Survey

One hundred and twenty eight individuals completed the survey. Since the respondents were self-selected, the response rate cannot be calculated. Because the results were not based on a probability sample of the population, confidence intervals for population parameters cannot be computed and caution must be used when generalizing the results.

Although most questions included a seven point response scale, ranging from highly acceptable or strongly agree to highly unacceptable or strongly disagree, the following figures show the responses collapsed into acceptable or agree / neither / unacceptable or disagree categories. See Appendix B for the complete survey and responses in each category.

Hypothetical Future Scenario 1

Scenario presented on survey: Research use has increased dramatically in the North Campus Area, and many of the projects require the area to be free from human disturbance. There are now many signs stating that use is restricted and more fences to keep people from research sites. While most of North Campus is still available for outreach and recreation, it is becoming more difficult for users to know where they can and cannot pursue their activities, and some feel the visual appeal of the area has been diminished.

Solutions may include restricting additional research activity in certain areas of North Campus, restricting additional research activity in the North Campus Area in general, requiring additional research projects in North Campus to be more compatible with other uses, or taking no action.

In the situation described in hypothetical future scenario 1, how acceptable would it be to:

Figure 1. Responses to Hypothetical Future Scenario 1
Note, because of item nonresponse, not all questions had 128 responses.

• The majority of respondents felt taking no action to reduce conflicts between research and outreach and recreation is unacceptable.
• The approach to reduce these conflicts with the most acceptance was requiring additional research projects to be more compatible with other uses.
• Respondents were divided on general restrictions on research.

Hypothetical Future Scenario 2

Scenario presented on survey: It has been proposed to widen a one-mile segment of an existing trail. The wider trail will allow skate skiing in the winter. However, widening the trail would encroach on several areas that are highly desirable for future research projects.

Under the conditions described in hypothetical future scenario 2, please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement.

Figure 2. Responses to Hypothetical Future Scenario 2

• Respondents were split with respect to allowing the trail to be widened.
  

Hypothetical Future Scenario 3

Scenario presented on survey: Outreach and recreation use has increased in North Campus and is starting to encroach on research activities. Research equipment has been tampered with, resulting in expensive repairs and missing data. In addition, outreach and recreation users have accidentally trampled research plots, essentially ruining long-term research efforts.

One potential solution would be to restrict outreach and recreation use. Restricting outreach and recreation use may be accomplished by closing certain trails, closing certain parking areas, or closing off certain sections of the North Campus Area to outreach and recreation. Another potential solution would be to take no action.

In the situation described in hypothetical future scenario 3, how acceptable would it be to:

Figure Figure 3. Responses to Hypothetical Future Scenario 3

• The majority of respondents felt taking no action to alleviate conflicts between outreach and recreation and research was unacceptable.
• Of the potential solutions, closing certain areas to outreach and recreation had the highest level of support.

Hypothetical Future Scenario 4

Scenario presented on survey: A research project is proposed that would require a specific research site in North Campus to be free of any direct human disturbance for a period of three years. There is a trail adjacent to the area that is used as a multi-use trail in the summer and as an ungroomed ski trail in the winter. The researchers propose fencing the site to ensure the area remains free from direct human impacts. While current uses would continue, a fence would be visible.

Under the situation described in hypothetical future scenario 4, please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements.

Figure 4. Responses to Hypothetical Future Scenario 4

• The majority of respondents agreed that the research project should be allowed with fencing.
• Only two of 10 respondents agreed that the research project should not be allowed.
  

Questions Regarding Walkers and Dogs

Preface included on survey: One conflict that has been identified is when people walk on groomed ski trails. People desire to walk in the North Campus area during winter, but there are a limited number of walking trails. Given the prominence of groomed ski trails, though, walkers desiring to use the North Campus Area in winter are limited. However, walking on groomed ski trails can diminish the quality of the ski trail.

Many people like to walk with their dogs in the North Campus Area. During winter, dogs can diminish the quality of grooming on the ski trails, and they can also leave behind waste that is undesirable on ski and walking trails. During winter, dogs are limited to designated dog use trails.

Figure 5. Responses to Questions Regarding Walkers and Dogs

• A relatively large majority agreed that walkers and dogs should not be allowed on groomed ski trails.
• Approximately 8 of 10 respondents felt the network of winter walking trails should be expanded.
  

Questions Regarding Branches / Tree Removal

Preface included on survey: Some trees lining the trails in North Campus have branches that hang over the trail, preventing snow from reaching the trails in some areas and causing safety concerns (such as falling branches) in both summer and winter. Overhanging branches or entire trees can be removed to allow more snow to reach the ski trails in the winter and improve safety of the trails. However, this can impact the aesthetics of the trails, and not all may agree that removing branches or trees along the trails is appropriate for management of the North Campus.

Figure 6. Responses to Questions Regarding Branches / Tree Removal

• Respondents found it more acceptable to remove branches to allow more snow to reach the trail and for safety than removing entire trees for the same reason.
• Respondents were split on the acceptability of removing trees to straighten difficult to navigate corners.
  

Questions Regarding Trail Surfaces, Permafrost Issues, and Damage to Roots

Preface included on survey: Some North Campus trails are in areas of permafrost. While this is not an issue in the winter, they sometimes remain wet throughout most of the summer. Summer use of these trails may cause erosion and damage to the vegetation. The damaged vegetation may, in turn, stimulate melting of the permafrost. One potential solution would be to limit summer use. Another potential solution would be to install surface insulation materials such as wood chips to prevent the permafrost from melting. An additional solution may be building boardwalks to prevent erosion and damage to the vegetation.

Figure 7. Responses to Questions Regarding Trail Surfaces, Permafrost Issues, and Damage to Roots

• Approximately 9 out of 10 respondents felt it was acceptable to cover trails with a surface such as woodchips to insulate permafrost and to protect exposed roots.
• Installing permanent boardwalks to protect vegetation was acceptable to approximately 7 out of 10 respondents.
• Approximately 7 out of 10 respondents felt restricting use was unacceptable to prevent damage to exposed roots.
• Approximately 6 out 10 respondents felt it was acceptable to limit use in areas that are persistently wet in summer.

Questions Regarding T-Field Road

Preface included on survey: The T-field Road is one area where a relatively high amount of conflict seems to occur. There is a high concentration of research along the road, and it is used to access many other research projects. The road is also excellent for skiing due to flatness and lack of overhanging branches. In the winter, researchers desiring access by wheeled motorized vehicles can be in conflict with those desiring to use the road for skiing. The management difficulty is maintaining access to research sites along the T-field Road, while preserving its value as a ski trail.

Prohibiting wheeled motorized access in the winter is one potential solution. Another potential solution is to require advance notice from the researcher interested in wheeled motorized access to be provided to the NCA manager. The trails could then be groomed after the wheeled motorized access.

Figure 8. Responses to Questions Regarding T-Field Road

• 9 of 10 respondents felt it was unacceptable to allow unlimited wheeled motorized access in winter.
• Approximately 7 of 10 respondents found it acceptable to limit motorized wheel access in winter and require advanced notice for wheeled access.

Questions Regarding Ski Trails

Preface included on survey: Currently in the North Campus Area, there is a mix of winter trails groomed for skate and classic skiing, groomed for classic skiing only, and ungroomed for classic skiing. Different people may have different perspectives on the appropriate mix of ski trails in the North Campus Area. The current allocation of ski trails is: Groomed skate and classic = 68%, Groomed classic only = 12%, Ungroomed classic skiing = 20%.

Note: S & C = groomed skate and classic, Groomed C = Groomed classic only, Ungroomed C = Ungroomed classic only
Figure 9. Responses to Questions Regarding Ski Trails

• Keeping the proportions of ski trails at status quo had the highest level of acceptability.
• Approximately one-half of respondents found the alternative that kept groomed skate and classic trails the same, but increased groomed classic only trails and decreased ungroomed classic trails acceptable.
• Approximately one-half of respondents found the alternative that increased groomed skate and classic trails, kept groomed classic only trails the same and decreased ungroomed classic trails acceptable.
• Approximately 6 of 10 respondents felt expanding the lighted ski trails was acceptable.

Most Preferred Ski Trail Alternative

Note: S & C = groomed skate and classic,
Groomed C = Groomed classic only, Ungroomed C = Ungroomed classic only
Figure 10. Most Preferred Ski Trail Alternative

• Status quo was the most preferred alternative, followed by the alternatives that increased groomed trails at the expense of ungroomed trails.
• The alternatives with the least support were those that decreased groomed classic ski trails.
  

Additional Lights on Ski Trails

If the respondents felt the amount of lit ski trails should be expanded, they were asked to indicate where on a map the lights should be located (Figure 11).

The most cited location for additional ski trail lights was the T-Field.

The second most cited location for additional ski trail lights consisted of the Midnight Express, Big Whizzy, and Smith Lake Connector trails.

Note: the n listed is the frequency each segment was listed for lighting.
Figure 11. Responses to Where Additional Ski Trail Lights Should be Located

University of Alaska Fairbanks
Tanana Valley Campus
PO Box 8040-UAF

Phone: +1 907 474 7920
Fax:    +1 907 474 6725
fndlm5@uaf.edu