La participación de los stakeholders

When asked to describe their business management model, most trail managers said that they did not really have a model as such. Several indicated that they got ideas and concepts from other trails. “But really no; we learn what we can from the Appalachian Trail Conservancy but we're not working off of a model” (Betty). Managers could describe their activities and have a goal they are working towards to further their trail and model.

5.9.1 Trail business management models

No trail business management models were identified or purposely applied. Steve talked about a trial and error approach, based on other models for their trail management model development:

The Appalachian Trail works with section clubs. I think we are going to work with a very similar kind of structure, where we've got a particular champion who is identified in the

landscape, who is responsible for a certain section and is responsible both for the maintenance of that section, the oversight of that section, the promotion of that section potentially as well, to some degree. So really, in a sense, a little bit similar to the Tarawera Trail in New Zealand, where you've got the separate trusts that make up the whole trail. I think that's kind of the way we would like things to go, moving forward.

That really the trail is managed by the people whose land it goes through, who in a sense own it, and by the users. I think we are going to have a stronger volunteer structure going forward as well. (…) It's a very organic model that we are following, Kerstin. It's not a top [down] based approach. It's very much an approach – well, this is what is working, so we go with it. What doesn't work we’ll kind of leave and move on.

5.9.2 Government and NGO partnership

A government and NGO partnership, such as the Appalachian Trail, was generally seen as the ideal model by all trail managers. Another trail manager also looked at other trail models when considering how to best improve theirs:

Actually the model I quite like is that of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy. And they have a core of people who are fulltime permanent members of staff. And I think they coordinate the work the volunteers do along the route. And because there is some money out of [National Park], I think there is some money out of [National Park], that would actually be ideal, because then you’ve got all sorts of protections, legal rights and responsibilities. That would be a nice model. And lots of money. (Frank)

The partnership model was generally supported by all trail managers working within such a model, and also some that did not, as described by Betty:

I guess we'd call it cooperative management, meaning it's a cooperative effort between the public sector and the private sector. Well, I think one of the benefits is being able to recruit volunteers and use volunteers to do most of the work on the trail and I think it takes special skills to be able to build successful volunteer programs and that's something that as the private partner we're able to bring to the partnership is the volunteer recruitment, management and coordination. So I think that's one of the advantages of that model. Having the – well, I think here in the [country] with our vast amounts of public lands that I think having the federal government involved is a necessity.

Wendy said:

The cooperative model works well and actually, the [trail community partner] is an exemplary example of partnering and can be used as a model for the future as federal funding is stretched and we rely more and more on cooperation with various partners to accomplish the [department’s] mission.

As described earlier, the cooperative model comes with certain risks. Political vulnerability, government funding dependency and budget cuts are considered some of the greatest threats to the trail by several trail managers. The development of independent income streams is required to achieve financial sustainability. Belinda said that “this cooperative model is probably slightly better than straight government, as parks are easy picking for funding cuts. This is cushioned through volunteers, which are more cost effective.” Another aspect of the government partner model is outlined by Will:

Besides the money issue, having long term public support for the [trail]. Just in general, the general public support for the outdoors is declining in this country. Eventually, without good public support, we could have members of government saying, we don’t need that particular park, we can sell it. We don’t need to maintain that particular trail, that particular forest. We should turn it over to housing development or something else.

That’s a real worry for me, long term.

A top down approach was considered vital in the timely development of trails for Don:

That really meant we could do what some people would have thought was impossible, to actually roll out 2,500 kilometres. Now the challenge really is to continue that same motivation and enthusiasm through the marketing people and the business owners along the trail. Make sure everybody's cycling experience is absolutely positive. Yeah the model was great, and the main thing that we had was alignment, from the prime minister down through to the government agencies like the [conservation department]

and the organisations that own the land, the roading people, [name of transport department]. That alignment just meant that everyone was really on the same page and we had the same vision. The cooperation and support we got to not only find the route through other people’s land, but also for the construction of it was first class.

5.9.3 Improvements

Most trail managers expressed satisfaction with their current model, despite not being able to describe or identify it and suggesting a range of improvements. Satisfaction was generally based on surviving financially and achieving set outcomes.

I don’t think there is a problem with what we have. We’ve got such support from the government partners, and then we’ve got [trail organisation], that supports and funds.

You know, a lot of the smaller clubs don’t have the bank accounts that we do. I think what we’ve got going has worked for enough years that I think it will continue, provided the population continuous in the way that it is. And no natural disaster impact. (Faye) Many trail managers could identify and would like to implement improvements to their model and ways of operation.

I think there are probably folks, that when they look back, and they look at the structure of our club system (…), I think that there could be value in having them more closely affiliated with us from a business structure, like they would be chapters of our organisation. Because then we would have a little bit more authority over them probably, then what we sometimes have now. And there may be other responsibilities that go along with that, like they are expecting so much funding from us to do other things, but their memberships would be our memberships (…). There are some clubs that share memberships with [organisation], but there are a lot of clubs that have a standalone membership” (Belinda).

This idea was supported by Will: “Ideally one entity that takes care of the trail and has the agreement with the federal authority. Or at least clubs need to be chapters of the trail association.” Streamlining of internal communication and reporting channels were also on Rita’s improvement list:

I wish, especially for the [trail], for better interaction between the tourism related project management and the work related local communities. Generally, we would only be informed about completed tasks afterwards. Ideas are not discussed with us. We are lacking sufficient financial means to undertake sufficient project management. Ideal would be a second person who would specifically deal with quality management of the [trail]. That would mean regular checks of the way marking and signage, regular control of the trail conditions, such as trees down and damage to the trail from river washouts,

person would require basic equipment and materials, as well as a vehicle, to be able to respond quickly when issues or damage arises. A similar model is used in [city] through the [name of NGO infrastructure management company].

The lack of staff issue was echoed by other trail managers, some with big picture improvement ideas, such as Frank:

Have the [trail] under one management group, and have a team of rangers that just look after the [trail]. Myself, a small team of specialist staff that look after the [trail] and a team of rangers that are dedicated from start to finish. I would really love to see things like an apprenticeships scheme. So we are actually employing people out of the local communities and training them in path construction and all the usual stuff that goes with it. It would be nice to share those skills.

Several trail managers talked about improvements to their financial viability through different structures within the organisation and management.

I’m trying to set up to organise a [trail] management trust, purely because of all the commercial activity I do, can actually go to this trust. And the thing about having a trust in [country] is that, it is a charitable organisation, so they potentially don’t end up paying [tax]. Potentially they can claim far more money from public agencies and they also have the big advantage of being able to plan maintenance over a longer period. We get a budget allocation, and what is spent, capital or otherwise, is spent within the financial year. A trust doesn’t have to do that. (Frank)

The last interview question was to ascertain if everything had been included in the questions and participants felt that their responses had been complete. Participants indicated that all key areas had been covered, as expressed in these comments: “No, I think you have pretty well covered it” (Will). “I think you have done a great job, very thorough” (Faye). This completes the feedback received from the interviews with trail managers.