National Trail Surfaces Study

III. Results of the Study

Two hundred fifty-three professionals were sent the survey, 154 (61%) of which accessed the survey. Prospective participants were asked to answer questions pertaining to inclusion criteria set by the researchers and the funding agencies–whether the trail was predominately pedestrian/hiker and the trail surface was other than asphalt, concrete or boardwalk. Among those who accessed the survey, only 104 professionals were eligible to participate. For a survey for which participation was estimated not to exceed twenty (20) minutes, the duration mean was documented to be 11 hours and 39 minutes. This probably includes considerable time away from the computer during which time the survey remained “open” on the user’s site.

The rate of full completion of the survey questions was extremely low yielding spotty results for comparison. Of the surveys submitted thirty‐nine provided adequate (albeit not complete) basic information related to surface materials types and construction and were extracted for further examination. Responses were received from across the country and from a variety of agency types with the majority coming from state/local government and federal entities (Table 7).

Respondents were asked if the trail on which they reported was designated as accessible. Table 8 shows that of the qualified surveys, 15 indicated their trail was accessible. However, no other defining information (slopes, tread obstacles, etc.) is available to support the level of accessibility of these trails.

The geographic distribution of qualified respondents were scattered across the United States. Figure N illustrates the location of participating trails in twenty‐two states and the District of Columbia.

Figure N. Regional Distribution of Trail

Of the thirty-nine trails reviewed, ninety-two percent used naturals trail surface materials without stabilizers and only 7.7 percent used a stabilizer product. Table 9 shows that the predominant types of trail materials used were either Native/Natural soils (43.6%) or Crushed Rock/Aggregate (51.3%). Interestingly, however, a general observation notes that for trails that were designated as accessible, the trail material used was overwhelmingly Crushed Rock (93%) vs. Native/Natural soils (7%).

When asked if the respondent would recommend the trail surface material used, nineteen respondents indicated that they would (48.7%) . Table 10 shows the surface materials recommended by region and surface composition. Also included are comments provided by respondents about the trail surface or maintenance related issues.

Five respondents indicated they would not recommend the trail surface and those responses are found in Table 11. Also included are comments provided by respondents about the trail surface or maintenance related issues. Fifteen respondents did not provide a response.

Construction practices varied among agencies. Of the thirty‐nine reported trails only eight had surface materials applied solely by contractors. Agency personnel and/or volunteers were utilized in eighteen of the trails and for an additional five trails agency/volunteer personnel in conjunction with contractors applied the surface materials. Application methods also ranged from hand labor only to various forms of compaction methods. Table 12 shows the types of application methods utilized and the personnel who applied the materials.

Some survey respondents provided photographs of the trail and the surrounding environment. Five aggregate trail surfaces were recommended by responding the trail manager and had accompanying photographs. In addition, all the trails have also been designated as accessible trails. While five trails composed of native soil were recommended surfaces, no photographs were available. Photographs of ten of the thirty-nine trails were provided by respondents and can be found in Appendix F.

Summary of Results

The purpose of the trails surface survey was to provide qualified professionals, resource specialists and operations staff of parks and other recreational properties with trails in the United States with descriptive and/or comparative information about the status of construction practices of pedestrian/hiker, natural surface trails. Despite a sixty-one percent survey access rate of survey invitees, the overall completion rate was extremely low. Therefore, the results can be addressed in terms of a general trend in types of surface materials used. The majority of trail surfaces were natural materials that did not use soil stabilizers. However, information on construction practices and maintenance issues was limited in the responses received. A majority of agencies utilized their own personnel or volunteers to apply surface materials or they worked along with contractors. When asked if respondents would recommend the trail surface materials on which they reported, many (48.7%) indicated they would, however accompanying comments received provided limited supporting information for those recommendations.

Recommendations for Further Action

The National Center on Accessibility continues to receive technical assistance inquiries from the field about what types of natural surface materials are available for use on pedestrian trails and how various surface materials perform in different regions of the country. While the intended outcome of the National Trail Surface survey was to establish a database that trail managers could access for trail surface material information and performance data, the data received were disappointedly sparse. The establishment of a national database of trail surface materials used for pedestrian trails, the firmness and stability of those surfaces and how well those surface materials last over time continues to be an identified need for trail managers.

Currently two national resources are available that provide information to trail users on trail locations and trail characteristics. The National Recreation Trail Database hosted by American Trails (http://www.americantrails.org/NRTDatabase/) contains data provided by federal land management agency trail managers. Trail Explorer (www.trailexplorer.com) developed by Beneficial Designs provides trail characteristic information based on data collected and input by trail managers using the Universal Trail Assessment Process (UTAP). Collaboration with one or both providers -- American Trails and Beneficial Designs -- to expand the collected information to include specific natural surface materials used and performance over time on the reported natural pedestrian trails may be an avenue to explore.