It might have seemed like a blast from the past for those who had been involved in the process, but the full results of the Jasper Trails Survey were finally shared with the public last week, three years after the research project was conducted.

In 2003, Simon Fraser University researcher Colleen Anderson carried out a comprehensive study of trail users in the frontcountry trail network near Jasper, with a particular focus on the trails of the Pyramid Bench. While Anderson’s final report was written by November of 2004, this is the first the public has seen of the study’s findings or Anderson’s particular recommendations.

“This was a good opportunity to get people fresh again,” said Parks planner Shawn Cardiff following the well-attended presentation last Tuesday (May 9). “This kind of research in a way is like holding up a mirror to the community and to trail users, and it’s important that people have a chance to see that.”

When Parks received Anderson’s report almost two years ago, they put it to immediate use, Cardiff said.

“We digested it for any immediate application right at that time,” he said. The trail survey research provided part of the foundation for the Jasper Trails Project, a multi-year strategy for improving the trail network near Jasper. With Anderson’s report and some ecological work that had been happening concurrently, Parks had the ability to make an application for Innovative Project Funding from the federal government, Cardiff recalled.

“We had intended to do something, and Colleen’s science really enhanced that,” he said.

While forming a collaborative, community-based approach to solving trail issues was one of the primary suggestions coming from Anderson’s research, she made it clear that a wide range of views on how best to manage the trail system will make the task a difficult one.

“You guys have your work cut out for you,” she said.

For example, the survey revealed that, in general, visitors were seen to be more in favour of trail restrictions or the concept of seperating users on dedicated trails. Residents were less enthusiastic about the idea. Anderson called the local trail network “a real gem” adding that it was very rare to have such a large system of shared trails, particularly in a national park. She outlined some of the major advantages to having a system of dedicated trails, saying that it could reduce user conflicts and that people would know what to expect while using a particular trail. On the downside, this approach might cause conflicts during the planning process, as hikers, mountain bikers and horse outfitters all battled for favoured parts of the network.

The diversity of opinion was not restricted to matters of human trail conflict. The issue of human-wildlife conflict and the rerouting or closure of trails was another area where visitors tended to be far more accepting of restrictive measures, but Anderson noted that all groups put an emphasis on taking some action.

“I found that really encouraging,” she said. “Everyone wants to see something done.”

After interviewing people as they used the trail system, poring over responses to a mail survey, and officiating focus group discussions, Anderson provided a short list of recommendations to Parks Canada. Beyond suggesting a system similar to the current trails project, Anderson also focused on the need for improved trail maintenance in high-use areas.

“This is not to be underestimated when it comes to reducing conflicts over use,” she said.

She also warned against a reliance on voluntary measures, like suggested closures, when concerns existed over habitat. At the same time, she advised that if closures were necessary, trade-offs ought to be provided.

“People are generally sensitive to any perceived loss of opportunities,” she said. 

Anderson also reported a sensitivity about the reliability of Parks Canada, something she believes could make it even more difficult to come up with shared solutions for trail use.

“Unfortunately, there is quite a bit of distrust for Parks,” she said. “Parks needs to find new ways to communicate their messages.”

Shawn Cardiff recognizes that fact, but believes the tide is turning, thanks to Parks’ commitment to collaboration.

“Through the feedback we’re getting, people feel that we are more transparent and more interested in feedback,” he said. “Ultimately, a lot of it is about building personal relationships. It is an ongoing process that calls for continual improvement.”

In his 18 years with Parks, Cardiff has seen a significant shift away from how the agency used to consult with the public.

“There was a lot more formulation of draft policy, which was then brought forward,” he said. “Now, people are being asked to help us get to that policy.”

The Jasper Trails Project will hopefully provide a good example of this new approach, he said. The working group has been meeting regularly for some time, but the stewardship group, a body that will review the recommendations made by the working group, has yet to be struck.