Foreword iii

Executive summary •••

1. Background 1

2. Opportunities and benefits of trails •••

3. The challenges for the trails community •••

4. Conclusion •••

Appendixes •••

References •••

Outdoor recreation is an important aspect of the lives of a significant number of Queenslanders. The quality, quantity and diversity of opportunities for outdoor recreation and, in particular, recreation trails have long been a basis for our State’s marketing campaigns and contribute significantly to our health and economic well-being. Indeed, for all that trails reveal some of south-east Queensland’s finest landscapes they remain an under-developed resource that is full of potential but lacks coordination and cohesive direction.

In March 2000, the Regional Landscape Unit of the then Department of Natural Resources recognised both this potential and the challenges associated with seeing it become a reality, and embarked on a process of consultation and investigation that is intended to establish a framework for furthering the positive role played by trails in our community. This report is the outcome of that process.

In order to maximise the opportunity presented by trails, our challenge is to provide an integrated network that offers something for everyone now and for the future. The vision we have is of a high-quality network of regional trails showcasing an attractive region and provide recreation, tourism, health and education benefits.

In 1998, more people camped out in south-east Queensland than the combined attendance at home games of the Brisbane Broncos (rugby league), Queensland Reds (rugby union), Brisbane Bullets (basketball) and Brisbane Lions (Australian rules) over the same period. Visitors to our region are equally keen to explore our natural and urban environments.

Trails bring significant benefits to the communities in which they exist.

A major one is economic. Walkers on the Bibbulmun Track, a world-class long-distance track in Western Australia, spent well in excess of the construction cost of the track ($5 million) last year alone. It’s not just visitors that contribute economically: the expenditure of residents in accessing trails also provides a significant boost for local economies. Trails generate jobs in construction and can use resources such as Green Corps and minimum-risk prisoners. In addition, they offer opportunities to increase the diversity of tourism products available.

Trails help to save health dollars. Around $75 million annually can be saved from an extra 10% of the south-east Queensland population becoming physically active. One way in which trails can contribute to this saving is through providing safe opportunities for people from all walks of life to actively enjoy outdoor recreation. A properly developed and promoted trail network can form part of a ‘managed illness prevention’ strategy.

Trails present easy access to the natural environments for residents of both urban and rural communities. A trail in the bush is available within two hours drive of most south-east Queenslanders’ homes. Trails present a wealth of opportunity for community involvement and interaction, through volunteer programs, social events and general usage. They also offer a range of opportunities for providing environmental, historical and cultural information to trail users and the wider community.

This paper identifies a number of challenges to be faced on the path to a properly developed and promoted trail network. These are:

The paper introduces the concept of a regional iconic activity trails network, in which the best trails in south-east Queensland would be packaged as single entity for the purposes of funding, management and promotion, and as the appropriate way to progress the trails agenda. Trails in the ‘family’ of regional iconic trails would be quality ones that are well built for their purpose, well managed and maintained, and promoted as part of a suite of quality outdoor recreation opportunities. An iconic network would also give local trail groups a framework on which to build their own trail proposals. A local trail connecting to, or complementing, a regional trail would be viewed more favourably by funding agencies.

The challenge of gaining and keeping community support is related to harnessing the community’s enthusiasm and channelling it into viable and long-term strategies. The paper highlights some very good examples of communities working together and with government to develop and promote trails. These include the Point Lookout Headlands Trail Network on North Stradbroke Island, the Bicentennial National Trail (New South Wales), the Bibbulmun Track (Western Australia) and the Appalachian Trail (United States). The community wants to be involved in the consultation process and in the decision making process. All trail managers should seek to facilitate such involvement. Some strategic principles and examples of how they can be implemented are included in this paper.

Lack of funds for capital and recurrent works is a key constraint to trails development in south-east Queensland. A number of capital funding sources are identified in the paper; they include land trusts, voluntary groups, cooperative partnerships, and charging users, both directly and indirectly. For example, the publication Wild Places of Brisbane has generated significant funds and kudos for the publisher, Brisbane City Council. Much of this income has gone into the management of reserves and parks under the council’s jurisdiction. There are programs in all levels governments that have yet to be fully tapped as potential funding sources. A good example is health, particularly the preventative health program. Other potential funding programs are in economic development, and the product development programs in the tourism sector.

Maintaining trails takes specific skills, considerable perseverance and the capacity to respond to user feedback. It can also be expensive, with annual maintenance bills on some trails reaching as much as 10% of initial construction costs. Concerns with trail maintenance are commonplace in Australia. The issue of maintenance pervades every aspect of the management of trails. Current maintenance expenditure is significant and yet it is not enough. It would be short sighted to go ahead and build and upgrade trails yet ignore the demands of managing and maintaining them. This paper makes some suggestions about how to address this challenge. Promotion and marketing are a legitimate part of the basic cost of providing and maintaining trails, and should not be treated as something to do if some money is left over. In addition, coordinated marketing at the regional level is needed to fully promote this wonderful resource to residents of and visitors to south-east Queensland.

Queensland has not yet fully embraced the opportunities associated with outdoor recreation trails. We do not have a champion to lead the marketing, developing and maintaining of what is one of our region’s greatest assets. Current trail development is fragmented, with no clear lead agency or cohesive development policy: trails are planned, developed and managed by a variety of State agencies and local governments. Interaction between these groups, or with other interest groups, is limited. The provision of regional trails will only occur if some group is assigned overall responsibility for south-east Queensland regional trails’ coordination, planning, funding, research and promotion. Apart from taking on this primary role, it is envisaged that a champion would establish an integrated link between the State Government, local governments and the community, through regional and local groups. To achieve this objective, a number of roles have been suggested. The group would be a voice to champion the cause of recreational trail development, and to help fully realise the potential positive contributions of trails. The group would be responsible for developing and maintaining the integrity of the regional trail network while individual trail managers would be responsible for constructing and maintaining their own regional or local trail to an agreed minimum standard. There are four major options for making progress on coordinated trail management. These are:

All models would encompass a form of community advisory panel with a degree of independence and clout and an inter-government advisory panel.

There is no legislative or administrative framework for addressing trails that span multiple agencies and tenures. The key challenge for government is providing a suitable legislative basis to ensure that trails planning and management on public and private freehold lands (where a voluntary agreement has been entered into) is coordinated, comprehensive and complementary. The legislative options for managing trails within south-east Queensland include:

Non statutory options include:

The adoption of a legislative model or contractual agreement to underpin the coordination and management of regional trails may be based on the circumstances surrounding individual cases. Another possibility that could be considered is new legislation; alternatively, it could be that all the outcomes can be achieved using non-statutory mechanisms.

Trail proponents and managers need to recognise that the condition of trails in their control can pose a significant liability risk, particularly if they contain obvious hazards. Management requirements that could be set out as a set of principles to be adopted to ensure the following limitations on liability:

There is no impediment to taking out adequate insurance to cover the use of trails and, with a stringent safety strategy, accidents on trails should be kept to a minimum.

This report advances all key issues identified above. In some cases, it has suggested definitive solutions; in others, it has put forward options that need further work. There is an urgent need to start this work, as trail opportunities are being lost through development and the closure of disused corridors. A draft strategic plan has been developed and includes issues flagged in this paper that need further work and other action the Regional Trails Working Group believes is appropriate.

A comforting fact is that these challenges are not unique to Queensland and have been overcome elsewhere with outstanding benefits to the community, environment and economy. South-east Queensland is blessed with a range of outstanding natural environments, many of which are relatively close to major population centres. This means there is a significant opportunity to develop a coordinated network of regional trails to cater for walkers, cyclists, horse riders, four-wheel drivers and others. The benefits accruing to the community (and to the State) from the development of such a network are substantial and wide-ranging, and include direct and indirect health benefits, increased tourism opportunities, job creation and economic stimulation (including in depressed rural areas), environmental awareness and education, and a clearer understanding of our personal and combined interaction with the natural world. This paper is intended to form the foundation of just such a trail network. It addresses identified issues and proposes potential solutions; it offers a framework for progress, and it does so with an eye to the communal good.

This paper presents actions and strategies for addressing the issues and opportunities concerning the provision of regional trails in south-east Queensland. It is the first phase of work being undertaken by the Regional Trails Working Group (RTWG) for the Regional Landscape Strategy Advisory Committee (RLSAC). The RTWG has broad representation from all levels of government and the community, particularly groups with a special interest in the provision of regional trails. The RLSAC is a ministerial advisory committee to the Queensland Minister responsible for natural resources. The paper has three clear objectives:

The SEQ2001 project, which was a government-initiated project that commenced in December 1990 to address concerns over the rapidly growing population of south-east Queensland, considered the issue of open space and recreation. The Regional Planning Advisory Group (1993) recommended a regional open-space system that featured core areas and essential links. The Bicentennial National Trail as a whole and the Brisbane loop of the trail were seen as potential essential links between the core areas. The first phase of SEQ2001 culminated with the formulation of the regional framework for growth management (RFGM) in 1995. It included principles and priority actions relating to outdoor recreation generally. As the principal outcome of the south-east Queensland 2001 planning strategy, the RFGM and its successors have been endorsed by all levels of government as the agreed regional planning strategy for south-east Queensland.

The RFGM included discussion on what is now known as the Regional Landscape Strategy (RLS),and section 5 of the RFGM regional outline plan contains the objective, principles and priority actions of the RLS. Until the State election in February 2001, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), through its Regional Landscape Unit, was the lead agent for implementing the RLS; following the election, this status was been transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the unit’s move to that agency. The RLS fosters input from the community, all spheres of government and relevant land-management agencies in the planning, development and management of south-east Queensland’s regional open space. Its objective is ‘to protect, through equitable processes, the regionally significant open space of South East Queensland for present and future generations’.

Local governments, through their participation in regional planning and through meeting their own responsibilities for outdoor recreation planning, have also had a long history of involvement in trails. In 1995, the Southern Regional Organisation of Councils (SouthROC) commissioned a study to look at the role of local government in the provision of ecotourism trails. The framework developed was applied to a limited planning study on a continuous walking track through the Scenic Rim from Point Danger on the Gold Coast to Mount Mistake on the western edge of the rim (Ecotourism Research Group 1996). When the work was completed, SouthROC began to lobby the State Government to take the planning study further. After significant pressure by SouthROC, in October 1999 the Regional Landscape Strategy Advisory Committee recommended the inclusion of regional trails as a core component of the RLS.

This decision was made on the basis of:

Priority Action 5.12 of the RFGM establishes the charter for trails investigations by the Department of Natural Resources and the RLSAC. It said that a network of regional trails in south-east Queensland should:

To take this priority action forward, the Regional Landscape Unit commissioned a study by the consultant group EDAW and confirmed the issues with the Regional Trails Forum of user groups that was held in Brisbane in March 2000. The full history of the regional trails initiative is contained in appendix 1.

Participants of the Regional Trails Forum identified several issues confronting those working on trails development and management in south-east Queensland. They were:

The Regional Trails Working Group was established to make progress on the identified issues. This report marks the completion of phase 1 of the project. The history and composition of the RTWG can also be found in appendix1.

Studies undertaken by the State Government and local governments over recent years have shown that there is a growing demand for outdoor recreation in south-east Queensland (see for example Department of Natural Resources & Department of Emergency Services 1998). The RTWG recognises that trail managers and associated land-management authorities will need to accommodate this demand and harness the opportunities stemming from providing trails.

In addition to the known increase in community demand for trails, there is a growing awareness of the direct and ancillary benefits of trails in terms of social, environmental and economic benefits.

Many people in south-east Queensland participate in outdoor recreation activities such as bushwalking, horse riding, four-wheel driving and canoeing. The south-east Queensland Outdoor Recreation Demand Study (Department of Natural Resources & Department of Emergency Services, 1998) states the following statistics for survey respondents who had participated in outdoor recreation activities in the previous twelve months:

In summary, ‘more people camped out in south-east Queensland than the combined attendance at home games of the Brisbane Broncos (rugby league), Queensland Reds (Rugby Union), Brisbane Bullets (basketball) and Brisbane Lions (Australian Rules) over the same period’ (Department of Natural Resources & Department of Emergency Services, 1998). The population of south-east Queensland is estimated to increase to more than three million by the year 2011, a growth of around 700 000 people or a 30% increase on the June 1999 estimate (Regional Coordination Committee 2000). This will bring added pressure for more open space and outdoor recreation facilities to be provided. State-wide research further indicates the popularity of outdoor recreation. Over half of all Queensland residents over 15 years old visit our national parks at least once a year; there are 12.5 million visitors a year to each of these parks (Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service 2000). This is in only one area of outdoor recreation.

The research presented above summarises the very small body of Queensland-specific research. More research, which paints a similar picture, has been done in other States.

Market research by Tourism Victoria has indicated that there is a high demand for short walking circuits and formed paths (Albone, 2000). A 1998 survey of national and international visitors to Victoria showed that 27% of respondents had gone on a short walk during their stay. The research also showed that, in Victoria, there were 16 million visits in one year to national parks, with 90% of respondents indicating walking was a key interest. Of those visiting national parks, 15% went bushwalking, indicating that about 2 400 000 people are bushwalking in Victoria’s national parks each year.

Some detailed work on the use of walking tracks has been done in Western Australia. A recently completed survey focussed on the use of and impacts on trails in the Shire of Mundaring, which is on the eastern outskirts of Perth. This report (currently in draft form) produced astonishing proof of the rise to mainstream status of trails and trail usage. It reported that:

By way of summary, the report stated:

These trails are serving as a specific destination for a large number of people from outside the shire, and these visitors are bringing a noticeable economic benefit to the Shire.’ (Boshe Group, 2001).

There is other evidence of the growing popularity of trails. For example anecdotal evidence suggests that national registration of off-road camping vehicles has doubled in the last five years.

Regional trails already exist in Queensland and other parts of Australia, as well as overseas. Australia’s Bicentennial National Trail (BNT) was developed in conjunction with the Australian Trail Horse Riders Association. The trail web site claims that the ‘Bicentennial National Trail is the longest marked trekking route of its kind in the world, stretching an extraordinary 5330 kilometres from Cooktown in tropical North Queensland to Healesville in Victoria’ (BNT, 2000). The trail links 18 of the country’s national parks and reveals some of the most spectacular scenery in Australia, although it should be noted that this could be improved in some parts of south-east Queensland, where the route was sometimes determined by compromises made when the trail was being developed. The trail is used for all sorts of activities, including horse riding, bushwalking, camping, fishing, canoeing and mountain-bike riding. The route lies within four hours’ drive of the homes of 11 million Australians, and its length and variety ensure it can meet the needs of many people.

Joining the BNT is the Brisbane Loop, a circuit of about 400 kilometres. It runs from the Toowoomba escarpment across Esk Shire to Lake Wivenhoe, east towards the D’Aguilar Range, south through eastern Ipswich and through to the World Heritage Area of the Scenic Rim. If all the agencies involved in managing this trail coordinated their work, the Brisbane Loop could be managed so that future planning decisions would ensure that it remained as a continuous trail for horse riders and other users. The track has been fragmented in recent years due to changes in land ownership and land development activities.

The regional trail concept is widely used overseas. The Appalachian Trail (USA), used by four million people each year, may be the best-known overseas example. The Galloping Goose Regional Trail (Canada) is another example. The Galloping Goose is the name given to the Capital Regional District Parks in southern Vancouver, Canada, that have been converted from the former Canadian northern Pacific railway line into a 60 kilometre regional trail. A web page prepared by the Capital Regional District Parks encourages people to walk, ride and cycle the ‘Goose’.

In south-east Queensland, the regional trails concept can be used to develop an integrated network of trails utilising many modes of transit. These trails would supply the growing demand for outdoor recreation activities such as walking, horse riding, cycling, four-wheel driving and motor-bike riding. It would also link the existing local government trail systems with regional and national trails such as the BNT.

There are a number of direct economic benefits that can be derived from outdoor recreation activities, especially to small rural and regional economies. The EDAW survey (Wood, 1999) of user groups and government agencies in south-east Queensland identified that many rural local governments were looking to trails as a means of improving local economies through ecotourism activity. The data cited in table 1 below confirms that the expectation that these communities have of the positive economic benefits of trails is grounded in reality.

The following table draws on a number of sources to indicate the quantum of expenditure on outdoor recreation in south-east Queensland.

* Includes four -wheel driving
** Expenditure for paddle-powered vessel; $940 if sailing vessel (Queensland Outdoor Recreation Foundation, pers. comm.)

The table describes only a small number of outdoor recreation activities, making the expenditure conservative; this figure demonstrates the significant contribution of outdoor recreation to this region’s economy.

The Bicentennial National Trail is promoting the ‘supply town’ concept, especially when looking at the economics of independent trek-based tourism. The concept means that those using the trail come into towns and spend significant amounts on a diverse range of items, such as camping equipment, repairs to equipment, food, hot showers, refreshments, accommodation, veterinary and horse-related equipment, phone calls and postage. Expenses of $150 per week per person are typical and are significant contributors to the economy of rural Australia (Bicentennial National Trail, 1997).

To date, overseas and domestic tourists trekking on the Bicentennial National Trail have spent about $10 000 each in Australia (Bicentennial National Trail, 1997). Some of this expenditure is in small rural and regional towns. Such expenditure is particularly important in these economies where it can represent a significant proportion of money spent in a community that often has fewer sources of income than large urban centres. There were also indirect benefits through sales of specialist hiking and camping gear.

In south-east Queensland, there are a number of smaller communities that benefit from expenditure on outdoor activities. The presence of a camping-gear retailer in Boonah is one example.

The West Australian survey (Boshe Group, 2001) showed that visitors to the Shire of Mundaring spent an average of $11.43 per visit in the shire, injecting as much as $10 million a year into the local economy. In addition they spend another $12.28 per visit outside the shire. This equates to a total annual expenditure of some $4 267 800—enough to create and support about 51 full-time jobs (at the ABS rate of 12 new jobs per $1 million expenditure).

The Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management surveyed walkers on the Bibbulmun Track during 1999–2000 and found that at least 35 000 people spent in excess of 217 000 walking days on the trail in a one-year period. It has been estimated that about $1.1 million is spent a year on accommodation by walkers alone. When expenditure on track-related gear, transport to and from the track, and food are added, an estimate of $6.25 million is derived. It appears reasonable to conclude that Bibbulmun Track walkers spent well in excess of the full construction cost of the new track ($5 million) last year alone. Many local businesses along the track are now able to identify a turning point in their fortunes relating directly to the popularity of the track (Shrimpton, B., 2001, pers. comm., 30 March).

Trail users of the Pembrokeshire coast path (UK) generate $30 million of income in the area; this represents a return of $57 for every $1 spent on trail management. In the USA, the White Mountains section of the Appalachian Trail contributes $63 million to the local economy and employs one in nine people in the area (Albone & Bawker, 2000).

The money locals spend using trails also provides a significant boost for local economies. A number of outdoor recreation commercial companies operate successfully in south-east Queensland. Many retail shops dealing with outdoor recreation have opened in prime inner-city retail space in Brisbane, for example in Fortitude Valley. Unfortunately, there is little research data available on expenditure on outdoor recreation in urban Brisbane. However, figures from other studies may indicate the level of urban economic support for outdoor recreation: for instance, the Boshe Group report (2001) showed that residents spent an average of $1.44 each time they used the trails in Mundaring Shire, making for an injection of some $2 million per year into the local economy.

Trails generate jobs during the construction of trail infrastructure and facilities, the maintenance of trails and in administration services. In many cases, these opportunities make use of resources that would otherwise be underused. The Bibbulmun Track was built using the labour of Green Corps members and minimum-risk prison inmates (the latter through an agreement between the Department of Conservation and Land Management and the Ministry of Justice). Such an approach not only allowed the developers to tap into an under-utilised resource but also provided significant benefits such as increased self-esteem and skills building for the individuals involved.

The Tourism Forecasting Council estimates there will be 8.4 million tourists visiting Australia by 2008 (Parker 1999). Nature-based tourism, such as adventure recreation, some cultural activities and eco-tourism, can all be carried out on trails. Providing a network of trails would be an integral part of supporting the growing tourism infrastructure. Trails are a unique opportunity to combine conservation and tourism.

Trails offer opportunities to increase the diversity of tourism products available. The tourism resource offered by trails is magnified by Australia’s competitive advantage: its spectacular and diverse natural features and cultures.

Trail users often become tourists, increasing the economic benefits to local communities: they come for the trail experience but stay and participate in the other activities offered in a region (e.g. visiting tourist attractions, visiting the local pub).

A primary element of trails tourism is promoting and marketing trails. To ensure the public investment and economic benefits are maximised it is important that tourism and promotional campaigns are established as trails are developed. Tour agents, park managers and other stakeholders should work closely together to ensure marketing is undertaken properly to have the right product prior to promotion. This should also be complemented by research into best-practice overseas and domestic models.

Part of a promotion package could include television. Programs such as the ‘Great South East’ and ‘Great Outdoors’ help to promote public awareness of outdoor recreation and can help improve the patronage of trails. Promoting trails to the right markets can encourage people to visit all sorts of places in south-east Queensland. Trail users speak positively about visits to trail areas, thus creating free advertising. Promotional opportunities for local and regional areas can be aligned to trails and be used in focussed marketing campaigns. One good example of useful, well-covered support material to help people enjoy trails is the guidebooks and maps produced for the BNT. They contain maps of the route, give details of distances and sources of provisions, nominate the best campsites, give information on water sources, and provide historical information of the routes (Australia’s Bicentennial National Trail, 2000).

Several regions along the BNT in Queensland have been identified as ideal places at which to implement specific tourism-development strategies. The strategies could capitalise on the trail’s natural and historical features as well as on existing attractions close to the route. The development and promotion of these parts of the trail could make an important contribution to Queensland’s tourism industry, particularly in attracting independent adventure tourists to regional Queensland (Bicentennial National Trail, 1997). Such an intelligent marketing approach would apply equally to other trails in south-east Queensland.

Promotion should include strong visual cues, be focused on high-quality tracks with consistently good signage throughout, include support material, and offer packages (Albone, 2000). The key points to remember when marketing trails are (Albone, 2000):

Trails present a unique opportunity not just to marry two often-conflicting forces (i.e. people and nature) but also to make them profitable. Promoting public awareness of a trail network provides significant benefits to local economies from both domestic and international visitors. Most importantly, this financial viability will guarantee that these nature-based recreation resources will be available for future generations.

Recreation is important to Australians: it is an essential component of our history, culture and psyche. While many people participate in organised, traditional forms of recreation (e.g. football, netball, cricket and softball), many also participate in informal outdoor recreation such as bushwalking, four-wheel driving and canoeing. Why do people choose to participate in such activities that can take them away from comfort, have some level of risk for a few hours or up to weeks at a time? The answer may be that these people recognise that participating in such activities has a large number of benefits, both for themselves as individuals and for the communities in which they live.

Imagine visiting your GP and being prescribed, not tranquillisers or anti-depressants, but a gentle walk along a recreational trail three times a week.

Active Australia, a recent program of the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care and Australian Sports Commission’‘’ highlighted that:

It should be noted that indirect and intangible costs were omitted from this study. Intangibles are those things that contribute to quality of life. This is supported by Owen (1997), who says that at least 30% of disease is related to lifestyle. Figures are similar for the US, where it is claimed that 25% of all health-related spending is on medical intervention that might have been avoided if people exercised more and ate a healthy diet. It is now well accepted that we are heading down the American path, and becoming an obese nation.

Given these figures, it is not surprising that Australia now spends 8% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health. This is projected to rise to 10% soon, as more and more expensive treatments are required by our aging population (Owen 1997). How can we address this problem? The Federal Government estimates that there are savings of about $600 million annually to be made from an extra 10% of the population becoming physically active; this equates to about $75 million in south-east Queensland (Queensland Transport, 2000). One way of encouraging people to become more active is to provide safe opportunities for people from all walks of life to enjoy active recreation outdoors. Trails create places for the community to exercise (Maher Brampton Associates, 2001). Research in Australia and overseas has shown that health and fitness are the two reasons that people commonly give when explaining their participation in outdoor activities.

Another health benefit to be gained from participating in physical activity is that it can help alleviate stress and anxiety, contributing to people’s sense of wellness and, ultimately (though not immediately obvious), to reductions in their demands on the health budgets. Physical activity in natural environments such as on trails can also lead to better personal well-being when people gain a greater sense of accomplishment from any challenge posed. This has the potential to improve self-confidence and self esteem.

In short, physical activity is good for us—and good for our health system!

It is apparent that constructing quality trails can play a crucial role in reducing long-term health care costs—and can help in reducing the social disruption that accompanies illness resulting from sedentary lifestyles. Indeed, in the future it will probably be considered that spending money keeping people out of hospital is better than spending it on attending to inactivity-related illnesses. Because trails can provide hope of a healthier community and relief from spiralling medical costs, they should be seen as an essential component of the health care system, and warrant funding accordingly (Maher Brampton Associates, 2001).

The development of a trails network, providing low-cost recreation opportunities to a range of recreationists from hard-core wilderness adventurers to the individual or family day-trippers using parks with provided facilities, and the promotion of the network as contributing to an active lifestyle, could form part of a ‘managed illness prevention’ strategy.

As previously stated, more people camped out in south-east Queensland than attended major sporting events in the same period. Trails present easy access to the natural environments for urban and rural people. Residents of south-east Queensland are in an enviable situation in that natural settings are easily accessible: for most of us, a trail in the bush is within two hours’ drive. This is a significant element of the attractiveness of the region, and was noted at the SEQ2001 growth-management conference in December 1990. Over the 10 years since that conference, the attractiveness of the region has remained, and at the same time the number of people using it has increased markedly. Even taking the rapid increase in population into account, this is, surely, public support for the provision of trails.

Trails can encourage social harmony and interaction, helping foster community pride stemming from a sense of ownership of the local trail. Two outstanding examples of where such community pride has developed are the Appalachian Trail in the USA (a strong volunteer program since 1932) and the Bibbulmun Track in Western Australia (a newcomer having been opened in 1999 but already with a strong volunteer maintenance network). Trails present a wealth of opportunity for community involvement and interaction, through volunteer programs, social events and general usage. By involving people in planning and developing trails, they may feel more a part of the social fabric in which they live. Participation in these critical processes helps heighten community awareness and encourage community ownership of trails. These outcomes benefit all residents of the community in the long term. As Burke (1998) points out, ‘An engaged citizenry is a critical determinant of the health of a nation’s stock of social capital’. This is recognised in the Queensland Government’s Heritage Trails Network, a program that is pursuing partnerships with local governments, communities and the private sector to create sustainable employment and celebrate and conserve Queensland’s cultural heritage.

In the promotion of economic growth and creation of jobs, trail construction and promotion can benefit all, and unemployed people in particular. The presence of trails can also provide cross-cultural experiences, particularly in small rural areas as trails draw urban residents from surrounding regions and other domestic and international visitors. This experience has been cited favourably in New Zealand’s experiment with rural walkways on private farms. Farmers who have opened their properties to trail users reported positive experiences from meeting new and interesting people (Grocke 2000). In addition, there can be no better way to promote an understanding of and respect for the natural environment than by facilitating satisfying, safe and enjoyable access to nature on well-planned and well-managed trails.

Trails present a unique opportunity to trail users and the community in general for education, not only environmental and outdoor education, but also cultural and historical education, incorporating both Aboriginal and European material, and in developing better social skills. Users of interpretative guides and services obtain a sense of appreciation for, and understanding of, the interpreted resource. Interpretation can make trails significantly more interesting. Inventories of cultural and natural features form the backbone of interpretative systems. This includes locating notable features of a trail, such as scenic viewpoints, wildlife, ecological communities, cultural features and historic buildings.

Outdoor adventure is a catalyst for change because it is an avenue for providing exciting and creative programs that aid personal growth in participants (Berman & Berman 1999). As well as individual health benefits, outdoor recreation provides participants with a number of other positive outcomes. These include:

Outdoor recreation activities can be particularly important in helping any person who is considered ‘at risk’ and prone to anti-social behaviour (e.g. those who have difficulty controlling their anger), suffer from low self-esteem or, perhaps, are suffering from depression because of the inability to cope with life stresses. Adventure-based programs place these people in an unfamiliar environment outside their comfort zone, and they learn to trust themselves and others, and to work in teams when challenged with problem-solving activities. The benefit to the community can be a reduction in antisocial behaviour, crime and suicide.

Trails can play a role as wildlife corridors and habitats for our native flora and fauna. Additionally, properly managed trails can take pressure off other areas that it would be valuable to protect for nature conservation.

Trails can assist in land management by providing natural firebreaks and ease of accessibility for management activities. This is also important when considering providing access points for rescue operations.

Providing a network of trails through the countryside helps bring people to the natural and cultural landscapes of south-east Queensland. An integrated and well-promoted trail network could go a long way to satisfying the strong and growing demand for a wide range of outdoor recreation activities. Trails also provide a positive impact on the health and lifestyle of users, and encourage a heightened sense of community awareness and interaction.

The benefits of trails can be summed up as follows:

The adoption of the regional trails challenge by the Regional Landscape Strategy Advisory Committee is timely and appropriate. As a region-based body with representatives from the State Government and local government, rural industry and various other community stakeholder groups, it is currently the most appropriate (indeed only) committee to address the need to recognise regional trails.

This section identifies the challenges facing the State Government and local governments and the community in planning and managing trails in south-east Queensland. The Regional Trails Working Group has developed a vision for a trail network that provided guidance as the challenges were addressed. That vision is for: ‘A high quality network of regional trails showcasing an attractive region and providing recreation, tourism, health and education benefits.’

Before discussing the range of challenges and possible solutions, it is useful to make some general observations about a number of issues:

The working group is dealing with all recreational trails; it is not confining itself to walking trails, or riding trails or trails dedicated to particular pursuits. Unfortunately, much of the research the RTWG has been able to access has been done about the non-motorised end of the spectrum, so references to research are biased in that way.

In considering and developing a network of trails, the TRWG has taken an approach akin to that taken to trails in the USA and, to a lesser extent, the UK, where a ‘trail’ can include paths that are considered to be ‘shared paths’ or urban footpaths. This is at odds with the approach generally taken in Australia, which is noticeably closer to the wilderness end of the recreation spectrum. The RTGW has extended the recreational spectrum to allow trails such as the Mountains to Mangroves network and the Brisbane River Walk to be considered.

The working group acknowledges that part of the trail network needs to provide access for the disabled, although it has not specifically targeted such trails. It is a matter for individual trail managers to provide such access at points along trails.

This paper makes no discrete references to aquatic trails, with the notable exception of the inclusion of the Noosa River canoe trail and the possibility of the Gold Coast-to-Moreton Bay concept trail, which includes a canoe leg. Land-management agencies are referred to, but not water management agencies. Again, the working group considers such activities to be an essential part of any network. Land-management agencies have the responsibility of ensuring that there is access and landing facilities as appropriate to allow such trails to be pursued.

The multiple uses of trails and the potential conflicts between trail users have not been addressed in the discussion. The working group is aware of these conflicts. The various organisations have codes of ethics (e.g. the Australian National Four Wheel Drive Council Code of Ethics) and these provide an avenue to allow the users themselves to resolve conflicts. This is the best approach and any unresolved problems may better be handled at the individual trail level.

In preparing this paper, the working group drew heavily on work done in Western Australia by the Ministerial Taskforce on Trails Network (Ministerial Taskforce on Trails Network, 1995), the Trailswest Strategic Plan (Trailswest, 1998) and the draft State Trails Master Plan (Maher Brampton Associates, 2001). This activity is a reflection of the Western Australian trails community’s recent holistic review of a range of issues concerning recreation trails. Other States have also made some recent progress or are making progress on specific issues. South Australia has recently passed legislation designed to establish legislative recognition of recreational trails in the land-tenure system. Tasmania has recently pursued the concepts of a ‘family’ of great trails (incorporating short walks, eight bushwalks and 10 island walks). In WA, the Ministerial Taskforce looked at the whole range of issues, the strategic plan laid out how many of these were to be advanced and the State Trails Master Plan provided a review of some of these initiatives and pointed to some new directions.

Finally, in south-east Queensland the way forward will be a partnership between the State Government, local governments and the community in all its guises, rather than an approach that is imposed on any of the key players. This applies to all facets of operations of trails.

All these points should be kept in mind while considering the challenges described below.

To help integrate these trails and networks, the RTWG commends the concept of a regional iconic activity trails network. A formal network would facilitate the best trails in south-east Queensland being packaged together for the purposes of funding, management and promotion. The RTWG sees this as the appropriate way to progress the trails agenda. Trails in the ‘family’ of regional iconic trails would be quality trails, that is trails that are well built (for their purpose) in the first place, well managed and maintained, and promoted as providing for a suite of quality outdoor recreation opportunities. Such an approach is not revolutionary, having recently been progressed in Tasmania. Hepper (2000) describes the Tasmanian Walking Tracks Strategy, which incorporates the ‘Great Short Walks’, ‘8 Great Bushwalks’ and ‘10 Great Island Walks’. Western Australia is currently considering a draft State Trails Master Plan, which, among other initiatives, would introduce the concept of a network of trails, classed as ‘highly significant’ or ‘significant’ as the icon trails of Western Australia (Maher Brampton Associates, 2001). Adopting this proposal would also complement the Queensland Government’s recent policy commitment to the ‘Great Walks of Queensland’ program. However, the south-east Queensland Regional Iconic Activity Trails Network would be narrower in geographic scope but wider in use types than the great walks program, which would be an ideal candidate for inclusion in the broader network. There is also a need to integrate any work on a network with similar activities in Northern NSW as the trail experience does not recognise State borders.

This concept does not neglect the myriad of smaller trails that already exist or are proposed, but rather provides a way of prioritising funding and promotion. It also gives local trail groups a framework by which to pursue their own trail proposals. Under the proposed Regional Iconic Activity Trails concept, a local trail connecting to or complementing a regional trail would be viewed more favourably by funding agencies.

The working group developed four categories of trails that could be included in such a network. They are:

The working group has done some preliminary work on the Regional iconic activity trails network, considering what trails might be on the network and what criteria could be used for determining what trails qualify for inclusion. The group does not have definitive answers. Some broad categories under which criteria could be developed are listed below. It is intended that these form the starting point for discussions among members of the trails community. Once the criteria are refined, it will be critical that thresholds be developed to further refine agreed criteria. The suggested criteria and the main areas of concern identified so far in each of these are:

A similar exercise undertaken in Western Australia (Maher Brampton Associates, 2001) spent significant resources and used an exhaustive process to arrive at a set of criteria for determining which trails should be included in a State Trails Master Plan and in what order of priority. An eight-step process was used, encompassing:

Such an approach is only one way forward.

The working group recommends that, should the concept of an iconic trail network be adopted, a complete process is needed for ensuring that trails meet and maintain the necessary status to retain their place in the network. It is unacceptable to have the iconic trails of south-east Queensland promoted to residents and the wider world as a quality network if the trails it comprises do not meet the expectations of users due to poor construction and maintenance.

A comprehensive plan is the primary mechanism for focussing trail development in south-east Queensland. The aim of this would be to avoid a piecemeal approach to trail funding and a situation where agency maintenance budgets are being squeezed to maintain a large number of trails, many of which are under-utilised. Agencies could benefit by using the iconic trail concept to close down some trails and focus their maintenance budgets on the identified trails. It should be noted that any framework, once fully developed, would not exclude any other trail project from funding; the idea is to provide a focus for prioritising funding.

In Western Australia, it has taken five years and a significant expenditure of resources since the taskforce completed its report to prepare a draft State Trails Master Plan. In the draft document, the consultants noted that Western Australia might not have been ready for a master plan until now. However, the cost has been that much of the funding to date from the Lotteries Funding Program, which helps fund the provision and maintenance of trails, has been delivered in a piecemeal way rather than towards a structured State-wide network of trails (Maher Brampton Associates, 2001). Drawing on this experience, the preparation of such a framework in south-east Queensland should be a priority of any ongoing trails initiative. Refinement of the concept as presented in this paper could be a significant component of phase 2 of the work of the Regional Trails Working Group. Finalisation of the network is an action included as a high priority in the draft strategic plan (see appendix 3).

There is no doubt that the community of south-east Queensland, diverse as it is, has a vital interest in the issue of recreational trail development, both at the individual trail level and looking across the region at the issue of coordination, planning and management. The experience of the Regional Trails Working Group can confirm the enthusiasm of community groups and individuals across south-east Queensland to regional trails. The working group has received a significant number of inquiries from horse riders, bushwalkers, four-wheel-driving enthusiasts and others seeking information on where to undertake their activity or how they can help with the regional trails initiative.

In addition to the need to tap into community energy and enthusiasm, it is now accepted that governments at all levels must involve their communities in activities and planning. Consultation and full partnership arrangements are now considered both necessary and desirable. The existence of the working group, and, indeed, the Regional Landscape Strategy Advisory Committee, are evidence of how partnerships between the community and all levels of government can meet this demand and work together for the benefit of all stakeholders.

The challenge of community support is therefore related to harnessing such enthusiasm and channelling it into viable and long-term strategies. There is also a need to ensure there are adequate resources and support within the public sector to coordinate and manage community involvement in the long term.

There are some very good examples of community involvement in construction and on-going maintenance of individual trails. For example, Redland Shire Council and the local community constructed the Point Lookout Headlands Trail Network on North Stradbroke Island using community resources. The Point Lookout Surfriders Club sourced funds from the Jupiter’s Casino community trust fund, and the council provided construction crew and expertise. Some members of the Surfriders Club were also on the construction crew, and picked up valuable skills during the process.

The recently released Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service draft master plan recognises the need for greater community involvement in park management. A whole section of the plan is devoted to this issue and discusses principles, future goals and strategic actions.

The Regional Landscape Strategy Advisory Committee is a regional body with representatives from State and Local Government and various community stakeholder groups. The Committee oversees the Regional Landscape Strategy and the work of the Regional Landscape Unit, and advises the Minister for Natural Resources. It has recently begun to play an important (short-term) role in trail management at the regional level, commissioning the work of the Regional Trails Working Group. However, there is no recognised regional trails-related body to provide a focal point for community involvement.

It is fair to say that Queensland has lagged behind practices both elsewhere in Australia and overseas when it comes to community involvement in individual trail planning and development. The trails discussed below are just some examples of what might be considered good practice in the provision and management of trails.

The New South Wales Premier’s Department has employed a trail coordinator to manage community involvement in the NSW section of the BNT. The coordinator is located in Lithgow, an economically struggling town in central NSW adjacent to the trail. The coordinator has set up a group of section coordinators who, among other activities, provide ‘eyes on the ground’ for the trail. The section coordinators are also on the board of the Bicentennial National Trail Foundation and so have a direct say in the organisational structure and direction. They provide direct feedback to the board and to community groups from the board. In terms of work on the ground, the coordinators use whatever community groups are active in their section to assist in this task. The trails community is responsible for marking the trail and guiding the trekkers, while the land manager is responsible for trail management and maintenance.

The Great South West Walk, a 250 kilometre walk on the south-west coast of Victoria, is maintained, upgraded and promoted by the Friends of the Great South West Walk. Every year, 4 000 hours of volunteer labour to keep up the tracks and 1 000 hours of administrative work is given by the friends. Tasks include mowing and trimming; building bridges, lookouts and staircases; sheeting paths; and reclaiming land (Golding 2000).

The Tasmanian Trail is a 480 kilometre multi-use recreational trail stretching from Devonport in the north to Dover in the south. Eleven community groups assist in management on the ground, and the Tasmanian Trail Association Inc. (TTAI) is the trail manager. The TTAI conducts trails maintenance and provides guidance and assistance to community organisations. It also provides all maintenance materials and produces guidebooks. Community groups are the ‘eyes on the ground’ for trail maintenance, in both carrying out the maintenance and notifying the TTAI what is required. The community groups are also responsible for promoting their own sections of the trail at various opportunities such as local shows (Boden 2000).

The Bibbulmun Track is a 1 000 kilometre walking track from Perth to Albany. The Friends of the Bibbulmun Track, with 451 registered volunteers, plays a major role in the success of the track. The track is divided into 191 separate maintenance sections under an ‘eyes on the ground’ program conducted by the friends group in partnership with the Department of Conservation and Land Management. Volunteers are trained to report on the condition of the track using special maintenance forms and to carry out basic maintenance tasks such as the control of vegetation and minor erosion (Shrimpton 2000).

Across the wider Western Australian trails scene, the funding guidelines of the Lotteries Commission of Western Australia specify that projects should involve volunteer services, donated materials, sponsorship and other self-help initiatives. This approach significantly fosters community involvement (Lotteries Commission of Western Australia).

The Appalachian Trail is probably the best known volunteer-run walking trail in the world. It stretches over 3 000 kilometres along the eastern seaboard of the USA. The trail is managed by a private, non-profit organisation, the Appalachian Trail Conference, an umbrella organisation for the 31 Appalachian Trail clubs. In 1999, in excess of 4 400 volunteers contributed more than 181 000 hours of labour to the trail maintenance effort (Appalachian Trial Conference, 2000).

The Otago Central Trail, stretching 150 kilometres along an old railway alignment, is regarded as a huge success. This success is due partially to the significant role in the fostering of community involvement and partnerships that occurs in New Zealand. The trail recently won an award from the NZ Recreational Association - part of the citation read ‘a key part of the long term project was maintaining the involvement, participation and partnership of all the key stakeholders. The project represents all that is positive about community and national organisations working in partnerships.’ (Graham 2000).

The use of community involvement and volunteer labour is common elsewhere in the conservation field. Greening Australia and the Australian Trust for Conservation Volunteers are two organisations in Australia that undertake numerous duties contributing to the conservation of the natural environment through labour-intensive programs such as the Green Corps. These examples indicate that, in south-east Queensland, we clearly have some significant distance to travel to catch up with our compatriots.

It should be noted, however, that, using volunteers does not allow governments to abrogate their responsibilities. The Appalachian Trail experience is instructive: despite the fact that the Appalachian Trail Conference provides one of the best volunteer programs operating anywhere in the world, governments have continued to accept a significant share of the responsibility for the trail. The Appalachian Trail still receives regular government funding (both cash and in-kind) and on-going cooperation with the relevant government agencies. Additional special funding grants are still made by government; for example, in 1978, a one-off US $90 million funding injection was used to help protect much of the trail corridor.

There may be a number of options pursued for trail management that will require different levels of community involvement. The Ecotourism Research Group (1996) specifies a number of models for individual trail management and cites national and international examples. These are:

The group’s report specifies advantages and disadvantages of the various models. It is not the intention of this paper to recommend a model of community involvement at the individual trail level, because one model will not fit all situations. The list of examples shows that any track can be managed quite competently by any model depending on the individual circumstances. The Regional Trails Working Group recommends that all trail managers seek to actively involve the community in trail management.

Local trail groups (which would typically comprise local governments, ‘friends of’ groups, and other clubs and organisations) could implement trails at the grass-roots level and take responsibility for the development and on-going maintenance and management of trails, or interact with local government or State Government agencies such as the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS) and DNR that undertake trail work.

There are some basic principles to be observed by trail builders in involving the relevant communities with an interest in an individual trail. Some of these are strategic in nature while others refer to managing volunteers on the ground.

The use of strategic principles would encompass:

‘On the ground’ principles encompass:

The Redland Shire Council has organised work groups of 10 people, including at least three who have undergone some formal training on issues such as occupational health and safety, and weed identification. The Friends of the Bibbulmun Track and TTAI have used a similar approach. An alternative approach that has been suggested is to set up a course for trails construction and maintenance skills, perhaps auspiced by a relevant group such as the Australian Leisure Institute.

It is essential that community-based trail groups receive support, funding and training to aid in their development and increase their professionalism. Experience in Western Australia suggests that community groups have struggled to maintain commitments when left unaided.

Community involvement in the planning, design, construction and ongoing maintenance of trails has been successfully used by local governments in Queensland, interstate and overseas for a large number of tracks, including the Great South West Walk, the Bibbulmun Track and the Appalachian Trail. We need more effectively guided community involvement in trail development in south-east Queensland.

However, despite some outstanding examples of community involvement in the trails process cited above, it is necessary to be realistic about community involvement in the upkeep of individual trails. Recent experience in Western Australia (Brampton, J., 2001, pers. comm., 1 February) would indicate that, in many cases, the community wants to be consulted to find out what is proposed and to participate in decisions about where particular trails should go. In many cases, the community wants no more involvement than this; this is all it is prepared to give. This is the minimum requirement the Regional Trails Working Group would expect. It is critical to have this level of involvement so that a sense of trust is established and so that support is given by the public for the trail. After all, the trail is in the public interest, and it is not only logical, but also common sense and good practice to involve the community.

In addition, although the use of participants in employment and training schemes has many community benefits, the assumption that it has a cost benefit should not simply be taken for granted. Rather, such an approach should be subject to a cost–benefit analysis, bearing in mind that using such programs can impact positively (e.g. through cheaper pay rates and increased self-esteem for participants) or negatively (e.g. through slower construction times) on the overall construction project.

This section has suggested ways forward for involving the community at all stages of planning, providing and maintaining trails. Using volunteers complements governments in their responsibilities for trail development. True partnerships are the way forward. However, we should be careful not to get carried away with romantic notions based on American experiences: the USA is blessed with a 300-year-old culture of volunteering, whereas Australia does not have such a rich history. Nevertheless, we have some way to go in Queensland to exhaust the well of enthusiasm that has already been identified. This section suggests mechanisms by which south-east Queensland trail managers might develop greater and more effective volunteer involvement in the trail development process. 2001, the International Year of the Volunteer, would be a symbolic time to make significant advances in involving our communities.

Funding of capital and recurrent trail works is a key constraint to trails development in south-east Queensland. The survey conducted by EDAW (Wood, 1999) revealed that local governments and local trail groups are frustrated by the lack of coordinated funding for trail construction and maintenance.

In 1996, the Ecotourism Research Group (ERG) identified a significant number of funding sources and funding options for trail development. The report noted that the issue of funding was significant given the continued shrinkage of government budgets. Five years on, little has changed in this respect, notwithstanding the recent $10 million commitment to the Great Walks of Queensland.

The ERG (1996) identified the following funding options in addition to traditional government funding sources:

It should be noted that government policies rule out some of these options in specific instances. For example, the State Government has made a clear policy commitment that there will be no entrance fees charged for national parks. Notwithstanding this, the Regional Trails Working Group is of the view that these options still provide significant opportunities, although the group has not had sufficient resources to fully review the options.

The list prepared by the Ecotourism Research Group is now out of date. Unfortunately, the Regional Trails Working Group has not had the capacity to prepare a revised list. However, it should be noted that the experiences of some community groups is that, although there appears to be a wide range of potential funding sources, the criteria for funding usually means that trails do not qualify. Because trails are managed for everyone, they often do not qualify for special-purpose funding for targeted groups. In moving the trails agenda forward, it would be instructive to review the funding schemes inventory.

One issue that has become clear to the working group is that there are programs across all levels of government that have yet to be fully tapped into as potential funding sources. A good example is the health program, particularly the preventative health program. Given the many health benefits of trails discussed in section 2.2, there is a strong argument for actively seeking funding for trail development under preventative health programs. A multiple-use outdoor trail in Victoria, the Murray to the Mountains Rail Trail, recently won the prestigious National Heart Foundation Award for best recreational facility in Australia. In accepting the award, the CEO of the Alpine Shire Council noted that ‘both the facility and the [Heart Foundation] have the same objective to improve heart health.’ (‘Rail trail wins national award’, 2001). This award clearly recognises that the expenditure of preventative dollars is far more efficient than the expenditure of dollars to correct health problems.

Other potential funding programs are in the economic development area, and this avenue has begun to be exploited: the Bibbulmun Track in Western Australia was partially funded under a grant from the Keating Government’s regional development program. Product-development programs of the tourism sector offer another avenue for funding. This matter needs to be progressed. Any examination of the opportunities will also need to include recommendations for legislative amendments required to remove restraints to funding being used for such programs.

The Regional Trails Working Group recommends a holistic approach to trails funding, with priorities determined by reference to the Regional Iconic Activity Trails Network. The Integrated Regional Transport Plan (IRTP) provides a good example of the approach needed. The major projects needed in the transport network have been clearly spelt out in a government document, with projected funding based on historical levels. All proposed transport projects are reviewed in the light of consistency with the IRTP. Although funding is not guaranteed, the document clearly articulates what is required in terms of dollars and networks. A significant shortfall has been identified compared to what is needed to serve the population of south-east Queensland, however, this approach is much more advanced than anything that exists for recreational trails.

Golding said (2000), ‘From the moment you place a track on the ground, every conceivable form of natural and human mischief conspires to destroy it.’ The comment supports the notion that building a trail is relatively easy, but keeping it in good—and safe—condition, year in and year out, is much, much harder. Maintaining the trails takes specific skills, considerable perseverance and the capacity to respond to user feedback. It can also be expensive, with annual maintenance bills on some trails reaching as much as 10% of initial construction costs (Maher Brampton Associates, 2001). Concerns about the cost of trail maintenance are commonplace. They include (Ecotourism Research Group, 1996):

Although there was enough funding to build the Heysen Trail, there has not been enough to maintain it. This is not unusual: the unfortunate reality is that many of the funding options currently available provide capital funds but not maintenance funds.

The issue of trail maintenance pervades every aspect of trails management. Inadequate maintenance means that the following scenario may unfold:

The Regional Trails Working Group has been unable to gain any meaningful figures on maintenance budgets for trails across south-east Queensland. Suffice to say, it is significant and it is not enough.

It would be short sighted to go ahead and build and upgrade trails yet ignore the demands of managing and maintaining them. Governments would not build roads and sports grounds (to name two relevant examples) without adequate provision for maintenance (both plans and funds). The Integrated Regional Transport Plan also provides an allocation of funds over its seven-year life to cover maintenance and service subsidies. No-one would dream of putting out such a plan without such basic inclusions in the transport sector; why are trails treated differently?

The Regional Trails Working Group suggests the following actions are appropriate to help advance the issue of providing on-going adequate maintenance for trails in order to maintain their attractiveness.

The Regional Iconic Activity Trails Network gives responsible agencies the opportunity to better focus their maintenance budget on trails that are in the network, and allows for agencies to make a decision to close down other trails and redirect the maintenance funds from these to the key trails.

Community involvement through groups such as those working well in other States (e.g. Friends of the Bibbulmun Track, TTAI., the Appalachian Trail Conference, Friends of the Heysen Trail, the Friends of the Great South West Walk) can go a long way to assisting in maintenance with the correct training (see section 3.2). A commitment by trail managers to more fully utilising these groups or to actively seek to set them up is needed.

A scheme to ‘adopt a trail’ has been suggested; this would provide a way of further involving disparate groups such as schools, service clubs, and chambers of commerce in trail maintenance. A ‘Trailwatch’ program could become as successful as Waterwatch and Saltwatch in involving school communities in monitoring. The use of actual trail projects in TAFE and university courses has also been suggested. This could involve a wide range of activities from the construction of trails and facilities to monitoring and outdoor education.

However much all these potential initiatives complement, in partnership, formal assistance through government and corporate funding and professional skill development, they are not a substitute for properly secured assistance. It is unrealistic to expect that trail managers, be they local government or State Government, or well-meaning community groups, are going to be able to undertake effective management and maintenance without significant assistance.

A trail management and maintenance plan should be prepared during the construction or upgrade of any trail. However, it is of particular importance to list trails for inclusion on the Regional iconic activity trails network. No trail should proceed without such a plan.

For trails yet to be constructed or to be upgraded, the opportunity exists to minimise future maintenance demands through careful planning and reconstruction. Initial costs should not be cut: ‘if we do not do it properly today, we can fix it in the future’ is not the right approach. Building good trails in the first place is the best way of minimising future problems and costs.

Vegetation regrowth, erosion and damage to signs are likely to be the greatest maintenance activities on most trails. Provided these are attended to early, they are largely labour intensive; leave them and they also become capital intensive. However, there will always be significant incidents such as flood, fire and major or on-going vandalism (a particular problem with urban and near-urban trails) that will require some capital expenditure.

One of the proposals put forward is that local trail groups provide the initial works funding and seek government assistance for maintenance funding, a reversal of what currently occurs. This idea should be further explored.

There is a need to set up processes for on-going funding well into the future to ensure that trails are maintained consistently. Governments at all levels have been reluctant to tackle this matter. The Regional Trails Working Group recommends that a different approach is needed. The proposed Queensland Trust for Nature with its revolving land fund is one model that could be explored.

It is desirable to have well-built and well-maintained trails. But if nobody knows about them or there is no interpretative material for users on the trail, they will remain an under-utilised resource. The benefits identified in section 2 of this paper will only be recognised if the trails are promoted and marketed properly. The Victorian Government’s ‘Stepping Out’ guide is an extremely good example of the approach we need to take to marketing. We also need to ensure that when trail users come to a trail, they are able to fully appreciate it through the availability of adequate interpretative material. It is vital and should be included as a fundamental cost item, and not treated as something to do if some money is left over. The trails management plan discussed above should include a marketing and promotion strategy developed in conjunction with relevant tourism agencies, and an interpretative material strategy to complement the hard work that will go into the maintenance. In addition, coordinated marketing at the regional level (incorporating trails and marketing activities in northern NSW) is needed to fully promote this wonderful resource to residents of south-east Queensland, northern NSW and visitors to the greater region.

As a concluding point, it should be noted that the problems and possible solutions suggested in this section apply to trails that would be on the Regional iconic activity trails network and to locally significant trails. Notwithstanding this, it is suggested that a different approach may need to be applied to capital funding for the two different types of trails. The draft Western Australia State trails master plan suggests that the approach to be taken is that local trails continue to be funded from the Lotteries Commission of Western Australia, which presently funds all trails. However, a separate fund should be created for the construction and maintenance of what the report terms highly significant and significant trails (which comprise Western Australia’s equivalent of the regional iconic activity trails network).

The summation by the Western Australian Government’s Ministerial Taskforce on Trails Network about the situation there could equally apply to south-east Queensland. It said (1995, p. 13):

The discussion paper prepared by consultants EDAW Australia on current issues and priorities for south-east Queensland trails (Wood, 2000) confirms just such a situation in south-east Queensland, by noting that:

The trails forum held in March 2000 also confirmed these issues as being crucial if significant progress is to be made on developing quality trails in south-east Queensland. The EDAW report makes its principal recommendation the establishment of effective trails coordination mechanisms to integrate all sectors and provide targeted funding assistance to address regional priorities. EDAW believes that the development of regional trails will only move forward if there is some group assigned to take on responsibility for overall south-east Queensland regional trails coordination, planning, funding, research and promotion.

Improved institutional arrangements, through designating and resourcing a coordinating group, would mean that these issues can be addressed and remedied on an ongoing, long-term basis. It should be noted that any model chosen would build on the partnerships that are already in place under the Regional Landscape Strategy and the more general RFGM. These have been developed over time and are now quite strong. The model chosen will include strong links to the community, user groups, regional bodies, regional processes and State agencies.

The primary objective of a coordinating group would be to ensure the coordination, development, management, maintenance and promotion of recreation trails in south-east Queensland.

This group will establish an integrated link between State government and local government agencies and the community, through regional and local groups. To achieve this objective, a number of roles could be designated for the group (Ministerial Taskforce on Trails Network, 1995). Roles could include, but not be limited to:

Trails should be promoted on a network basis, to capitalise on the advantages of scale and design consistency. Local trail managers may need assistance in developing trail-promotions material. One of the key roles would be to ensure that the existing trail system is effectively promoted and given a higher profile both within and outside south-east Queensland

In addition, a critical role for the coordinating group is as a catalyst for advocacy for and action on trails. The group would be a voice to champion the cause of recreational trail development, and to help fully realise the potential positive contributions of trails.

The RTWG recommends that a coordinating group not be used directly in the trail-building business, rather leaving that to existing land managers, the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, and local governments. There may be times when such a group may become a trail builder but this would only be under certain circumstances, such as where an opportunity and community demand for a trail exist, there are lots of agencies interested, but there is no one agency or community group which has the necessary funds or desire to be the primary driver.

In summary, the group would be responsible for developing and maintaining the integrity of the regional trail network while individual trail managers would be responsible for constructing and maintaining their own regional or local trail, to an agreed minimum standard.

It recommended community involvement and ownership of individual trails, with the WA Government providing advice, resources and coordination. Such an approach highlighted both the need for a network and the need for public ownership to be adequately supported by information, expertise and resources to ensure the long-term viability of the trails network and of the working relationship between the management partners. Without this, public enthusiasm can be lost. Given the enthusiasm in south-east Queensland identified by EDAW, it is critical we effectively harness this invaluable resource.

However, in the four years in Western Australia since the taskforce published its report and Trailswest was established, it has become apparent that this more ‘hands off’ approach, so focussed on community ownership, only works in those few areas where there are sufficient numbers of well-informed and committed trail activists. Time has shown that relatively few communities in WA are ready for such responsibility, and that the effective uptake of the opportunities offered has been marginal. The Western Australian Government is now looking at a significant change of direction, with a greater degree of direct involvement in partnering trail development. Realistic assessments of human resources and actual community involvement in trails must be made: Western Australia is now paying the price for a romantic notion relating to the merits of a ‘bottom up’ approach (Brampton, J., 2001, pers. comm., 1 February).

It is fair to say that views on the various options are in a state of flux across Australia, with agencies moving from one end of the spectrum to the other over time. These views seem to be based as much on personal experiences and bureaucratic manoeuvring as any intrinsic benefits of the various proposed models. The Western Australian experience indicates the need to properly consider all models of coordination and to try to anticipate issues that may arise. It also shows that there may be a need to be flexible, and be prepared to change to suit changing circumstances.

The RTWG recommends that a new model for Queensland should adopt a middle-ground approach, but learning from the mistakes made in Western Australia. The working group also believes that the roles articulated above are the primary roles for any lead agency and these shape consideration of the various management options. There are four major options for progressing coordinated trail management. These are:

In the discussion below of each of these options, some of the advantages and disadvantages of each option will be magnified, while some unique advantages and disadvantages will become more apparent.

The most critical point underlying consideration of all the models is that any program of trail coordination must have dedicated resources so that it can be done properly and must not be subjected to constantly changing priorities with concomitant fluctuations in resourcing. It requires a long-term commitment, both financially and philosophically. The rewards can be great but patience and long-term commitment is required. As an example, the US government and the Appalachian Trail Conference have been waiting 80 years to purchase land to re-route some of the Appalachian Trail, one of the iconic trails of the world. The lesson is that there is no such thing as overnight success.

Some of the advantages of using an existing government agency include: