Key words: Land-use conflict, hunting, mountain biking, hiking. Abstract. The combination ..... what kind of equipment is used (Flemsæter, Brown, & Holm, 2011).
Land-use conflicts between landowners, hunters and recreationists Eivind Brendehaug, Western Norway Research Institute (Vestlandsforsking) Key words: Land-use conflict, hunting, mountain biking, hiking.
Abstract The combination of new agriculture business strategies and outdoor life trends with higher income levels and new technology have stimulated the commodification and commercialisation of forests and outlying fields, both nationally and internationally. This paper looks into the situation on the Kaupanger peninsula in Sogndal, a forest and mountain area of about 100 km2 with 1000 inhabitants, and intensive hunting, hiking and trail biking activity. Conflicts between user groups, especially between land owners (hunting interests) and other users such as hikers and bikers, arise from time to time. A R&D project has been initiated by the municipality in order to develop adaptive co-management strategies. The question addressed in this paper is: How may the land-use conflict on the Kaupanger peninsula be understood, and how can it be resolved? Preliminary findings indicate that the commercialisation of hunting by landowners 20 years ago has led to a gradual escalation of conflicts between hunting and hiking interests. These landowners see the relatively recent and ongoing commercialisation of biking activities in the area as a threat to their hunting interests. Locals and recreationists feel squeezed between the landowners and the municipality’s ambition to increase local value creation based on biking. Landowner sanctions may also limit locals’ access to the land. The special landowner structure and the diversity of activities and user groups in combination with the municipality’s ambitions for commercialisation create challenging conditions for developing a system of adaptive co-management.
Background New technology and higher prosperity create new trends in outdoor life, e.g. biking in outlying fields. Biking in outlying fields is rather a new activity in Norway and in the case area if we disregard some early pioneers. The tourism sector is also changing with higher demand for certain outdoor activities (Løseth, 2014), and the current tourism policy asks for the development of new activities, products and services, e.g. biking tourism1. The suitability of the Kaupanger peninsula for mountain biking became well known following a set of biking events in Kaupanger in 2012 and 2013. As a result, the area was promoted in social media. In addition to the aforementioned tourism policy, Norwegian agricultural policy has, for several decades, sought to make land owners develop new income strategies to compensate for the decrease in income based on traditional farming activities. Hunting tourism is one such alternative source of income. Starting in 1990, land owners in the case area have developed a profitable form of hunting tourism. A third policy change influencing the framework for outdoor life is the government strategy to simplify resource management and delegate more resource management tasks to the municipalities2. A preliminary report ordered by the government found that a general lack of knowledge constitutes a source of conflict in local resource management (Winge & Falleth, 2014).
1
http://www.innovasjonnorge.no/no/Reiseliv/arkiv-reiseliv/Markedsforing2/Aktiviteter-i-flere-land/Tema/TemaSykkel1/Tema-Sykkel/ http://www.fjordnorway.com/no/NCE-Tourism/Prosjekter/Prosjekter-og-Tiltak1/Tiltaksplan2014/ 2 http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/aktuelt/Foreslar-at-kommunene-far-bestemme-mer-over-utmark/id2342817/
1
The Kaupanger peninsula, which constitutes the case area for this study, is about 100 square kilometers large. It consists mainly of pine forests, but also mountain areas. The area consists of a western part and an eastern part, divided by the main road and the community Kaupanger with about 1000 inhabitants. In this paper we are focusing on three types of activities which take place in the area: hunting, hiking and biking, although the area is also used for other activities (e.g. orienteering and scouting activities). The deer population has increased strongly in the course of the past 20 years. There are probably several reasons for the increase in deer density and possible factors include reforestation due to fewer husbandries in the surroundings of Kaupanger, deer feeding during winter and climate change. Land owners and hunting companies feed the deer during winter, especially during hard snow winters. As a consequence, the rise in deer density has been followed up with an increase in the number of hunting permissions issued and an expansion of the hunting period. In 2014 the hunting period was almost four months (1 September – 23 December), whereas it lasted about two months in the 1990s (10 September – 15 November). In 2014, nearly 400 deer hunting permissions were issued for the entire Kaupanger peninsula. The trap percentage is about 67 in the area. The deer management plan for the area aims to decrease deer density, but the effectiveness of such an aim are in the hand of the landowners. Our interpretation is that the increase in deer density and expansion of the hunting period has increased the potential for conflicts with other activities. Two kinds of hunting are currently being carried out in the area. Traditional hunting, mainly organised as flight hunting, is based on teams of hunters operating together. Around 1990, a new form of hunting popularly referred to as “call hunting” was introduced. The hunting guide calls for the buck by imitating the deer bell. This form of hunting takes place in October when the bucks are calling and searching for females around the Kaupanger peninsula. People’s willingness to pay for this form of hunting guide service is high. In order to succeed with this method, high deer density is required and no other human activity ought to be going on where hunting is carried out. Around the year 2000, Kaupanger Sports Association introduced an improved marking system for the hiking tracks on the peninsula in order to help the inhabitants to make use the large forest and mountain area surrounding the town. This system also included books where people could sign their names at the various hiking destinations (e.g. on a mountain top) and awards to the most active hikers. The hiking marking system stimulated locals’ use of the hiking tracks. In 2010, over 20,000 signed the books at the hiking destinations, twice as many as in the year 2001. Gradually, biking has also become a relatively common activity in the outlying fields, initially mainly on forests roads, but also on tracks in the forest. Later on, the area was “discovered” as a unique biking track area by people from the region and from other places in Norway and abroad. Sogn Mountain Biking Club was established in 2011 and a digital map showing possible tracks for biking was developed. Today, Kaupanger’s mountain biking qualities are promoted in social media. Businesses offering guided biking tours, in addition to accommodation, are established and there are plans for other biking services. Members of Sogn Mountain Biking Club identified the most frequently-used biking tracks to be mapped in the municipality plan for the period 2013-2023. The municipal council decided that mountain biking should be included in the strategy for outdoor activities in the municipal plan. In sum, this generates pressure for new forms of activity in outlying fields where land owners have been engaged in forestry and hunting for generations, only disturbed by the occasional hiker, berry picker or mushroom picker. The rise of commercial hunting and the growth in the deer population, along with an increase in hiking and biking have combined to create a new situation which calls for new strategies and measures in order to avoid conflicts. This paper examines these conflicts with 2
the ambition of achieving a better understanding of conflict dynamics and the positions of the various parties. The overall aim is to develop measures that may prevent the conflicts from escalating, and in turn, to contribute to mitigating and hopefully resolving the conflicts.
Conflict perspective Wherever spatial disputes exist, the potential for conflict is ever-present (Moore & Barthlow, 1997). In the context of outdoor recreation, conflict has been defined as: “goal interference attributed to another’s behaviour”; that is to say that a group’s or an individual’s dissatisfaction can be caused by the actions of others (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980, p. 369). We could distinguish between conflicts arising from disagreement when an action is involved at the expense of another party’s interests, and disagreement limited to verbal goal interference (White et al., 2009). This paper is based on a conflict understanding mainly developed by Christopher R. Mitchell (2006) about the relationship between change and conflict. He distinguishes between conflict formation (creation); conflict escalation; conflict mitigation; and conflict transformation. An understanding of the dynamics of conflict formation has implications for methods of conflict transformation. We have to ask: what sorts of change create conflict, what changes escalate conflicts, what changes diminish conflict intensity, and what sorts of changes transform conflicts? Different actors could take different roles in order to avoid or stimulate change. We may have restorers who “wish to return to the status quo or some golden age”, or accelerators or supporters who want greater or faster change and resisters “seeking to block changes threatening their resources, status or political influence”. Seeking the source of conflict formation you have to look for “prior change that disturb a social hierarchy as a driving force” (Mitchell, 2006, pp. 5-6). Scarcity is often a source of conflict formation, where scarcity tends to be a result of diminishing or new resources, more resource users, new forms of resource use, and so on. Conflict escalation or intensification may be stimulated by mobilisation for goal incompatibility, conflict enlargement and entrapment, as well as conflicting parties’ polarisation and dissociation. To diminish conflict intensity, the direction of the process has to be changed by stimulating the opposite movement: demobilisation and de-escalation through bringing the parties together for re-communication and de-isolation. However, there are obstacles to such changes, obstacles to disengagement and decommitment in the conflict. Such barriers may include existential issues such as income opportunities (policy determinants), individual feelings (psychological determinants), social mechanism such as “face-saving” (social norms) and institutions based on a conflict situation (political determinants). With regards to goal interference as a source of conflict, the nature of change is of great interest. How does the nature of changes influence goal incompatibility? Several characteristics of the nature of change could be mentioned: major changes; sudden and unexpected changes; as well as rapid and irreversible changes. However, Mitchell omits the activity itself, leaving out what is the nature of the activities that do not share goals. Mismatch between values and social structures leading to the situation of goal incompatibility is also of interest, and we will have to look into this issue in the analysis of the conflicts in the case area.
RQ and method This paper is based on the findings from a preliminary R&D project aiming to gain knowledge about the different uses of and conflicts on the Kaupanger peninsula – conflicts between hunting and recreational activities such as hiking and biking. The project will result in a plan for a dialogue process involving representatives of the user groups in a following up project. The overall aim of such a project will be to develop a system that may ensure peaceful co-existence. The dialogue 3
process is currently taking place, but the paper limits its data to the preliminary research and the formation of the dialogue group. The overall research question for this paper is: How may the land-use conflict on the Kaupanger peninsula be understood, and how can it be resolved? Based on Mitchell’s conflict concept, our sub-question is: - What changes create and escalate conflict? - What changes mitigate and transform conflict? - How may the nature of the activities influence the conflict potential? The methodology is based on a single embedded case design studying the use of the outlying fields on the Kaupanger peninsula (Stake, 1995). The study is a ‘critical case’ in the understanding of the claim that if it is possible here it is possible everywhere (Flyvbjerg, 1992). I argue that the Kaupanger peninsula is such a case due to the multiple use of the area with both commercial and non-commercial hunting and recreational activities such as biking, in addition to various recreational activities carried out by members of the local community, such as hiking. Different groups of people use the case area for outdoor activities; inhabitant in Kaupanger and from other places in the municipality, people from the region or other places in Norway, and also people from abroad. The multiple-actor situation makes it challenging to create a common standard for how the different activities should be practised and how agreed standards for behaviour in the area ought to be communicated to the users of the area. Data has been gathered through key-informant interviews and document studies. The data has been analysed by critical reflection based on the participants’ own description of meaning, intention and action perception (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2008; Skjervheim, 2002). However, the analysis is also seeking to discover and identify underlying causes of explanations based on the understanding that people have both an ’espoused’ theory and a ‘theory in use’ (Argyris & Schön, 1996).
Analysis The analysis is divided into three parts in accordance with the research questions. Firstly, we analyse changes that create conflict and changes that escalate conflict. Secondly, we look into changes that mitigate and transform conflicts, and finally, we analyse the nature of the hunting, hiking and biking in question in the case area.
Changes that create and escalate conflict Three changes are in focus here: 1) increase in deer density with a consequent expansion in the hunting period and hunting activity, 2) marking of hiking tracks and a consequent increase in hiking activity, and 3) the discovery of Kaupanger as an area with unique qualities for mountain biking, resulting in an increase of biking activity during the hunting period. This preliminary project has no data from the period 1990 till 2000 for analysing how the increase in deer density and the development of commercial hunting influenced other activities in this period. Newspaper articles, however, indicate that these changes crated conflicts with regards to private gardens and farms, in terms of deer grazing in the gardens and inlying fields. In addition accidents may occur when deer crossing the public road that runs through the forest3. These issues are not discussed in this article.
3
According to the local newspaper Sogn Avis 12 June 2013.
4
In this paper the interest perspective is simplified, especially when it comes to the landowner interest. In the paper landowner interest is equalised with hunter interest. This is relevant in respect to landowners with hunting permissions and especially landowners with large properties. But, there are several landowners without hunting permissions in the area and there are landowners with main interests on traditional husbandry. These landowners may look upon deer as a harm animal threating their interests, e.g. grassing on inlying fields. This paper does not discuss these issues and has therefore a simplified landowner interest’s perspective. The increase in deer density does not in itself give rise to conflicts with hiking or biking. More deer in the outlying fields increases the potential to come across deer during in the hiking and biking trip, which for most people adds to the experience. Still, the consequent expansion of the hunting period from about two months to almost four months has produced a potential for conflicts with other activities. The cooperation between the local sports association and the landowners in 2002 to carry out the marking of 14 hiking tracks worked very well according to the sports association. The effect of the track marking was an increase in the hiking activity of the general public. In 2001/2002 the total number of visitors at the hiking destinations was about 10,000. Ten years later, this number was doubled. Some of this increase may be explained as an increase in registrations at the hiking destinations due to an improvement in the system. But there is no doubt that a large increase in the hiking activity in Kaupanger took place in the period between year 2000 and 2010. The landowners did not welcome this increase. Few years after the agreement with the sports association to mark hiking tracks, landowners called for measures to limit hiking during the hunting period. The hiking activity disturbs the hunting, in the landowners’ opinion. They therefore demanded that some of the books at the hiking destinations should be withdrawn during the most intensive hunting season and in the most important hunting areas. We interpret this situation as conflict creation both due to the rise in deer density and due to the expansion of the hunting period, but also because of the increase in hiking activity. In the next subchapter we are going to see that the sports association responded to the situation and thus contributed to the mitigation of the conflict. In 2011, the local sports association marked three biking trails on the Kaupanger peninsula. An agreement with the landowners was signed, regarding how the marking should be carried out, but conflict arose due to faults in how the marking was carried out by the sports association. The landowner complained that the sports association marked pine three instead of birch trees, and also claimed that the intervals between marks were too short. The person in charge in the sports association described the situation in the following terms: “The land owner gave me a reprimand.” The marking was not finished. As a result of the episode, the person in charge of the sports association gave up his/her formal position in the sports association. Formally, the mistake in the marking procedure contributed to conflict creation. But, our data also indicate differences in expectations between the sports association’s representatives and the landowner about the effects of track marking system improvement, which contributed to creation of the conflict. From 2011 to 2012, the area was discovered as unique area for mountain biking by bikers from the region, from other parts of Norway, and from abroad. Biking events in 2012 and 2013 contributed to this understanding in biking circles. From now on, mountain biking opportunities in Kaupanger were promoted in social media and the biking activity increased. During this period, Sogn Mountain Biking Club was established, with the task of standing up for the right to free access in outlying fields, in accordance with the Outdoor Act, and to develop and maintain biking tracks. The municipal council voted in favour of the biking club’s suggestions for special zones in which biking 5
tracks development is prioritised. On the Kaupanger peninsula, six places were given the status of special zones for biking tracks. Biking in the area increased due to, among other factors, the events carried out in 2012-2013. As a consequence landowners did not give any permission to organise biking events in Kaupanger in 2014. In an attempt to curtail the biking traffic during the hunting period, a landowner hung up posters with the following message autumn 2014: “(…) in the hunting period between 1 September and 23 December, biking should be carried out in Kraftgata and from Storamyri till Eide (…)”.
Some bikers felt provoked by these posters because the landowner claimed that biking should be limited to two areas. An unpleasant exchange occurred on Facebook, and the conflict escalated in social media. We could summarize conditions for the creation and escalation of conflict between hunting and biking/hiking as follows: an increase in deer density and the number of hunting permissions issued, an expansion of the hunting period, and the development of commercial hunting. In addition, there was an increase in hiking activity as a result of the improved marking system, which contributed to the formation of conflicts with hunting interests. Also, the attention Kaupanger received as one of Norway’s best mountain biking areas and the consequent increase in biking activity contributed to the aforementioned conflict formation. A landowner’s attempt to limit biking activity by putting up posters directing bikers to other areas provoked many bikers and the conflict escalated in social media.
Changes that mitigate and transform conflict We have detected several actions and episodes that contributed to the mitigation, or at least to not to the escalation of the conflict. On the other hand, we have not detected any changes which contributed to transforming the conflict. But changes that reduce the level of conflict have a potential to lead to transformation. The sports association adapted to the landowners’ claim to withdraw the books at the hiking destinations during parts of hunting season around 2005 or 2006. This practice is still followed. The landowners did not open up for any discussion of the issue when the sports association responsible tried to debate the practice. The sports association’s representative explained the reasoning that led them to adapt: “We were afraid the books would withdraw completely if we did not adapt to their wish”. I interpret the sports association’s behaviour as a contribution to the mitigation of the conflict. The adaptation was clearly on the landowners’ terms. Also, other data indicate that the sports association has bowed to the landowners’ demands. The following subsection confirms that such adaptation has occurred. During the preparations to establish the dialogue group in the project, some interesting information came to the surface. Before the first meeting, the representative from the local sports association was absent due to illness in the family. After the meeting, I went to talk with the representative and I soon felt unwelcome. The representative said that he did not understand the purpose of the dialogue process and he was unable to contribute: “I do not have time to take part in thousands of meetings”. He expressed his resistance: “(…) there are commercial interests behind the project. Bratt Moro (one of the initiators) wants to organise biking events in the area - that we are not interested in. Our sports association does not create problems for anyone – we adapt to the landowners’ wishes.”
6
The representative found the landowners claim to be legitimate. The researcher followed up this understanding by asking: “(…) but you have a choice?” The sports association’s representative answered: “If we did not adapt (to the landowners’ claims), restrictions on other issues would arise. We want to be on speaking terms with the landowners”.
The sports association is afraid that restrictions will be imposed if they do not adapt and prioritise adaptation to the landowners’ claims. A landowner gave us some information which helping us to understand the mechanisms at work: “The bikers are to a large extent external people who do not know who the landowners are and that hunting is going on, they do not have the same understanding of the situation as locals”.
The more external people use the area, the more difficult it will be to maintain the implicit obligation to adapt. This situation is expressed by one of the landowners in an interview when talking about the relationship between bikers and hunters: “We should respect each other, but a student does not know who I am”. The landowner expects to be respected on the basis of who he/she is (the person factor), not only on the basis of the activity he/she carries out in the area. The person factor pertains to authority and power, which can be legitimised by three elements: tradition, charisma and legality (Weber, 2000). The traditional element means patriarchy, both in family and community, in addition to feudalism according to Weber (2000). On the other hand, data also indicate that some individuals in the Kaupanger community do not comply with the adaptation strategy. Information from our informants indicates that some people use the area in spite of hunting taking place. The landowners’ and the hunters’ impression of the hiking activity support this understanding. Two old buck areas (Kaupangerholten and Hauståkernakken) have lost their value for hunting; the areas have become less attractive hunting areas “due to an increase in hiking activity». We could term this change a ‘silent change’ taking place in the area. People use their right to free access to outlying fields regardless of local norms. When a gradual increase in hiking takes place, it influences the deer’s movements in the area, and consequently hunting is affected. There are several strategies to respond to this increase in hiking activity. As described above, one strategy is an attempt to exclude others, a strategy which escalates the conflict. Other strategies could mitigate the conflict, such as hunters asking people to use others areas or hunters leaving for another area. Both strategies are in use in commercial and private hunting and contribute to the mitigation of the conflict. However, it is easier for the noncommercial hunting than for the commercial hunting to change areas or hunting times. One landowner said: “The private hunting is able to adapt by choosing other areas and other times of the day (so as to avoid encounters with other users of the area), but that flexibility we do not have with the commercial part”.
While some people use the forest during hunting time others are afraid hiking when hunting is carried out. Informants tell that local people: “ (…) are afraid when hunting is taken place in the forest and do not use the area. They then hike on the public roads”:
This indicates two different actions by local people towards hunting with quite different effects towards the hunting activity. While some withdraw from the hunting area others still use the hiking tracks during the hunting season. The latter stimulates the hunters to adapt and withdraw and thereby mitigate the conflict. Mitigation could also be a result of a dialogue between the parties. In 2014, Sogn Mountain Biking Club and hunting interests engaged in constructive communication in an attempt to coordinate 7
activity and thus avoid conflict. Representatives of the hunting guides informed participants at the Sogn Mountain Biking Club’s (SMC) annual meeting about how hunting was carried out in the most intensive period, during October. Interview data suggests that this information was very useful for the bikers, and presented possibilities for adapting biking for instance by limiting activity to the middle of the day, when hunting is not taking place. In addition, the hunting guides recommended two places for day-round biking. Sogn Mountain Biking Club published the information on their Facebook site recommending the bikers to take care. Both parties felt that the cooperation was a constructive attempt to mitigate the conflict, and it indicated a direction for further coordination. To sum up; hikers, bikers and hunters contributed, through their actions, to the mitigation of the conflict. The local sports association adapted to the landowners’ claim to avoid restriction of other issues. This is clearly a form of conflict mitigation that happens on the landowners’ terms. . Still, not every inhabitant of Kaupanger supports this adaptation. Therefore, some traditional hunting areas have become less attractive for hunting due to an increase in hiking during the hunting season. Adaptation is transferred from the hikers to the hunters and landowners. For the commercial hunting interests, this constitutes a problem, while the non-commercial hunting can adapt more easily when it comes to place and time. The most constructive examples of conflict mitigation have been seen when the hunting guides and SMC cooperated to inform bikers about the time period when hunting was taken place and when and where biking was recommended. This dialogue contributed to a situation of mutual contentment and mitigation of the conflict.
The nature of activity The nature of activity influences the question of whether or not co-existence is achievable. The Outdoor Act states that everyone has the right to free access to outlying fields in Norway, but for bikers, this is limited to established tracks in the forest (and everywhere in the mountain areas above the tree line). This right also calls for consideration with regards to other users’ right to roam in the area. You own a right, but you also need to be considerate towards other people, according to the Outdoor Act. To help the bikers to behave considerately, the Norwegian Mountain Biking Association (NOTS) has developed recommendations for good behaviour. These guidelines focus on the relationship between bikers and hikers. Bikers have a duty to yield the right-of-way, to reduce speed when passing by hikers, to act in a friendly manner towards hikers, etc. In addition, the biking rules focus on showing respect for nature; bikers should not enlarge the track and to ought to avoid vulnerable tracks in wet conditions. If the recommendations of NOTS and the Outdoor Act’s call for thoughtfulness are all respected, our interpretation is that biking and hiking could go on alongside each other in a given area, i.e. through shared use of the hiking paths. Expectations from this general picture are of course in place, especially if the path is difficult to follow or if a biking event is going on. Events, both biking and hiking events, require a special permission from the landowner which provides a good opportunity for coordinating with other activities. Our preliminary conclusion is therefore that biking and hiking could take place in the same area at the same time if the users follow the Outdoor Act’s encouragement of considerate behaviour towards other people using nature. There might be a need for improvements were the path or track is difficult to spot so that one may lose one’s way, e.g. by separate biking track for some short distances. This situation differs when hunting activity is involved. It is difficult, or more precisely, it is impossible, to hunt when other human activity is taking place in the location at the same time. A hiker or a biker is unable to move soundlessly or be invisible in a way that would not startle or frighten the deer. The nature of hunting is such that no other human activity may be going on in the vicinity. It is the deer and the weather conditions that define the precise interpretation of “nearby”, or how near other users may be without disturbing the hunting. In practice, it is the hunter (or the 8
hunting guide) that interprets when other users disturb the hunting. Information from hunting guides indicates that if the hikers or the bikers are not willing to use another area, the hunting is spoiled for good and “we have to find another area for hunting”. The guide also said that the deer responded in the same manner to a hiker as to a biker. To summarise this section, biking and hiking may easily take place in the same area. There may be a need for track improvements were the track is difficult to spot or follow. On the other hand, biking and hiking cannot take place in the same location while hunting is going on. The nature of hunting differs dramatically from hiking and biking in that deer are sensitive to human activity so that hunting is effectively spoiled if bikers or hikers come too near. In the table below, we have given the short answers of what changes contribute to the formation, escalation and mitigation of conflict. We have not found any changes contributing to the transformation of the conflict. Therefore, we have not included a line for that question. Table 1: Changes in hunting, hiking and biking that contribute to the formation, escalation and mitigation of the conflict.
Changes Formation
Escalation
Mitigation
Hunting activity - Hunting period expansion - Commercialisation - The nature of hunting - Posters demanding that biking/hiking should take place in non-hunting areas - Facebook disputes
Hiking activity -Increase in hiking
- Adaptation through using other areas than hikers/bikers
-Adaptation to landowners whishes
Biking activity - Increase in biking - Different expectations of biking track marking - Promotion of the area to stimulate activity - Biking in municipal plan without any dialogue with landowners - Facebook disputes - Adaptation to the needs of commercial hunting
Discussion Conflicts could be real based on goal interference, or conflicts could be perceived based on present experiences (Watson, Williams, & Daigle, 1991). We interpret the relationship between bikers and hikers to be a perceived conflict due to the nature of the activities. Such perceptions may arise from differences in who the performer is, how he/she behaves, where the activity is taking place, and what kind of equipment is used (Flemsæter, Brown, & Holm, 2011). These differences also express variation in people's lifestyles, attitudes and values, but do not automatically imply the presence of real conflict (Carothers, Vaske, & Donnelly, 2001). The expressed differences may result in the portrayal of others as stereotypes: for examples hikers’ perceptions of mountain bikers as young hoons (Horn, Devlin, & Simmons, 1994) or not caring about the environment (Symmonds, Hammitt, & Quisenberry, 2000). The perception of hikers may change as they become more used to encounters with mountain bikers (Cessford, 2003). Based on the analysis above, our interpretation is that the nature of hiking and biking does not require separation of the activities in the field. Hiking and biking could in general take place on the same tracks, but integration calls for thoughtfulness on the part of the different performers. A practical guide to how to act considerately has been developed by the Norwegian Mountain Biking Association (NOTS). Exceptions from this general view is places where the track is difficult to follow and situations when the biking or hiking traffic is larger than normally (e.g. during events). This understanding implies conflict formation between bikers and hikers if the claim for 9
thoughtfulness is not considered. On the other hand, mitigation and transformation of the conflict may take place if the performers are respectful of others and if they are allowed the opportunity to practice their activity in the outlying fields in accordance with the Outdoor Act. Conflict formation between hunting and hiking/biking is caused by several factor’s, especially the nature of hunting and the expansion of the hunting period are the main factors behind conflict formation. If the hunting period had been limited to two months, such as during the 1990s , the conflict would be easier to handle. But also the increase in hiking and biking contributes to conflict formation. According to the data forming the basis for this paper, most of the hiking and biking activity takes place without provocation of others, or more specifically, of hunting interests and landowners. Our informants report of few situations where the hiker or biker ignores friendly recommendations to use other areas. On the other hand, hunters often avoid going into an area when they know other activity is taking place. They also adapt to the activity of others. The nature of hunting makes it difficult to start hunting in an area were other humans are present. And it is very difficult for the hunters to provide information in every thinkable place that people could enter a given area. The analysis shows that the conflict escalated when landowners attempted to curtail people’s right to use certain areas due to ongoing hunting. The choice of wording in such messages is important and can contribute to either escalation or mitigation of an existing conflict, as it functions as an indicator of respect for the other party. In our case area, land owners and hunting guides have chosen different communication strategies towards bikers/hikers in 2014. The latter succeeded in mitigating the conflict by initiating dialogue and issuing recommendations instead of communication perceived as orders. People in the biking milieu know their rights and were provoked by the attempt to limit their rights. All actions that may stimulate an increase in biking activity, such as promotion of the area, biking events, and strategies for the development of biking in the municipal plan (without a dialogue with the landowners) contribute to the escalation of the conflict. It is therefore time to assess such measures in a latent conflict situation. On the other hand, when the area’s qualities for biking is known, further promotion will be taking place in social media which are outside of the control of local bikers and the Sogndal municipality administration. It is not possible to turn back time to the days before the area was discovered by mountain bikers both nationally and internationally. Therefore, there is an urgent need for a strategy that helps govern the traffic, regulating the time and place for the different activities, especially the relationship between hunting and biking/hiking, in order to contribute to the continuing of commercial hunting on the Kaupanger peninsula. The analysis indicates also that traditional, private hunting is more adaptable to other activity than commercial hunting. The former has more time available for ensuring success and therefore, it can more easily use other hunting areas when hikers and bikers are present. But if the biking activity continues to increase, this form of hunting is also in danger of reaching the limits of adaptation. It is important to repeat that this paper has a very simplified landowner interest perspective. There are several different landowners in the case area. Some of tem are large, some small, some without hunting permission and some with traditional husbandry. In this paper we have limited the discussion to the hunting landowner interest’s perspective.
Preliminary conclusion The findings in this analyse could not be used as the final conclusion to describe the relationship between hunting, hiking and biking. The data material is too sparse and need to be supplemented 10
with more interviews and other data. The findings should therefore be assessed as indication for further research, not as fixed conclusion. Conflict formation between hunting and hiking/biking in the same place at the same time could to a large degree be explained by the combination of two factors: the nature of hunting and the number of hunting permissions. The nature of hunting makes it difficult or impossible to have it take place when other human activity is going on in the same area at the same time. With the increase in hunting permissions and the expansion of the hunting period, the nature of hunting seems to be even more important in conflict formation than before this increase in hunting permission and expansion of hunting period were present. If the area had few hunting permissions and a shorter hunting period, other activity could adapt more easily. But, also the increase in hiking and biking activity contributed to the formation of the conflict. If only local people from Kaupanger were biking in the area the conflict would probably not escalate due to the local people ability to adapt to the landowners terms. Actions to increase attention of Kaupanger as one of Norway’s best mountain biking areas contributed to conflict escalation, especially when such actions were not coordinated with the landowners. Exchanging information in the form of posters or newspaper articles also contributed to escalating the conflict. Hikers, bikers, and hunters have all contributed through their actions to conflict mitigation. The local sports association adapted to the landowners’ wish to avoid restriction on other issues. Hunters also adapted to hiking and biking activity by choosing other areas for hunting. The bikers were stimulated to adapt to the hunters’ needs when the hunting guides informed how hunting is taken place and respectfully asked the bikers and hikers to choose other locations or times during the day when hunting is not taking place. This dialogue contributed to a situation of mutual satisfaction and mitigation of the conflict. Conflict creation between bikers and hikers may occur if the encouragement of thoughtfulness in the field is not considered. But generally speaking, hiking and biking may take place on the same tracks if the performers show consideration towards others and let them practice their activity in accordance with the Outdoor Act. Track improvements may be necessary where the track is difficult to follow. The overall research question for this paper is: How can we achieve a better understanding of the land-use conflict on the Kaupanger peninsula, and how could it be resolved? The analysis and discussion show that conflict formation and escalation are taking place due to changes in hunting, hiking and biking. In this situation, it is not favourable to stimulate these processes of change any further in a latent conflict situation. When all performers adapt and act considerately towards others, conflict mitigation is possible, but the challenge now is the probable increase in biking visitors in the years to come. Without a common strategy and action to stimulate co-management, we could expect an escalation of the conflict, especially between hunters and bikers.
References Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2008). Tolkning og reflektion. Vetenskapsfilosofi og kvalitativ metod. Lund & Stockholm: Studentlitteratur. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organisational learning II. New York, Amstedam, Sydney, Tokyo, Paris: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Carothers, P., Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. (2001). Social values versus interpersonal conflict among hikers and mountain bikers. Leisure Sciences, 23(1), 47 – 61. Cessford, G. R. (2003). Perception and reality of conflict: Walkers and mountain bikes on the Queen Charlotte Track in New Zealand. , . Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Conservation. 11
Flemsæter, F., Brown, K. M., & Holm, F. E. (2011). Friluftslivets moralske landskap - trender og tradisjoner. In A. Hauge & E. P. Stræte (Eds.), Rurale brytninger. Trondheim: Tapir Akademisk Forlag. Flyvbjerg, B. (1992). Rationalitet og makt. Det konkretes videnskap. København: Akademisk Forlag. Horn, C., Devlin, P., & Simmons, D. (1994). Conflict in recreation: The case of mountain-bikers and trampers. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Conservation. Jacob, C. R., & Schreyer, R. (1980). Conflict in outdoor recreation: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Leisure Research, 12, 368 – 380. Løseth, K. (2014). ADVENTURE TOURISM. Exploring relations between knowledge and innovation. . PhD, Aalborg University, Aalborg. Mitchell, C. R. (Producer). (2006). Conflict, Social Change and Conflict Resolution. An Enquiry. Handbook Dialogue Series nr.5 [Leading article] Moore, R. L., & Barthlow, K. (1997). Principles for minimizing trail conflicts: Applications to mountain biking. . Trends, 34(3), 11-14. Skjervheim, H. (2002). Deltakar og tilskodar. In H. Skjervheim (Ed.), Mennesket. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art Of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Symmonds, M. C., Hammitt, W. E., & Quisenberry, V. L. (2000). Managing recreational trail environments for mountain bike user preferences. Environmental Management, 25(5), 549 – 564. Watson, A. E., Williams, D. R., & Daigle, J. J. (1991). Sources of conflict between hikers and mountain bike riders in the Rattlesnake NRA. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 9(3), 59 – 71. Weber, M. (2000). Makt og byråkrati (3. utgave). Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk. White, R. M., Fischer, A., Marshall, K., Travis, J. M. J., Webb, T. J., di Falco, S., . . . van der Wal, R. (2009). Developing an integrated conceptual framework to understand biodiversity conflicts. [Article]. Land Use Policy, 26(2), 242-253. Winge, N., & Falleth, E.-I. (2014). Forenkling av utmarksforvaltningen. Oslo: Kommunal- og moderniseringsdepartementet.
12
