Private landowners refrain to open their land for recreational users in the fear of potential liability. This study covered the extent of liability, actual bodily injuries and property damages sustained by hunters and anglers in Mississippi. In order to aid for comparison, the study was divided in two sections. First it examined the risk and liability in fee access recreation through the review of court cases from 1904 to 2005. Second study explored the extent of actual bodily injuries and property damages sustained by hunters and anglers in Mississippi during 2002/03 to 2004/05 using telephone survey. It was found that landowners won 68% of the legal cases even though they charged fees for recreational access. The study revealed that 1% respondents of the total sample had accidents and only 16.8% respondents had the liability insurance coverage.

Trail biking in the Lower Fraser Valley has become popular as an outdoor recreation activity in the last 10 to 15 years. A major attraction of this activity is the freedom it gives the trail bikers to go almost anywhere. However, with increasing urbanisation, the number of areas on which to ride trail bikes has diminished. With encroachment of residential land on still existing trail bike haunts, the number of complaints of noise, trespass, environmental damage and recreation user conflict is growing. Provision of a special use area for trail bikes has proved an acceptable solution to similar problems in other parts of North America. On the surface, it seems logical that a special use area might be equally acceptable in the study area. However, it is contended that the Lower Fraser Valley presents a different combination of social and environmental factors, and that the design of an acceptable solution to the trail bike problem requires more than mere provision of a special use area. As a methodology for designing such a solution, a model based upon 'planning under uncertainty’ is utilized. This model consists of two cycles; the 'plan-making cycle' and the 'plan implementing cycle'. The objective of the 'plan making' cycle is to design an acceptable solution to the trail bike problem in the study area. First, several aspects of the problem are explored. The demand for trail bike facilities, and how this demand has been met is examined. The problems generated by trail biking in the study area are identified and discussed. From these investigations, criteria for an acceptable solution are formulated. Four solutions are examined with respect to these criteria. These are: a) to do nothing, b) to prohibit trail bike use completely, c) to prohibit trail bike use from certain areas and d) to accommodate trail bike use. Only the latter, or a combination of prohibition and accommodation are considered acceptable. However, even if a special use area is provided, there is no basis for prediction, that it will be used, nor that it will be tolerated by the residents of the Lower Fraser Valley, nor is it known what will be the environmental consequences of such action. This uncertainty is reduced by entering the 'plan-implementing cycle'. The purpose of this cycle is to implement the chosen solution for an experimental period, and in doing so monitor aspects that have been identified as uncertain. There are four phases in this cycle» action, monitoring, analysis and evaluation. The results of the monitoring program are evaluated on the basis of how well the ‘plan’ meets the stated criteria for an acceptable solution. Evaluation will determine if the experiment should continue with modifications based on the first round of a cycle, or if a return to the plan-making cycle is required as a result of unexpected events. This model for planning under uncertainty is illustrated by describing how the plan implementing cycle could be applied in the study area. The case for choosing Eagle Ridge as the experimental site is stated and a site plan and monitoring programme is described. / Applied Science, Faculty of / Community and Regional Planning (SCARP), School of / Graduate

Parks and protected areas are often created to protect important social, ecological, or cultural resources from impairment. In the United States, a large majority of these parks and protected areas are also public land where recreational activities such as hiking or scenic driving are allowed. Managers of many parks and protected areas must therefore try to protect resources while also allowing for recreation use that may put these resources at risk for damage. The field of recreation ecology is interested in understanding how recreation use in parks and protected areas can sometimes cause ecological impacts to vegetation, soil, wildlife, water, air, and soundscapes. This information is then used to help managers prevent undesirable ecological change. When visitors to parks and protected areas leave designated sites such as trails or roads, there is a greater chance that ecological impacts will occur. The studies presented here are designed to help managers better understand how visitor behavior off of designated trails may result in damage to plant communities. These studies examine data on both the social aspects of recreation use (such as visitor behavior and the number of visitors recreating) and the ecological aspects (specifically the plant communities found at popular recreation destinations). By looking at social and ecological data together, these studies can predict locations in parks or protected areas where ecological impact may occur as a result of recreation use. Managers can use these predictions to better allocate resources and time to managing recreation use at locations that are most at risk of impairment.

This study investigates issues of changing recreation use and management in the Greenstone and Caples Valleys. Its underlying research themes are the differing characteristics and activities of four distinct user-groups, how such differences could contribute to conflict in recreation use and management, and the implications of such for management. The conceptual framework used to deal with these issues is the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), which is based upon the assumption that quality in recreation experiences and management is best achieved through provision of a range of recreation opportunities. This recognises that objective research input into recreation management cannot substitute for the ultimate subjectivity required in decision-making. Management has two roles here. First, to maintain and/or enhance the range of recreation opportunities availible. Second, to provide users with appropriate signals regarding the availibility of opportunities, and the acceptable norms of use and behaviour. Thus user choice of area and activities undertaken within becomes more a consequence of management action. This differs from most recreation management to date, which has tended to be in response to changing conditions (eg'demand-driven'). The absence of an equitable management approach results in selective reduction of opportunities for certain experiences, as evident from research into effects of conflict/crowding perceptions. In contrast, approaches such as the ROS emphasise management for such opportunities. On this basis and from research results, this study found that maintenance of experiences associated with angling and hunting opportunities in the study area, should be the basis for its management. These opportunities were exploited by relatively more experienced participants. For anglers in particular this was reflected by their characteristics of high activity specialisation. Greater experience and specialisation involved more specific resource requirements and norms of appropriate behaviour. Thus opportunities for hunting and angling in the study area were more susceptible to negative impacts from other uses and users. These impacts would be greatest for angling experiences. This would be more a consequence of perceived inappropriate behaviour by less specialised anglers than a consequence of physical crowding. For hunters these impacts would be primarily a result of concern about the increased presence of others on hunting management, rather than their actual presence. Experiences from the tramping and commercial guided walking opportunities availible are also important, but their participants were relatively less experienced and their recreation opportunities less unique in the region. In the context of an equitable regional ROS approach, there is greater flexibility for their provision elsewhere than there is for experiences from hunting and fishing opportunities. For maintenance of a spectrum of opportunities in the regional ROS, these hunting and angling opportunities should be emphasised in management decision-making. Within the study area itself, management for a regional ROS requires that the Greenstone and Caples Valleys be managed differently. It was clear that the Caples was perceived as providing more 'back-country'-type experience opportunities. In the regional ROS context, management should emphasise maintenance of such opportunities there. Along with this should be noted the greater preference for the CapIes by hunters, and for the Greenstone by anglers.