporate objective - to sustain profit. In order to sustain profits, not maximum but within bounds for 150 years, (at least, sliding forward one year each year), the land…all of the resources of the corridors and their lands ... must be managed very, very well. Management includes restoration, preservation (select, designated public wilderness areas and cultural spots), construction (e.g., water bars and bridges), and regulation of users and levels of use. It includes a new strategy of building ancillary trails to reduce and diversify the pressures on the AT itself. It also includes studies, especially monitoring as one part of active feedback. The AT itself may remain central but only one part of a new public-private land use entity that emerges devoted to producing benefits (no longer just "goods and services" but products, services, structures, opportunities, views, information, ideas, memberships, and memories). There are costs and gains from such work, thus present-discounted net gains or profits. The trails system is defended as a capitalistic, entrepreneurial public-private for-profit system. Infringements no longer are against an impersonal, largely unknown, widely dispersed AT of interest to a "club," but against profits and employment. The suggested system is one without new taxes, grounded in millions of dollars of past research, using modern technology, and one committed to local people and community gateways (still with a few thru-walkers). It is intent on showing the public that it can make their lives better. The free-enterprise System defends itself and its Trail and clients/customers in the courts against assaults from ORVs, bikers, from viewscape damage, and from the other intrusions of air pollution, litter, noise and odor pollution … all with measured costs to a major private enterprise.
A new modern system may not be a bad idea.
Robert H. Giles, Jr., Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, formerly of the
College of Natural Resources
Virginia Tech,
504 Rose Avenue
Blacksburg 24060
RHGiles@RuralSystem.com
August 14, 2006
Perhaps you will share ideas with RHGiles@RuralSystem.com about some of the topic(s) above. |
|
Maybe we can work together |
