PROFILE AND INTEREST OF MOUNTAIN BIKERS IN THE MOUNT MAKILING FOREST RESERVE

PAOLO SEDANO MENDIORO

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS BAOS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE (Natural Resources Conservation)

JULY 2013

The thesis attached hereto, entitled PROFILE AND INTEREST OF MOUNTAIN BIKERS IN THE MOUNT MAKILING FOREST RESERVE, prepared and submitted by PAOLO SEDANO MENDIORO, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE (NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION), is hereby accepted.

ROBERTO P.CERENO Member, Guidance Committee _________________________ Date Signed

ELSA P.SANTOS Member Guidance Committee _________________________ Date Signed

DIOMEDES A. RACELIS Chair, Guidance Committee _________________________ Date Signed

Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE (NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION)

EDWINO S. FERNANDO Chair, PMC,NRC

TEODORO R. VILLANUEVA Director, IRNR

______________________ Date Signed

_______________________ Date Signed

JOSE V. CAMACHO JR. Dean, Graduate School University of the Philippines Los Baos _________________________ Date Signed

ii

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Born on December 27, 1985 in Los Baos Laguna, the author was born to Engr. Luis M. Mendioro and Dr. Merlyn S. Mendioro. He is the eldest of three siblings. Described as precocious as a little boy, the author repeatedly badgered his parents with questions about many things in life, and his curious nature continues on until today. Having a knack for memorization he memorized car brands and models, history dates, people, events, geographical locations, and license plates of family members, relatives, and friends. He studied pre-school and elementary days at the Morning Star Montessori School in Los Baos Laguna, where he was in his element at quiz bees, winning in Science, Spelling, and Sibika (now Makabayan). He became the Quiz Bee Grand Champion in Grade 6. He completed his high school education in South Hill School Inc; and his college education at the University of the Philippines at Los Baos in 2007 with a Bachelors degree in Forestry. He passed the Foresters Professional Licensure examination the same year. He also became a CFNR College Student Councilor in 2005 and also a ROTC Non-Commissioned Officer. The author is an avid mountain biker, hence his topic. He has competed in a few events, namely downhill and four cross events and somehow ended up in the middle all the time. He has met a lot of friends from mountain biking, and he made this thesis in gratitude to the people who bike.

PAOLO SEDANO MENDIORO

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank God for the strength and will to keep going even if my motivation wavers, a human can only go so far. I would like to thank my family: Mama, Papa, Zsaris, Katrina, Lola, Nongni, Tita Susan, Tita Jo, Tita Dina, Tita Eldre for being there for the whole time this thesis was being made. To the 4th Light Armor Battalion, I thank you for helping me out with the data collection and introducing me to the huge mountain bike groups we have in Quezon and in Northern Laguna. You deserve to be called Masigasig. To the many different mountain bike groups I talked to: TBAC, Haooh, OneIlocos, MAKBOYS, Elbi Bikers, Team Groundzero, and the many others, thank you for being honest and willing to answer, I remember the overwhelmingly positive reaction when I mentioned New Bike Trails once this thesis is complete. I tell you I will do my best to make this happen. Makilings too good a mountain to let this pass. Thank you again for all your help. To Green Planet Bikeshop, Ulyby Bikeshop, and Endless Bikeshop, these shops sell not only good bike parts, and they are also helpful to my thesis. I thank you deeply. I learned even a thing or two in organizing an event from Ulybys owner, Ulysses Liquigan. I owe you my future parts purchases To Dr. Diomedes Racelis, Prof. Elsa Santos, Dr. Armando Palijon, and For. Roby Cereno, thank you for being patient, with me. I sure need all the help I can get, and the way we organized the thesis last December gave me a clearer picture on what to do. And to Sir Medic thank you for accepting me on such short notice. I would also like to thank Dr. Connie Reao and Dr. Felino Lansigan from INSTAT as they were able to guide me in what statistical analysis I should do in my study. To the Makiling Team Gravity boys: I decided to do this as a way of saying thank you for the rides, the races, and the alcohol we all shared. We will get a Mudspring replacement soon, and then some. To Ybet, who I dedicate all of this to. I decided when I got serious into finishing this thesis, my mantra was: Do it for her. It was the thing I was looking forward to when I finally finish this and get that Masters diploma. Not the job, not the money, not the shiny new bike parts, or that go kart. I did this not for myself this time. I chose do this for you. I love you, Ybet.

iv

For Tita Cecille.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE TITLE PAGE APPROVAL PAGE BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF APPENDICES ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION REVIEW OF LITERATURE Mountain Biking History Classification of mountain bikes and mountain biking Cross Country and All-Mountain Downhill and Free-ride Peculiarities of mountain biking Benefits of mountain biking The mountain biker Mountain biking in the Asia-Pacific Region i ii iii iv vi viii xii xiv xv 1 8 8 8 10 10 11 12 13 14 18

vi

PAGE The Mount Makiling Forest Reserve Organization and Personnel Ecotourism in the MFR Mountain biking in the MFR METHODOLOGY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION LITERATURE CITED LIST OF ACRONYMS APPENDICES 19 26 26 27 29 37 109 116 118 119

vii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 2 3 4 5 Description of Cramrs V and corresponding verbal descriptions Provincial distribution of respondents Age classes of MFR mountain bikers, 2012 Age profile and origin of mountain bikers of the MFR in 2012 Gender classification and civil status of mountain bikers of the MFR in 2012 Age class, gender, and civil status of MFR bikers, 2012 Educational attainment of mountain bikers Educational attainment, gender and civil status of MFR bikers, 2012 Average household income of mountain bikers in the MFR Educational attainment, average household income and gender of mountain bikers in the MFR Association of mountain bikers profile and characteristics established through Cramrs V value Estimated cost of mountain bikes used by mountain bikers Gender, cost estimate of mountain bike/s, and average household incomes of riders in MFR Length of mountain bike experience in years by mountain bikers. Gender, age, and length of biking experience of MFR mountain bikers Preferred mountain biking discipline by mountain bikers Preferred bike discipline and biking experience of MFR bikers

PAGE 36 45 47 48 49

6 7 8 9 10

50 51 52 53 54

11

54

12 13

57 57

14 15

58 59

16 17

60 61

viii

TABLE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Mountain bike rider skill levels Racing experience of mountain bikers Preferred MTB racing events by MFR mountain bikers Number of days allotted for mountain bike riding by mountain bikers Primary usage of the mountain bike by mountain bikers Primary reason in starting mountain biking by MFR bikers Primary reason for mountain biking, primary use, and gender of MFR mountain bikers Age class and Reason for mountain biking of MFR bikers Age class and Primary use of mtb by MFR bikers Average household income and primary reason for starting MTB by MFR bikers Average household income and primary use of MTB riders in the MFR Mountain bike configuration used by mountain bikers Bike configuration and average household income of MFR bikers Bike configuration and preferred MTB discipline of MFR bikers Bike configuration, preferred racing event, and skill level of MFR bikers Rider skill level and primary use of mountain bikes by MFR bikers Primary use of mountain bike and days allotted for riding by MFR bikers Bike configuration, preferred discipline, and cost estimate of mtb of MFR bikers Bike configuration, bike costs, and racing experience of MFR bikers

PAGE 62 63 64 65 65 66 67

25 26 27

67 68 69

28

70

29 30 31 32

71 72 73 73

33 34

74 76

35

78

36

79

ix

TABLE 37 38 39 40 Social network of mountain bikers MTB organizations willingness to assist in trail construction MTB organizations method to promote MTB riding in the MFR Willingness to help, promotion of riding and active membership in an MTB organization. Association of mountain biker preferences established through Cramrs V Travel to MTB destinations by mountain bikers Awareness on the MFR as a mountain biking destination among mountain bikers Mountain bikers opinion on what the MFR needs to become a MTB destination Hazards encountered by mountain bikers in the Mariang Makiling Trail. Opinions about trail sharing by mountain bikers in the Mariang Makiling Trail Riding discipline of MFR bikers and their observed hazards in the Mariang Makiling trail Mountain bikers opinion on new MTB trails in the MFR Mountain bikers opinions on elements present in proposed MTB trail in MFR Type of mountain bikers with preferred trail features in proposed MFR MTB trail Mountain bikers preference on trail exclusivity Mountain bikers willingness to pay for trail access Accepted price range on access fee for the MFR

PAGE 82 82 83 84

41

86

42 43

87 88

44

89

45

90

46

91

47

91

48 49

92 93

50

93

51 52 53

94 95 95

TABLE 54 Mountain bikers willingness to pay for a year-long pass for mountain bike riding in the MFR Price range for a year long pass for mountain biking in the MFR Other facilities desired by mountain bikers in the MFR MFR awareness, travel to MTB destinations, and opinions on MFR requirements to be a MTB destination Opinions about perceived hazards, trail sharing, and when MFR opens MTB trail. Association of trail exclusivity, willingness to pay for trail access, and trail features in potential MFR trail Association for Willingness to Pay for a year pass and other facilities in MFR. Association of Mountain Bikers Social Network and Mountain Biking Preferences through Cramers V

PAGE 96

55 56 57

97 98 98

58

100

59

102

60

105

61

106

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

PAGE

1 2 3 4 5

Location map of the MFR, with watersheds (photo from MCME) Municipalities included in the MFR. (Image from NAMRIA) Conceptual Framework of the Study Map of the Mariang Makiling Trail (Photo from MCME) Mountain biker visits to the MFR in the year 2012 (courtesy of MCME) Dispersion by distance from MFR Rider skill level and primary use of mountain bikes Riding days and primary use of mountain bike Association between mountain bike discipline, cost, and the hardtail bike configuration Association of full suspension bikes, bike discipline and estimated costs Hardtails, racing experience, and estimated costs Full suspension bikes, racing experiences, and estimated costs Travel to MTB sites, awareness of MFR, and what MFR needs to be a MTB destination Opinions on opening a trail in the MFR with trail sharing and observed hazards in the Mariang Makiling Trail Opinions on the MFR not opening a trail in the MFR together with trail sharing and observed hazards Opinions on Trail exclusivity, trail features and payment for access towards personal data of mountain bikers

20 21 34 38 40

6 7 8 9

46 74 76 77

10

78

11 12 13

80 80 99

14

100

15

101

16

103

xii

FIGURE 17 Opinions on the non-exclusivity of trail, willingness to pay, and trail features WTP for a year pass and other non-MTB facilities in the MFR

PAGE 103

18

105

xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX I II III IV V Survey Form used in data collection List of mountain biking clubs and organizations List of MTB events organized by clubs and organizations List of popular mountain biking destinations MCME Organizational Chart

PAGE 119 123 124 125 126

xiv

ABSTRACT

PAOLO SEDANO MENDIORO. University of the Philippines Los Baos. July 2013. Profile and Interest of Mountain Bikers in the Mount Makiling Forest Reserve

Major Professor: Diomedes A. Racelis

To create a profile of mountain bikers and gauge their interest towards the Mount Makiling Forest Reserve (MFR), as well as determine the current status of the MFR to accommodate mountain biking, purposive sampling was used together with a mountain biker survey. Cross tabulation and the Cramrs V test of association was conducted. The profile described the mountain bikers as predominantly male, aged 21-40 years old, having tertiary level education and earning around 100,000 to 200,000 pesos yearly. They are beginners with most only riding for five years or lower. XC riding was their choice and they ride mostly for fun or as exercise. Cramrs V test of association (0 being the weakest and .30 showing a strong association) showed the following: club membership and trail work (.603), club membership and promotion and use of trails (.281), awareness of the MFR and the requirements to be a biking destination (.371), willingness to pay for access and trail features (.360). Mountain bikers are well aware of the MFRs potential to provide them with a place to ride and willing to pay for these kinds of facilities, as long as the MFR will provide them with the opportunity to do so. The MFR is in a state of inertia towards mountain biking, and needs to make more effort to at least provide mountain bikers a place to ride. Tapping mountain bike groups and local support as well as corporate sponsorship is needed.

xv

INTRODUCTION

Mountain biking (MTB) is growing as a veritable form of outdoor recreation. It is a popular physical activity on an international scale, with participation rates continuing to increase (Tourism Tasmania, 2008). Despite the inevitable link to road cycling, mountain biking has branched off into something more specialized and diverse. This diversity among mountain bikes and the mountain bikers themselves pose a whole new challenge to managers, policy makers, and operators of parks and other outdoor recreation areas. The early 1990s saw an explosion of the popularity of mountain biking and mountain bikes itself. A 2010 survey by the Outdoor Foundation indicated that bicycling in the US creates a major economic growth. Its annual contribution to the economy is worth $133 billion, and supports 1.1 million jobs across the country, $53.1 billion annually in retail sales and services, $46.1 billion in bicycling related expenditures and provides sustainable growth in rural areas (American Trails, 2012). In the Rocky Mountain region alone, bicycling contributes $6.2 billion annually to the regional economy and supports 60,000 jobs across the region (Kaliszewski, 2010). The International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) estimated around 2.5 million to 3 million avid trail riders in the United States alone (Morey et al., 2002). A decade or so later, the trail riders in the US reached an estimate of around 14 million riders, which is around 4-6% of the US population (Tourism Tasmania, 2008). In

Europe, the United Kingdom and Germany boast of high and growing mountain bike use and purchases. The UK has 11.8 million mountain bike owners with 1.3 million avid trail users, while in Germany the number is at 3.5 million (Tourism Tasmania, 2008). In

Australia, an approximate 70% of new bicycle acquisitions were mountain bikes (Tourism Tasmania, 2008). The Resort Municipality of Whistler in British Columbia in Canada is home to the worlds most famous mountain bike park, the Whistler Mountain Bike Park; and the community is more than capable in the handling of tourists (approximately 100,000 visitors every summer), yet remain highly conservationist. Despite the creation of the park, wildlife has flourished, as well as mountain bike trails. The Philippines with its rugged terrain consisting of vast natural formations of hills and mountains is already well suited for various outdoor recreation activities, and are located close to major urban centers like Manila. Compared to temperate countries where most of the riding season is done a couple of months in summer, the Philippines can truly boast of almost year long riding. Planners, administrators, and even local government units should be able to recognize and utilize these new partnerships and markets. Unfortunately, there has been no hard data on mountain bike activities and sales in the Philippines. The Mount Makiling Forest Reserve (MFR) is an interesting case. It is used primarily as a laboratory for research and instruction of the University of the Philippines Los Baos (UPLB), but it is also a watershed and well known as an ecotourism site. People who hike the trails in the MFR are either there for scientific purposes, or for tourism. To travel around the MFR, the main path is the Mariang Makiling Trail. The trail is considered multi-use. For hikers, mountain bikers, and the people of Barangay Bagong Silang, the Mariang Makiling Trail is the only way of access. Conflict among trail users can happen when travelling along the Mariang Makiling Trail. When a

mountain biker rides downhill at a high amount of speed meets a group of hikers standing or walking along in the middle of the trail then an accident can occur. Trail use and access is a hotly contested issue in foreign countries, where different interest groups lobby against each other for sole access of trails. Mountain biking gets a bad reputation among fellow trail users, especially on its supposed environmental impacts. But the statistics show that though bikes are perceived to be dangerous, they do not significantly add up to the tallies of accidents listed and known by managers of such parks (Cessford, 2002).

Statement of the Problem

The study will attempt to look at the state of mountain biking in the MFR, and to look at mountain biking as an ecotourism activity. Specifically, the study will try to address the following questions: 1. Who are the mountain bikers? a. What are their educational backgrounds, ages, locations relative to the MFR, incomes, riding experiences and skill level, etc.? b. What are their bike-related social networks, if they have one? c. What are their motivating factors to ride mountain bikes, specifically in the MFR? 2. What is the state of mountain biking in the MFR? a. What attracts bikers to the MFR? What are the things that do not attract bikers to the MFR?

b. What kind of mountain biking experience appeals to bikers who go to the MFR? c. How can it improve the protection and conservation practices in the MFR? 3. What is the capability of the MFRs management system to handle mountain biking? a. What are the current policies and rules in the management of the MFR that cover ecotourism and mountain biking? b. Is mountain biking being given any attention by MFR management? Does MFR management willing to work with bikers in the future for mutual benefit? d. Are there any programs initiated by the MFR management to increase awareness of mountain biking in the MFR (e.g. contests, marketing, etc.)?

Objectives of the Study

The study was conducted to create a profile and to determine the level of interest of mountain bikers in the MFR. The specific objectives were as follows: 1. to characterize the mountain bikers, their socio-economic profile, preferences and motivation, and their social networks; 2. to identify the programs and initiatives of the Mount Makiling Forest

Reserves management system that support or hinder mountain biking; and 3. to recommend management strategies and actions to provide bundled services in support of mountain biking-based ecotourism in the MFR.

Scope and Limitations

The study focused on the mountain biking activity in the MFR and the attendant management system applied by the Makiling Center for Mountain Ecosystems (MCME) to deal with mountain biking. Ideally, a sample needs a sampling frame or a listing for it to be reliable. However, a true listing of all mountain bikers does not exist, and through there are mountain biking organizations present in the Philippines, they do not take into account non-members. To add, ownership of a mountain bike does not automatically mean the owner is a mountain biker. Therefore, this study uses a non-probability sample and can only use descriptive statistics. A true listing of all mountain bike owners and riders is needed.

Significance of the Study

Despite the presence of mountain biking in the Philippines, studies about the activity and the people who ride are non-existent. Most studies about mountain biking has been done in developed countries, where mountain biking is more widely practiced and common. The mountain biker in the Philippines is still very much an unknown entity. There have been no studies on the individuals who ride mountain bikes, from the people who ride them for fun, for work; or for competition and sport; in recent years or even at any given time in the Philippines. Park managers, especially those who do not offer mountain biking trails, are clueless on what to do when these tourists arrive. Managers should have a database on which to plan a course of action to accommodate mountain biking, be it for trail access and/or access fees.

In the case of the MFR, the MCME has no study and no data on the mountain biking population that enters the MFR. The lack of information on this particular group of tourists may slow down any move by the MCME to improve its existing ecotourism facilities and to plan actions built to the specifications of mountain bikers. Ecotourism is mentioned in Chapter 11 of the Makiling Conservation and Development Master Plan (EO 349), in which one of the goals is to establish and provide quality outdoor recreation opportunities and tourism facilities with the requisite services to the public. Hiking and camping are already well known, and recently bird watching. The EO 349 listed ecotourism and outdoor recreation as one of the major management objectives. In terms of natural resource conservation, ecotourism is a very useful tool to increase awareness and appreciation towards nature, as well as other benefits. Developing countries in particular have looked to tourism to help increase national foreign exchange earnings, GDP and employment rates, and to improve socioeconomic conditions in peripheral regions (Weaver, 1998, as cited by Stone, 2002). Ecotourism is activity-based, and one of these activities is mountain biking. Mountain bikers ride because they believe it is fun, healthy, it provides a physical challenge and it is a social activity (Goeft and Alder, 2001). The last point is important because social networks can help in the dissemination of information related to conservation. The goal here is twofold: one is to provide recreation and physical activities for people, and the other is to educate and to make more people appreciate nature. Mountain biking as an ecotourism activity can also be used to help in community development, with spinoff support services that can provide employment and business opportunities.

In the MFR, stores near the Mudsprings provide food and refreshment not just to hikers but to mountain bikers as well. However, these stores are the only auxiliary services found inside the MFR. Mountain biking provides a different challenge to the tourism industry, where the biggest and most profitable form is beach-based tourism, but ecotourism and other nature-based adventure tourism ventures are gathering momentum and mainstream attention. This study attempts to link up the mountain biker, the mountain biking activity, and the area together with its management system to find how the information will fit in the grand scheme of ecotourism inside the Mount Makiling Forest Reserve. For the stakeholders, understanding and harmonizing the different traits and parameters is critical if a mountain bike specific product will be introduced in the MFR in the future. For the mountain bikers, awareness that they are part of the grand scheme of nature conservation will encourage them and their existing social networks to promote the cause of nature conservation.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter will explain about mountain biking, ecotourism, and the MFR. The history, kinds, and peculiarities about mountain biking will be looked upon in this chapter. Ecotourism and its peculiarities and potentials will be reviewed, as well as the current state of the Mount Makiling Forest Reserve.

Mountain Biking

A mountain

bike or mountain

bicycle [abbreviated MTB or ATB (all-terrain

bicycle)] is a bicycle created for off-road cycling. This activity includes traversing of rocks and washouts, and steep declines, on dirt trails, logging roads, and other unpaved environmentsactivities usually called mountain biking. The bicycles have evolved rapidly through the introduction of different technologies, and have therefore branched out into several different specialist disciplines (McCormack and Lopes, 2010).

History of Mountain Biking

The history of the mountain bike and mountain biking is not as long as other forms of outdoor recreation, but the origins are earlier than most think. Off-road bicycles have been referenced a lot of times in the 20th century, it was a derivative of the road cycling and obstacle event called cyclo-cross in France, and the Roughstuff Fellowship in the United Kingdom in 1955 (Griffith, 2010). In Oregon, one Chemeketan club member, D. Gwynn, built a rough terrain trail bicycle in 1966. He named it a mountain bicycle

for its intended place of use. This may be the first use of that name (The Chemetekan, 1966). In the United States in the 1970s, there are several groups of riders who claim that they contributed to the sport and hobby known as mountain biking today. In Crested Butte, Colorado and Cupertino, California, bicyclists got old cruiser bicycles of 19301940s vintage, fitted fatter tires and bigger, improved brakes. To add, gearing and motocross-like handlebars were fitted. These bikes were called Klunkers, as the term mountain biking or even the term mountain bike was not invented yet (Amici Design, 1999). Early forms of racing these klunkers would be downhill, as the riders would ride down fire roads and use their hub brakes so much they had to repack the bearings after every run, giving these races the name Repack Races. (Berto, 1998) In 1978 however, the first bicycle purpose-built for mountain biking was created by Joe Breeze. The first mountain bikes were basically road bicycle frames (with heavier tubing and different geometry) with a wider frame and fork to allow for a wider tire. The handlebars were also different in that they were a straight, transverse-mounted handlebar, rather than the dropped, curved handlebars that are typically installed on road racing bicycles. Also, some of the parts on early production mountain bicycles were taken from the BMX bicycle (Crane and Kelly, 1988). The trend continued on until the 1990s, when the popularity and technology of mountain bikes exploded. Disc brakes, suspension systems, and new frame construction has pushed mountain biking to something that is today.

10

Classification of Mountain Bikes and Mountain Biking

Classification of mountain bikes are dependent on the suspension used, specifically suspension travel. There are hardtails, mountain bikes with front suspension but a rigid frame, Full-suspension, where both front and rear suspension are present, and rigid, which is a mountain bike but with no front and rear suspension. A rarer kind is the soft tail, wherein their frame allows for some flex to act as suspension. In classifying mountain bikes and mountain biking, the amount of suspension travel and the preferences of the rider are the references to look into.

Cross Country and All-Mountain Biking

The most common form of mountain biking is Cross Country (XC). These bikes have the lightest weights and lowest suspension travel (80-120mm) of all mountain bikes. However, with the improvements in bicycle technology more sophisticated bikes offer more travel yet has lower weight relative to XC bikes (McCormack and Lopes, 2010). In XC racing, lightness is paramount, and bike companies are already offering frames and parts made of carbon fiber instead of the usual aluminum or steel. Trail bikes, being slightly beefier and heavier than XC bikes, are the next step in the ladder. They offer moderate travel (110-150mm) and have frame geometries that can handle downhill terrain slightly better than XC bikes (McCormack and Lopes, 2010). However this is being blurred by the appearance of the All-Mountain (AM) category. These bikes are capable of handling downhill trail sections a lot better except the most dedicated downhill bike, but have the climbing ability of an XC bike. They offer the most variations of suspension travel (120-170+mm) and most of these bikes suspension travel can be

11

adjusted by adjusting the existing components found on the bike and its suspension characteristics (McCormack and Lopes, 2010). XC and AM riding are enjoyed by men and a growing group of women of a wide age range and perceived skill level (City of Kelowna, 2007). Older riders (55 and older) prefer XC, while younger riders prefer AM (City of Kelowna, 2007). All-Mountain riding can be considered an overlap of XC and extreme riding like free-ride and downhill, as discussed later. XC prefers distance travelled and climbing, while downhill racing and free-ride focuses more on technical riding, speed, and descents. AM is considered a happy medium of the 2 disciplines (McCormack and Lopes, 2010). There is a lot of crossover between mountain bike riders and disciplines, a downhill racer will go XC riding as a form of endurance training, while an XC rider will do some downhill events or trails as a form of technical riding practice. With the emergence of AM, the line gets blurred.

Downhill and Free-ride

Downhill (DH) and Free-ride (FR) bikes represent the extreme spectrum of mountain biking. Both bikes offer extremely robust frame construction, advanced and robust suspension systems and travel (170mm- above 200mm), and specific downhill oriented geometry to handle the most technical of terrain in high speed (McCormack and Lopes, 2010). Free-ride bikes however, are more diverse as it can include dirt jumping hardtails to short travel frames with DH frame construction and geometry, to full Downhill racing frames with slightly shorter travel and modified geometry for better maneuverability in tight trails (McCormack and Lopes, 2010). In terms of difficulty, Downhill and Free-ride are the most difficult and advanced riding disciplines because of

12

the terrain features used and technical features like large jumps and drops. In downhill racing, speed is also the most important factor: a race against the clock from the top to the bottom. Young riders aged 24 and under fall into this category, with a focus on improving their riding ability, with a focus on what can I do. This mentality however, diminishes as they grow older, and the riders may switch to AM or just quit (City of Kelowna, 2007).

Peculiarities of Mountain Biking

Mountain bike riding, by its very nature, is an activity mainly pursued on trails and similar features like old logging roads or fire tracks (Goeft and Alder, 2001). Mountain biking is regarded as a form of adventure recreation (Priest and In developed countries, mountain biking is one of the fastest growing outdoor recreation activities, with 25 million Americans owning one in 1992, and with an estimated 2.5-3 million trail users in 1994 (Morey, et al, 2002). The range of riding opportunities in such settings is one of the main reasons such natural settings have experienced such biking growth (Cessford, 2002). However, creating trails solely for mountain bikes is very expensive, so managers opt for the incorporation of bike use through shared use tracks (Cessford, 2002). This setup causes conflicts among the trail users because of the concept of recreation conflict (Goeft and Alder, 2001). The theory of goal interference is the foundation of this theory (Geoft and Alder, 2001). The theory proposes that conflict arises when the presence and/or behavior of one group of users are incompatible with the social, psychological, or physical goals of another group (Goeft and Alder, 2001). User conflict, as a concept, is

13

fairly well understood and demonstrably real (Sprung, 2004). Most of these conflicts are centered on the perceived negative impacts of mountain bike riding, and it is peculiar that most people regard mountain biking as one of the worst, if not the worst offenders. In developed countries, lobbying from hikers and environmental groups have caused some land managers to ban trails to mountain bikes because of that perception, though studies have demonstrated that all forms of outdoor recreation cause impacts to the environment (Sprung, 2004).

Benefits of Mountain Biking

Like other forms of outdoor recreation, mountain biking can prove to be a wise investment for the communities in which they pass, as it can stimulate local economies by attracting fellow mountain bikers and other outdoor recreationists to an area. Opening trails and facilities attracts and revitalizes businesses, creates jobs, and increases public revenue. In the United States, many people prefer to visit places such as greenways and trails that are safe, yet offer scenic recreation and transportation. Businesses that can thrive and succeed with a trail or trail network include: restaurants, convenience stores, bicycle shops, campgrounds and bed-and-breakfast establishments. Traveling and access fees also contribute to the economic gains of having mountain biking. The study of Loomis and Fix in 1998 showed the potential economic impacts of a mountain biking trip to a well-known place for mountain bike riding, Moab, Utah. In 1998, a mountain biker has an estimated per trip value of US$197-$205. And with an average number of visitors totaling 158,681 people yearly (Loomis and Fix, 1998), the estimated annual impact would range betweenUS$8,422,800- US$8,770,300

14

(Loomis and Fix, 1998). Adjusted for 2010 inflation, the single bikers estimated per trip value would be US$262.19-US$272.84, and the total annual economic impact would be US$11,209,947-US$11,672,436. In one year, the site, Moab, Utahs Slickrock Trail has produced a very good amount of income, considering that riding in temperate countries is more limited by the seasons. Bike trails and other related facilities improve the quality-of-life among individuals as these places are meant for outdoor recreation, as well as encouraging people to use non-polluting transportation alternatives when it comes to short trips. This change of mindset among people improves the local environment and a healthier population. In some cases, it can be a source of local pride among the community, as the case of popular resort towns such as Whistler, B.C. in Canada, as well as Los Baos, which is already well known for other tourism activities. People who live close to these trails also benefit the same way as tourists, and more people living in suburban and urban areas want to have these kinds of recreation facilities nearby.

The Mountain Biker

Perception. In developing a mountain bike-specific ecotourism product, the mountain biker has to be taken into account. Particularly important are bikers motivation and preferences when riding. Multi-use trails where hikers, bikers, and other users have to share the road can be a mistake for land managers, due to the concept of perceived crowding (Cessford, 1995). Mountain bikers tend to get a bad reputation for other trail users, and these perceptions remain. These perceptions are listed as the following: perceptions of environmental impacts, perceptions of safety hazards, and perceptions that

15

mountain biking is inappropriate (Cessford, 1995). For environmental impacts, this perception would come from several factors, such as tire tracks, which are distinctive, which may lead to a conclusion that mountain biking is causing the most damage without objectively looking at the other important processes taking place in the trail (Cessford, 1995). This can also be looked upon as scapegoating, where perceived conflicts were disproportionately attributed to particular groups (Cessford, 1995). On safety hazards concern, the issues are that cyclists are going too fast for the conditions, cyclists not slowing down when going to blind corners, and mountain bikes move quietly and fast, surprising other trail users (Cessford, 1995). In a widely cited study in 1989 known as the Los Padres Study, the safety issues came from the habit of a few rogue bikers that go to the top of the trail and go downhill as fast as possible. Education (in the form of a brochure) and supplementary trail design dealt with the concern on the few rogue bikers, but out of the 1400 trail users surveyed, most of the mountain bikers they saw were polite and not safety hazards (Cessford, 1995.). To add, familiarity with mountain bike riding and cumulative experience with off-road encounters with bikes can change the perceptions of non-riders (Cessford, 1995). The third perception is the complex claim that mountain biking is inappropriate, even wrong. The earlier two concerns mentioned may be in part reflections of an underlying feeling that mountain biking should not be permitted in this area (Cessford, 1995). This third main type of conflict perception is based upon assumptions by walkers and also managers that personal characteristics, motivations, behavior types, environmental attitudes, and activity styles of mountain bikers are fundamentally different from their own (Cessford, 1995). To add, conflicts arose when the presence and

16

behavior of other users was perceived to be disruptive to the physical and social components of recreational experiences (Cessford, 1985). How conflicts arise between outdoor recreationists depend on their individual and/or group interpretation of the actions, motivations, preferences, and appearance of others. Simply put, the perceived conflict depends on how different others are perceived to be (Cessford, 1995). Profile. Visually, mountain biking appears to be very different, the difference mainly is in the use of bicycles and associated equipment (Cessford, 1995). The difference in equipment can be the basis of the perceptions of difference between people of different activities, or perceptions of different experience levels and commitment within the same activity (Cessford, 1995). Age. Though very generalized, mountain bikers are over represented by males and younger age groups more often than all but the most extreme walkers (Cessford, 1995). Although stereotypical, this descriptive difference has been associated with the wild teenager image of mountain biking in many comments and commentaries (Cessford, 1995). The average ages though would be around 30-38 years old, and with a wide range of ages, from 15 to 39 years of age (Green, 2003; Morey et al, 2002; Goeft and Alder, 2001). Personal assessment of experience. When it comes to riding experience, mountain bikers tend to categorize themselves as intermediate to advanced, and would claim that they are mountain bikers (Green,2003; Morey et al, 2002). An average cost for a mountain bike would be US$831, and would be 2-5 years old (Morey et al, 2002). Income and education. In the market study by Donna Green in 2003, fifty percent of the riders she interviewed are earning more than US$75,000 a year in their respective

17

households, which makes them part of the upper middle class in America, comprised mostly by the white collar professionals most of whom are highly educated, salaried professionals whose work is largely self-directed. Many have graduate degrees, with educational attainment serving as the main distinguishing feature of this class. Household incomes commonly exceed $100,000 (Thompson and Hickey, 2005).In the same study, most of the respondents own multiple bikes. Canada, particularly the British Columbia region has similar numbers in the income and educational brackets, though the Canadians are much younger (18-34) when it comes to their American travelling counterparts whose ages range from 45-54 (Tourism British Columbia, 2009). Social networks. Social networks in the form of clubs are also noted, and the people who joined clubs tend to be more competitive and join more races compared to non club members (Goeft and Alder, 2001).

Mountain Biking Preferences

The various styles of mountain biking gives a very confusing picture for managers who would want to offer a mountain biking specific product, as these various styles would also have different preferences. The range of riding opportunities is one of the main reasons why natural settings have experienced such biking growth (Cessford, 2002). Criteria for site selection. People do travel to certain areas just to ride their mountain bikes, a significant trend apparent in developed countries (Green, 2003). When it comes to trends of choosing a mountain biking destination, word of mouth and existing reputation deliver the strongest recommendations, and travel agencies are the least likely to help(Green, 2003).

18

Trail feature preferences. As mentioned earlier, mountain bikers prefer the variety of terrain and difficulty found in a destination, with downhills, curves of various radii, slopes, jumps, rocks, roots and some climbing sections (Green, 2003; Goeft and Alder, 2001). The number of trails are also important, as well as scenery (Green, 2003). The reputation of the area for riding, as well as the mountain biking community scored also quite high (Green, 2003). Mountain bike riders would also prefer to see wildlife, and avoid mechanized transportation (Goeft and Alder, 2001). Muddy, sandy, and paved surfaces are undesirable to mountain bikers, as well as overhanging branches (Goeft and Alder, 2001). Mountain bikers also tend to perceive that there are not enough mountain bike trails and that mountain bikes should be allowed in all trails. Single track trails were desirable for riders who race, yet they also consider plantation forests to be desirable settings. Plantations are also desirable for purely recreational riders but dont prefer single track trails. Recreational riders are more open to where they ride, be it on plantation forests or natural settings (Goeft and Alder, 2001). Riding style preferences. Preferences also vary with age. In Kelowna, British Columbia in Canada, Younger riders aged twenty four and below preferred downhill racing and freeride, while older riders aged fifty-five and above liked riding on cycle paths and touring, and the middle range of 25-54 prefer cross country and all-mountain riding (City of Kelowna et al., 2007).

Mountain Biking in the Asia-Pacific Region Asias biking routes are constantly redefining itself to cash in on the demands of visitors. Here you will find not only the highest mountains in the world, but isolated tribal

19

regions, lush jungles, and dense forests. The terrain in Asia is very diverse and could be tapped for mountain biking, not to mention that major bicycle and bicycle component manufacturers like Shimano and Giant Bicycles are founded and based in Asia, the former in Japan and the latter in Taiwan. Most European and American bicycle manufacturers have factories based in Taiwan or China or in Shimanos case, Malaysia, to outsource their manufacturing duties. Unfortunately, there has been no clear cut studies about mountain biking or the mountain bikers in the Asia-Pacific Region aside from Australia and New Zealand. Recently, mountain bike tours based in Asia have arrived and are now offering tours in various places like Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, and many other countries.

The Mount Makiling Forest Reserve

Located in Luzon and is 65 kilometers south of Manila, Mt. Makiling is an inactive volcano 1,090m in height (Figure 1). Regarded as one, if not the most well known biological area in the Philippines (Lapitan et al., 2010) Mt. Makiling is well known as the home of the University of the Philippines Los Baos as well as other important offices and facilities like the ASEAN Biodiversity Centre headquarters, a geothermal energy resource, a watershed and water source of industrial, agricultural, and residential sectors of the CALABARZON region and as a major ecotourism site (Lapitan et al., 2010) just outside of Metro Manila. The mountain also serves as an important catchment area for SE Asias largest freshwater lake, Laguna de Bay (Lapitan et al., 2010).

20

Greater Tigbi

MolawinDampalit

Cambantoc

Greater Sipit

Figure 1. Location map of the MFR, with watersheds (photo from MCME).

Landscape The Mount Makiling Forest Reserve has a total land area of 4,244.97 hectares, and is delineated by law to have a buffer zone (1,652 ha) to protect the existing forest reserve inside (Lapitan, et al., 2010). The buffer zone is located from the areas with 0% slope to the maximum of 18% slope. Any higher than 18% makes it part of the forest reserve itself. Prior to the 1998 declaration of the buffer zone however, fringe areas of the reserve have already been encroached either by farming or real estate (Lapitan et al., 2010). Generally, the MFR is rugged and mountainous. Being a watershed, the MFR is further divided into four sub-watersheds, each of them located in a municipality inside the MFRs borders. These are the Molawin-

21

Dampalit, Tigbi, Greater Sipit, and Cambantoc sub-watersheds (Figure 1). All of these sub-watersheds provide water for many purposes among the populace of the four municipalities in two provinces where the MFR is located: Calamba, Los Baos and Bay in Laguna, and Santo Tomas in Batangas (Figure 2).

Calamba, Laguna
Los Baos, Laguna

Santo Tomas, Batangas

Bay, Laguna

Figure 2. Municipalities included in the MFR. (Image from NAMRIA).

Climate Mt. Makiling has two main seasons: a rainy season starting from May to December and dry months in January to April. Wind patterns are dry and cause the lower

22

elevation areas to be dry but the higher elevation areas wet due to continuous light density precipitation and vapor condensation (Lapitan et al. 2010). During the wet months, the southwest monsoon will provide most of the rainfall in the area due to its circulation of cyclonic winds (Lapitan et al., 2010). April is the warmest month, with a maximum of 36.1 and low of 22.2, while January was the coldest with the lowest at 20.4 degree Celsius and a high of 31.8 degree Celsius (Lapitan et al., 2010). measurements were taken at the National AgroMet Station in UPLB. The

Rainfall In 2006, the annual rainfall recorded by the National Agro-Met Station in UPLB was 2,299mm. According to the CDM-SSC-PDD study of 2007, the reading for 2006 was lower than the average taken from three areas in UPLB which was 2,397mm in the 1990s (Lapitan et al., 2010). The same study also mentioned that the MFR got a total of 188 rainy days in 2006, with the heaviest rains falling in September, and the most number of rainy days a month is July, with 22 days of rain. Extreme events have yet to happen in these areas, according to the study. Soils and Geology Mt. Makilings soil belongs to four series: Lipa, Macolod, Gulugod, and

Makiling. Macolod is the dominant series in the area, which is a clay-type of soil (Lapitan, et al., 2010). Mt. Makiling is rugged, with more than 33% of the mountain is above sea level. The lowest parts are at 20 meters above sea level and the highest is at peak 2 which is at 1, 090 meters above sea level.

23

Legal Framework Under Republic Act 6967 of 1990, the MFR is under the control, jurisdiction and administration of the University of the Philippines Los Baos (Lapitan et al. 2010). The law stipulates that the reserves primary role is to be a training laboratory for scientific and technical knowledge intended for the preservation, conservation, and development of the forest and natural forest therein, including the flora and fauna (Lapitan et al. 2010). Another source of information is the MFR and Laguna de Bay Master Plan created in 1996 through EO 349 of then President Fidel V. Ramos (Lapitan et al. 2010). The main objective of the Master Plan is the conservation and development of the MFR and the identification of priority programs, resources, and implementation. To achieve this, the Master Plan called for the creation of the Botanic Gardens, Parks and Recreation Development Program. The program was created to raise awareness of the general public to the importance of biodiversity conservation by providing ecotourism and interpretive outdoor recreational activities (Paglia, 2011). The major aspects of this component include: The Garden and Parks Development Plan, Interpretation, Education and Information Activities, Conservation and Management of the Living Collections, Research and Ecotourism Recreation Development (Paglia, 2011). Another legitimizing action is Presidential Decree No. 705, or the Philippine Forestry Reform Code. This law governs forest management in the country. The pertinent provision is Section 19 which allows multiple use e. g. uses of the timber, land, soil, water, wildlife, recreation value and grass of forest lands which will produce the optimum benefits to the development and progress of the country and the public welfare,

24

without impairment or with the least injury to its other resources, shall be allowed. All forest reservations may be open to uses not inconsistent with the principal objectives of the reservation: provided that critical watersheds and national parks shall not be subject to logging operations.

Biodiversity

Flora. There is an amazing amount of flora present in the MFR. Both endemic and foreign, it has been estimated that 2,038 vascular plant species are present in the MFR (Lapitan, et al. 2010). Dipterocarp species are found here, even IUCN-listed as critically endangered ones like Parashorea malaanonan, Myristica philippinensis and vulnerable species (Diospyros blancoi, Diplodiscus paniculatus, Artocarpus rubiovenius, Celtis luzonica, Macaranga bicolor, to name a few). Undergrowth species found in all of the MFR include Arenga pinnata, Donax cannaeformis, Neotrewis cumgii, Selaginella plana, and Strombosia philippinensis. The Rafflesia manillana, thought to be extinct in the MFR was found again in 2002 (Lapitan, et al., 2010), but it is found in MolawinDampalit and the Greater Sipit sub-watersheds only. Fauna. The MFR also boasts of impressive numbers of fauna. It is a home to more than 45 species of mammals, 181 species of birds, 65 species of reptiles, and 22 species of amphibians, together with at least 7,000 species of insects (Lapitan, et al. 2010). In just the Greater Sipit Watershed yielded a surprising amount of endemism: 62 species in this subwatershed are known to be endemic in the Philippines only, with 14 endemic only to the Greater Luzon faunal region (Lapitan et al., 2010). Some species found are considered rare or threatened: the Philippine Eagle-Owl (Bubo philippinensis),

25

the endangered Philippine Warty Pig (Sus philippnensis), and the Philippine Pygmy Fruit Bat (Haplonycteris fischeri) (Lapitan, et al., 2010). Human settlement. The MFR has its own share of people living inside its borders, although it has been proclaimed as a forest reserve primarily for instruction, research, and extension in areas of natural resources and forest management, this resource has been perceived as a common resource to which people have open access (UPLB Master Plan, 1995) and it has been legitimized by the municipality of Los Baos by giving it an official status as Barangay Bagong Silang. There is a caveat however; especially in the case of the MFR. Protected areas (like the MFR) are important destinations for a growing tourism like ecotourism given that it uses diverse nature, landscapes and biodiversity as major attractions. In these protected areas, the presence of people might be a threat, yet at the same time an opportunity for conservation of natural resources. UPLBs point of view of the people who live in Barangay Bagong Silang has changed from being just squatters and a threat to the well-being of the forest to partners and to transform the settlers to a force for conservation (Bagadion, 1999). The barangay sees UPLB in the past as a punitive force to evict them from their homes and their livelihood, but with the changes that UPLB did to establish goodwill and a partnership with the barangay, the former sees the latter in a more positive light than three decades ago, and UPLB personnel would hire locals as guides and support personnel when projects in the MFR are being held. Barangay Bagong Silang also likes the influx of tourists that come to the MFR. Fresh coconut juice from the farms are being sold to the hikers, bikers and other tourists and is a constant seller. Stores that carry food and some basic needs for campers and hikers are found in Station 7, which is striking distance from the Mudsprings and the

26

Tayabak campsite. The tourists provide supplementary income to the families not just from farming.

Organization and Personnel

The Makiling Center for Mountain Ecosystems (MCME) is the specific unit of UPLB that handles the responsibility of managing the MFR. It was designated in the meeting of the Board of Regents in 1998 (Lapitan et al. 2010). Aside from management of the MFR, the MCME aims to conduct research and demonstration programs on mountain ecosystems development, and to develop and execute plans of sustainable management of the MFR. MCME is also partially responsible to generate resources and income for its continued operations and management of the MFR. The four (4) subwatershed divisions are MCMEs doing. They have 50 people working in the institution (Appendix V).

Ecotourism in the MFR

Ecotourism is present in the MFR. Activities like hiking and camping are the most popular activities, and recently bird watching has become popular (Cereno, 2010). Peak season comes during summer months, as many people climb and trek during the Holy Week gatherings. Another attraction is the Makiling Botanical Garden (MBG), a well known picnic spot and park. With new and existing facilities built and repaired, the MBG is a favorite nature viewing spot away from Manila, and a favorite destination of educational trips. Also, the MFR has some events that encourage people to come. The Makiling Challenge, a trail running challenge and the Makiling Quest, a long distance

27

adventure race, has been a fixture among nature enthusiasts. During the Holy Week period, an initiative called Make It Makiling is done to encourage hikers to keep the MFRs hiking trails clean and safe.

Mountain biking in the MFR

Mountain biking in the MFR is present the whole year, as the Mariang Makiling Trail is multi-use. The only time that it is closed for mountain bikes is during the Make It Makiling event in Holy Week to prevent unwanted accidents between hikers and bikers, and when typhoons come. XC up to DH riders go to the Mariang Makiling Trail to ride, so varying speeds and skills of mountain bikers are seen in the trail. With the variety of bikers coming up and down at various speeds, it is imperative that conflict be managed in the form of trails that branch off the multi-use Mariang Makiling Trail. An example of government intervention to develop a trail network for mountain bikes is the work done by the Hong Kong SAR Government to develop trails for the Tai Lam Country Park. Mountain bicycling in Country Parks is controlled under Regulation 4 of the Country Parks and Special Areas Regulations (sub. Leg. A of Country Park Ordinance, Cap 208 of Hong Kong Laws), any person interested in cycling on the designated mountain bike trails in country parks can apply for a permit from the Country and Marine Parks Authority. No permit fee is required. At present, there are about 7,000 valid permits. With mountain biking getting more and more attention in Hong Kong, the SAR government decided to assess the existing trails at the Tai Lam Park with the help of the International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA). The same innovation can be adopted in the MFR provided that sufficient information on mountain biking preferences,

28

the mountain biker, and the type of services needed would be made available. This study attempts to meet this specific need of MFR management and hopes to enrich the ecotourism value of the MFR through an improved mountain biking experience.

METHODOLOGY

Descriptive research was used for this study, using primary and secondary data. The primary data comes mainly from a mountain biker survey and key informant interviews, and the secondary data coming from records of the MCMEs Botanical Garden, Park, and Ecotourism division. For comparison, foreign based mountain biking studies coming from journals were also used. A structured survey was used to obtain definite answers. Data collection was carried out from September 2012 to February 2013. The end of the wet season is when mountain biking starts to pick up again, and mountain biking events like races and fun rides come up to take advantage of cooler weather. The most number of respondents came in the months of September and October 2012. Prior to this, permission from the Makiling Center for Mountain Ecosystems (MCME) was obtained to check on existing primary data, particularly the visitors log of the MFR from 2012.

Mountain Biker Survey

The information taken from the different kinds of mountain bikers in the area was the focal point of this study. The socio-economic profile and opinions of the mountain bikers, the future beneficiaries of this study, were considered. Their opinions on trail design, trail facilities and amenities, ecotourism, and willingness-to-pay for these kinds of facilities were accounted for. No restrictions and criteria in the selection of respondents was undertaken. As long as the person has a mountain bike, he/she is a prospective respondent. Riding style was also not a criterion, as mountain bikers tend to follow different riding styles and disciplines which entail a certain mountain bike for the task.

30

The wide open selection process of respondents was meant to ensure better participation of the mountain biker population. Survey description. Survey research is a commonly used method for collecting information about a population of interest and to describe its characteristics. It is mainly used for its versatility, efficiency and ability to generalize data. For this study, the focus is on the mountain bikers. These people were found in social areas like rest stations and eateries like in Baker Hall in UPLB, bike shops like Green Planet Bikeshop in San Pablo and Los Baos, Laguna; and Ulyby Bikeshop in Manila. To characterize mountain bikers and mountain biking; a structured questionnaire was given to the respondents (Appendix Table I). Survey forms were also distributed through mountain bike related events like the Nuvali Dirt Weekend in Santa Rosa in November 2012, and the Spyder Downhill Cup in Binangonan, Rizal in February 2013. Social media sites like Facebook and mountain biking forums like Philippine Mountain Bike Forum (www.philmofo.org) was also used to distribute survey forms and to get feedback. The mountain biker survey was designed to assess the profile and interests of the different mountain bikers that travel within and inside the MFR. Their choices and preferences were considered, together with possible future trail design, features, and access of the MFR. It also assessed the awareness and possible cooperation of the mountain biker to possible current and future MTB-centered activities like trail building and maintenance, and MTB-related nature advocacy. First, the survey tackled the demographics of the different mountain bikers, such as their name, age, gender, and address. Their cycling experience, bicycle type and number of bikes can tell a lot on how a mountain biker takes this activity seriously. Their

31

experiences in mountain biking competitions were looked upon, as well as their favored events. The estimated cost of their bicycle/s and their average yearly income were considered for this information can tell on how much mountain bikers want to pay for an additional mountain bike specific facilities and amenities in the MFR. Mountain biking can be prohibitively expensive, especially with the amount of sophistication of modern and contemporary mountain bikes, and people who can pay for such bicycles can also in theory pay for such facilities. Also a direct question on the mountain bikers willingness to pay by means of a price range was used. Another question set tackled the awareness of the mountain biker on his/her known riding areas. A mountain biker will have knowledge of trail networks that he/she can use, not just travelling by bicycle to a certain location by road (disparagingly called XC-road by some). Is the MFR a well known enough place for mountain bikers? And if mountain bikers are aware of the MFR as a mountain bike destination, do they think the existing Mariang Makiling trail is enough for them, or do the mountain bikers want something for themselves? Opinions on what mountain bikers want in a trail were also considered. A trait of mountain bikers is a presence of a social network; many would band together to form a club or organization. A question set delved into the social aspect of the mountain biking. The name of the MTB groups and organizations was listed, together with the activities done by the said groups and organizations, if there are any. The survey also asks these groups opinions on assisting the MFR in creating and maintaining a mountain bike trail inside the MFR, and how these groups will promote MTB riding in

32

the MFR.

Key Informant Interview

People who work inside the MFR have the best sources of information on how the situations unfold in the field. Therefore key informant interview was done to determine the management processes and constraints of the MFR and how a future manager can work on this to cater to mountain biking inside the MFR and offer better services to their target audience. Interviews with the Botanic Gardens, Parks, and Ecotourism Division head, Forester Leilani A. Castillo and Forester Roberto P. Cereno, the former Division head, were conducted. Their opinions and experiences with mountain biking and mountain bikers were noted. The MCME keeps a logbook of all the people who enter the MFR using the Mariang Makiling Trail, and Forester Castillo was able to give access to it to know the entry of mountain bikers in the year 2012.

Secondary Data Collection

Together with the mountain biker survey, the records of the MCME especially mountain bike related visits was checked and analyzed. The time frame was from January 2012 until December 2012. The number of mountain biking visits provided information on existing traffic of mountain bikers to the MFR and their payments to the MCME and the MFR. There was a 100% increase in the access fee of the trail, from 5 pesos to 10 pesos starting in 2011, and its effect on mountain biker visits was looked into.

33

Conceptual Framework To create a profile of the mountain bikers and to gauge the level of interest of mountain bikers in the MFR, the study will look into the two stakeholders, the mountain bikers and the Mount Makiling Forest Reserve. The mountain bikers socio-economic profile, their riding experiences, and their riding preferences are listed. The MFR is divided into two: the physical features, which comprise of trail difficulty, trail access, traffic flow inside the Mariang Makiling Trail, and perceptions among trail users. The second part is administrative, wherein the existing policies, amenities, private sector linkages, mountain bike related events, and potential and existing conflicts among trail users are known. The two stakeholders are analyzed using a survey, descriptive statistics, key informant interviews and purposive sampling. The creation of a mountain biker profile for the MFR, to assess the current capability of the MFR to accommodate mountain biking, and to give suggestions and improvements to the MFR for improved access to mountain biking are the results that this study wants to achieve (Figure 3). Statistical Analysis

As mentioned earlier, the lack of a true sampling frame or the total number of active mountain bikers makes this study to use non-probability sampling, specifically judgmental or purposive sampling. Purposive sampling is used when the researcher chooses the people to be sampled in the study. This is primarily used when there are a limited number of people that have expertise in the area being researched, and is synonymous with qualitative research (Palys, undated). Since this study focuses on mountain bikers, with unknown population, purposive sampling was used. Specifically

34

THE MOUNT MAKILING FOREST RESERVE THE MOUNTAIN BIKERS Age Income Location relative to MFR Trail access Riding experience Preferred trail features Motivation for riding MTB design Current trends in riding Social networks Traffic flow inside trails Competing trail users PHYSICAL FEATURES Trail difficulty and features

METHODS Mountain biker survey Key informant interviews Purposive Sampling Statistical analysis

Perceptions on other trail users

ADMINISTRATIVE FEATURES

Existing policies Amenities

RESULTS Creation of a mountain biker profile for MFR Assessment of MFR compatibility with mountain biking Give suggestions for improvement of MFR to accommodate mountain biking

Links with private sector Mountain bike related events Conflicts among trail users

Figure 3. Conceptual framework of the study.

35

this study used criterion sampling, where individuals and cases are selected if a criterion matches the said individual or case (Palys, undated). In this study focused on mountain bikes, the respondents are grouped into one specific criterion; which is the use and ownership of a mountain bike. The criterion is enough for a mountain biker to be involved in the study. Purposive sampling however is limited to descriptive statistics, so the mean, median, percentage, frequencies and distribution of percentages are described, as well as contingency tables to describe the relationships between variables. The computer program IBM SPSS Statistics is used to calculate the data found from the mountain biker survey. In order to determine the right sample size the formula presented below was used.

where: d is the margin of error from unknown true value p and q are proportions both set at 0.5

In this type of study, what is critical is the sampling size. Hence, the formula presented above to compute for the sampling size was used. The answers

to the questions in the survey were converted into percentages. The same procedure was followed by Barry G. Tiedeman in Central Michigan University in 2002, when he analyzed the characteristics of the typical mountain bike enthusiast, and to measure the involvement of the mountain biker using descriptive analysis. Another study done by Nadia Kaliszewski in 2010 also used survey forms to analyze the economic impacts of mountain bike trails in Jackson Hole, Wyoming in the USA. The relevant sample

36

population was composed of bikers who owned mountain bikes or at least had some interest in riding mountain bikes. A profile of mountain bikers would have many combinations of data, and for a manager making decisions on how to accommodate mountain biking, a test for association using Cramrs V (c) will help determine what variables found in the sample would have an association strong enough to influence the decision makers what steps to take. Measures of association like Cramrs V provide a means of summarizing the size of association between two variables. Cramrs V varies from zero which implies no association; to a maximum value of one, which implies a complete association of the two variables (Table 1). The maximum value of one is reached when the two variables are equal to one another. Table 1. Description of the values of Cramrs V and corresponding verbal descriptions. CRAMERS V VALUE 0.00 .15 to .20 .20 to .25 .25 to .30 .30 to .35 .35 to .40 .40 to .50 VERBAL DESCRIPTION No Relationship Weak Moderate Moderately Strong Strong Very Strong Extremely Strong COMMENTS Knowing the independent variable does not help in predicting the dependent variable. Minimally acceptable Acceptable Desirable Very Desirable Extremely Desirable Either an extremely good relationship or the two variables are measuring the same concept The two variables are probably measuring the same concept. If we the know the independent variable, we can perfectly predict the dependent variable.

.50 to .99

Redundant

1.00

Perfect Relationship

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The data was tallied manually and by using SPSS. The computer program SPSS was used to provide descriptive statistics on the tallied data. The Mount Makiling Forest Reserve Physical Aspects-Trail Features and Difficulty The MFR has only one major thoroughfare: The Mariang Makiling Trail (Fig.4). It measures 8.7 kilometers long; from Station 1 which is the entry point located in front of the TREES and MCME offices, to Station 30, also known as Peak 2. Hiking to Peak 2 takes 4-7 hours depending on the trail conditions and the hiker. There are two major campsites along the trail: the Malaboo campsite and the Tayabak campsite. The former is located closest to the Wilderness Zone of the MFR and considered the jump-off point for people who want to climb to the summit, while the latter is located in Station 7 near the Mudsprings, another well-known MFR tourist spot. The trail surface is heavily broken asphalt and gravel, with a lot of sharp rocks and during the rainy season, mud. However, a large part of the trail (from Station 11-Aguila Base to Station 1) was graded and paved albeit with no impermeable surface as a result of Chevron Philippines doing maintenance work that required the use of heavy equipment in December 20, 2012. Typhoon Milenyo in 2006 also changed a lot of sections of the Mariang Makiling Trail and the trail had to be closed in for the majority of 2007.

38

Figure 4. Map of the Mariang Makiling Trail (Photo from MCME).

39

For mountain bikes, the riding area would be from Station 1 until Station 11, Agila Base. The length is estimated at around 6 kilometers. Being wide enough for vehicles, the trail is conducive for high speed biking, and beginner downhill mountain bikers in Laguna are advised to practice here in the past so that they can get used to high speeds going downhill. A typical mountain biking run in the Mariang Makiling Trail would start with a ride or hike, if on a DH bike, from Station 1 until Station 7, where the sari-sari stores are located then ride downhill. Agila Base is not always traveled by mountain bikers due to the lack of refreshments there. From Station 7 to Station 1 a lot of the corners are blind and a mountain bike ridden by a confident and competent rider will clear the corners at high speeds, which has the potential for bad accidents. XC riders tend to travel downhill with a much lower pace, owing to their equipment and skill. A rider riding an AM, DH, and FR bike will go much faster because of its better suspension. The common description of the Mariang Makiling trail to most riders is bumpy and rough. It is not extremely technical, but the constantly rough surface prior to December 20, 2012 takes a toll on the riders body to take constant impacts, especially when most mountain bike riders use hardtails.

Trail Access

People use the Mariang Makiling Trail everyday for various purposes. The most common use is for hiking. Mountain bikers are also well represented enough in the MFR, but its still dwarfed by the number of hikers who go to the MFR. Just recently, bird watchers have also started coming in the MFR, and they also use the trail. Bird watchers tend to be static for a long time before moving out to another area, which also increases

40

Visits of mountain bikers per month in the MFR in 2012

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Figure 5. Mountain biker visits to the MFR in the year 2012 (courtesy of MCME). the risk of a collision between a fast moving mountain biker going downhill and them. Figure 5 shows the number of visits made by mountain bikers to the MFR in the year 2012. The highest number of visits came in May (31), while the lowest came in December (0), which when the Chevron-led road works began in earnest. Mountain biker visits in the MFR share a consistent trend of around 20-30 visits a month with the exceptions being April, wherein mountain bikes are not allowed to enter the Mariang Makiling Trail in the Make it Makiling! activity during the HolyWeek.The entrance fee for using the Mariang Makiling trail in 2012is 10 Php, starting late 2011.But despite the increaseto 10 pesos, the visitations have been consistent for 8 of the 12 months (Figure 18).

41

Competing Trail Users and Perceptions

There are three main trail users in the Mariang Makiling Trail: hikers, vehicle users, and mountain bikers. In the MCME records, hikers dominate the people who travel and use the Mariang Makiling Trail. Mountain bikers do not have the numbers that hikers do, but their presence is substantial enough to affect hiking activities and vice versa. MCME and MBG personnel also claimed that some mountain bikers do not actively list on the logbook and pay the 10 peso entrance fee provided in Station 1; some ride very recklessly, with excessive amounts of speed going downhill. During the Make it Makiling! season mountain bikers are left out because of the sheer number of hikers going to the campsites and Peak 2, and the speed of mountain bikers downhill is a potential safety hazard. Some mountain bike riders even defy rules of the MCME in places where they could and could not ride. An example is the trail heading to the Mudsprings in Station 8. The trail does not allow mountain bikes or any form of transportation there, yet some mountain bikers still try to push their luck and ride the unrideable trail and worse, make their own trail. These actions inadvertently give mountain bikers a rather unsavory reputation in the MFR.

Administrative Features of the MFR

Existing Policies of the MFR

The Mount Makiling Forest Reserve was established from then the Makiling National Park in 1963 by virtue of Republic Act 3523 (RA 3523) then issued by President Diosdado Macapagal to promote programs of public education and information

42

in forestry, with the end goal of promoting general public appreciation of forest values (UPLB, 1996). The University of the Philippines Los Baos is the sole administrator of the MFR due to RA 6967 issued by President Corazon Aquino for the advancement of scientific and technical knowledge on the preservation, development of our forest, flora and fauna, and natural resources (UPLB, 1996). In 1994, Executive Order 121 created a Presidential Commission on Laguna Lake and Mt. Makiling Development to address urgent problems affecting the resource and to formulate a master plan for the development of the lake and the reserve which are seen as integrated ecosystems (UPLB, 1996). There are five principal management objectives in the master plan: Education and Scientific Research, Watershed Protection, Biodiversity Conservation, Geothermal Power Generation, and Ecotourism and Outdoor Recreation (UPLB, 1996). As a result of this Master Plan, the Makiling Center for Mountain Ecosystems (MCME) was created on June 25, 1998 and is the sole unit of the University that manages the MFR (Paglia, 2011). In the Mt. Makiling Master Plan for Conservation and Development made by UPLB in 1996, there is a clause about the Botanic Gardens, Parks, and Recreation Development Program, where certain parts of the MFR are designated as recreation and ecotourism areas. One such location is the 26.8 hectare Makiling Rainforest Park near Station 8 and the Mudsprings, and is in close proximity to Station 7, where the mountain bikers have refreshments after the climb up and also serve as their starting area before going down. This park however has not been maintained and is ideal to cover the outdoor recreation and ecotourism opportunities of the Mudsprings area as well as the nature trails to the summit of the mountain (UPLB, 1996). As a result, the master plan stated that one of its goals was to provide quality recreation and ecotourism opportunities and

43

facilities to the public. The master plan identified potential areas such as the Mudsprings, the Flatrocks area and the Molawin Creek; and the development and promotion of outdoor recreation and ecotourism programs to be used by the general public (UPLB,1996).

Linkages with the Private Sector

The MCME, MBG, and UPLB have worked with the private sector and private donors to get improvements done to existing facilities as stated in the master plan (Paglia, 2011). Most of these would be tree planting and forest adoption programs. The Mudspring trail was modified and improved by Fujitsu Philippines. The MBGs new facilities, like the Nature Education and Ecotourism center were bankrolled by donors, mainly the Philippine Tourism Authority. The Future Makiling Ecotourism Village needs private sector support in order to start building. Mountain biking activities in the MFR

There is only one major mountain bike-related activity in the MFR: the Maquiling Quest, a long distance adventure race from Lipa City, Batangas until UPLB. There are a few other events held outside of the MFR boundaries, using private land among the foothills of Mt. Makiling, both downhill race events organized by local mountain biking groups: The Makiling Team Gravity (MTG) holds the MTG Downhill Cup; which is also known as the Big Daddy Cup in Los Baos, and the Lagunos Downhill Challenge by the Tanauan Biking Adventure Club (TBAC). The Big Daddy Cup is a yearly event that started in 2008, and is considered one of the toughest DH races in Luzon, and possibly

44

the Philippines, and the Lagunos Downhill Challenge is fast becoming a fun favorite among riders since its first event last year.

General Personal Profile of Mountain Bikers

The general personal profile of the mountain bikers stems from the data found in the mountain biker survey. The personal profile provides a basic and general look into the mountain bikers that travel to the MFR, and this basic information is what managers and planners need to design and formulate the best action for them. Location

Based on the survey conducted, the total respondents were 385. The most number of respondents came from the province of Laguna (286). The next highest number of respondents came from Metro Manila (36), Rizal Province (23), and Batangas (7). Several provinces that have very few frequencies are grouped together as other provinces (25), and some riders chose not to answer (9) (Table 2). The close proximity of the MFR made finding respondents from Laguna easier than other locations. Mountain bikers tend to live relatively close to actual mountains or ridges, or have places of higher elevation, especially the respondents from Rizal Province. Pakil, Kalayaan, and Los Baos in Laguna, the three biggest sources of respondents share the same trend. Mountain bike riders who live in Metro Manila tend to travel away to places like Rizal and Laguna to get their mountain bike fix.

45

Table 2. Provincial distribution of respondents. PERCENT OF TOTAL 6 74 9 2 6 2 100

PROVINCE Rizal Laguna Metro Manila Batangas Others Unspecified Total

FREQUENCY 22 286 36 7 25 9 385

Figure 6 is a pictograph that shows the dispersion of mountain bikers with respect to the MFR. The dispersion is arranged in 10 kilometer intervals. The highest number of mountain bikers is found 41-50km away from the MFR, specifically from the towns of Pakil and Siniloan, Laguna. This is due to the high number of responses from the local cycling club (Pakil Turumba Bikers Club) because of close communication with the club leadership which ensured a high turnout. Large responses were also found in the closest interval, which is in the Los Baos-Bay-Calamba area but there are different clubs present in these areas (MAKBOYS, Elbi Bikers, Team Los Baos, and MTG). Bikers who travel to the MFR are also found in areas farther away from the areas with the highest number of responses, and there is also a decent turnout of people who answered. The survey also took note of riders who live extremely far away from the MFR like people from Northern Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. These riders are guests who actively travel to mountain biking areas, specifically competitions. The Downhill Riders Organization of the Philippines (DROP), for example has a touring National Downhill Series that covers DH events from Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, and riders of all

46

locations travel and join races, no matter the distance. These riders come to the MFR because of announcements, social media, word of mouth, and peer influences.

DISTANCE FROM MFR 0-10 km 11-20km 21-30 km 31-40km 41-50km

= 10,

=5 =70

=5 =30 = 60

=125 51-60km 61-70km 71-80km >80km =40 =25 =10 =20

Figure 6. Dispersion of bikers by distance from MFR.

Age and Age Groups Age groups of mountain bikers are also defined through the survey. The biggest numbers come from riders coming from the age group of 31-40 years of age (31%), then the 21-30 age group (22%), and the 41-50 age group (21%) (Table 3). It paints the picture

47

Table 3. Age classes of MFR mountain bikers, 2012. AGE CLASS 13-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 Total PERCENT OF TOTAL 7 22 31 21 15 3 1 100

FREQUENCY 27 84 118 82 59 13 2 385

of a mountain biker as a young adult roughly 35 years of age, or a relatively young adult activity. Mountain bikers that travel to the MFR are relatively young, yet not very old with a mean age of 38 years old. The youngest rider that went to the MFR is thirteen years of age, and the oldest is seventy eight years of age. The large variation of ages show that mountain biking is an activity for all ages. Cessford (1995) in New Zealand, and Tourism Tasmania (2008), show these characteristics in age, majority of active mountain bikers are in ages from mid 20s to mid 40s, with a high percentage in the mid 30s age group (Tourism Tasmania, 2008). In New Zealand, the most numerous are found in the under -20 until the 30-39 age group (Cessford, 1995). The same trend showed up in another study by Tiedeman (2002) of the Central Michigan University, where 69% of the respondents are from the 20-29 and the 30-39 age groups. Regarding the age groups of people who make the trip to the MFR, Table 4 shows the distribution of the people who ride in the MFR by their age and their origin. All areas

48

Table 4. Age profile and origin of mountain bikers of the MFR in 2012. LOCATION/ORIGIN Metro Manila Batangas Others 2 13 17 2 2 0 0 36 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 7 2 8 10 5 0 0 0 25

AGE OF RESPONDENT 13-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 Total

Rizal 2 6 11 3 0 0 0 22

Laguna 19 53 73 70 56 13 2 286

No answer 0 2 4 2 1 0 0 9

Total 27 84 118 82 59 13 2 385

share the trend that the 31-40 age bracket has the most number of mountain bikers, followed by the 21-30 age bracket. British Columbia, a hotbed for mountain biking and mountain bikers, American and Canadian travelers who go to British Columbia to ride mountain bikes are mostly people who are of age 18-34 (Tourism British Columbia, 2009). Gender and Civil Status Mountain biking in the MFR is dominated by married males, with only a tiny group of female riders (Table 5). The difference between single male and married male mountain bike riders in the MFR is quite big with a difference of 109 from the 345 male respondents. The small group of female riders also features a similar trend, but the difference between married and single female riders are not big. Mountain biking generally tends to have male dominated populations (City of Kelowna, 2007). Males thoroughly dominate the sport (Tiedeman, 2002) with his population set getting an 88%

49

Table 5. Gender classification and civil status of mountain bikers of the MFR in 2012.

GENDER Single Male Female Total 118 9 127

CIVIL STATUS Married 227 15 242 No answer 16 0 16 Total 361 24 385

representation rate among males. Males also dominate when the motivation to travel and have a vacation is related to cycling; however females are more willing participants in a cycling-based vacation (Tourism British Columbia, 2009). In Australia, women are much closer to men when it comes to mainstream cycle tourism, but not for mountain bikes (Tourism Tasmania, 2008). The study also mentioned that though the majority still consists of men, there will be a considerable gender shift in the future years, citing the increase of female participation in the US by 33.9% starting in 2002 (Tourism Tasmania, 2008). It will be interesting to note if the Philippines will follow the trend as shown in foreign countries. From the survey, the female riding population cited their reason for starting to ride mountain bikes was for recreation purposes, followed by health reasons. There are many cases when one family member will influence another member to take up mountain biking, if not the whole family. In the US, particularly in the state of Michigan, the majority of these mountain bikers live in a household of two to four people (Tiedeman, 2002). Table 6 shows the age distribution trend among the male and female mountain bikers with their civil status. The trends along the more numerous male mountain bikers

50

Table 6. Age class, gender, and civil status of MFR bikers, 2012.

AGE OF RESPONDENT 13-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 No Answer Total

SINGLE 23 (3) 56 (2) 31 (2) 4 (2) 4 (0) 0 0 118 (9)

CIVIL STATUS MARRIED 1 (0) 19 (1) 72 (8) 69 (5) 51 (1) 13 2 227 (15)

TOTAL 24 (3) 75 (3) 103 (10) 73 (7) 55 (1) 13 2 16 345 (24)

Legend: Male (not in parenthesis) Female (in parenthesis)

show this trend, the two youngest age groups (13-20, 21-30) have the majority of the male mountain bikers who are unmarried, while the 31-40, 41-50, and 51-60 year old age brackets are totally dominated by married males. Young men in the 13-20 age bracket are usually goaded by their mountain biker parents to try mountain biking, or the opposite happens when the children have the interest to do mountain biking and compel their parents to spend money on one. At times this enthusiasm has a knock-on effect, with either family member picking up interest after the more enthusiastic member. This also holds true for siblings. The single bikers in the 21-30 age group would have their own personal disposable income, and would gladly spend on their mountain bike. Married mountain bikers in the higher age brackets view mountain bike riding primarily as a form of exercise, instead of a leisure activity afforded by younger riders.

51

Educational Attainment

In the study, the sample showed a higher level of educational attainment, with 42% of the respondents having college or tertiary education, and 29% have secondary education (Table 7). Having formal education is a trait shared by a lot of mountain

bikers, especially tertiary or at least secondary level education (Cessford, 1995) (Tourism Tasmania, 2008) (Tourism British Columbia, 2009) (Tiedeman, 2002).

Table 7. Educational attainment of mountain bikers. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Elementary High School College Post Graduate No answer Total

FREQUENCY 9 110 160 16 90 385

PERCENT OF TOTAL 2 29 42 4 23 100

The trends mentioned in the studies of Cessford, Tiedeman, and from Tasmania and Canada are also evident in the local mountain biking communities around the MFR. It is rare to have a mountain biker with no formal educational background, out of the 385 respondents, only 9 answered with only elementary education. The high starting costs of a good quality mountain bike need an ample income, and a decent earning professional job is needed to start and maintain this kind of activity. Married riders with working spouses might have some financial flexibility, but their combined income, which is dependent on both their educational background will determine how much a mountain bike rider will spend on his bike and on his/her activity (Table 8).

52

Table 8. Educational attainment, gender and civil status of MFR bikers, 2012 .

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Elementary High School College Post Graduate No Answer Total Legend: Male (not in parenthesis) Female (in parenthesis) 1

GENDER AND CIVIL STATUS Single Married 8 73 (2) 93 (11) 13 Total 9 103 (4) 157 (17) 20 75

30 (2) 64 (6) 7

Income of Mountain Bikers

A high quality mountain bike is expensive, and a good sized income is necessary to progress in the activity. But nowadays, a mountain bike of good quality is more affordable to at least the professional working class and blue collar workers, hence the proliferation of riders (59%) earning in the Php. 100,000-200,000 range (Table 8). In developed countries however, mountain bikers are characterized as high earners (Tourism Tasmania, 2008, Tourism British Columbia, 2009, Tiedeman, 2002) with a baseline of $60,000 and above. The Philippine baseline is much lower compared to these numbers. The numbers here are likely to be contentious and unreliable, as only 54 percent of the respondents answered. And when the respondents do answer, the answers have a high possibility to be either understated or overstated (Table 9). Household incomes of mountain bikers in the MFR are mainly from the 100,000-200,000 income group.

53

Table 9. Average household income of mountain bikers in the MFR. AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME 100,000-200,000 201,000-400,000 401,000-600,000 601,000-900,000 greater than 900,000 No answer Total

FREQUENCY 132 39 19 9 10 176 385

PERCENT OF TOTAL 34 10 5 2 3 46 100

Table 10 shows the trend of income, educational attainment, and gender. With the males having a bigger population in the sample than women, the male sample showed the most variations among the three variables studied. It was noted that though the 100,000200,000 income bracket was the most numerous among the men, a college diploma is still the safest way to earn money to get a nice mountain bike and join the hobby. College graduates filled all income brackets, and among male mountain bikers with a post graduate degree, the bikers are more evenly spread; compared to college graduates who despite getting a college diploma are unable to earn much more. Table 11 shows the different associations of the different variables in the profile of the mountain biker that goes to the MFR. Many of the variables have weak associations with each other. First the age class and origins (.159) of the riders do not have a strong association because all locations have riders and riding groups that comprise of different ages, young or old. The gender of the respondent and his or her civil status (.017) has the weakest association of the profile, mountain biking as an

54

Table 10. Educational attainment, average household income and gender of mountain bikers in the MFR. GENDER AND AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Elementary High School College Post Graduate Total No Answer TOTAL Legend: male (not in parenthesis) Female (in parenthesis)
100,000200,000 201,000400,000 401,000600,000 601,000900,000 greater than 900,000 Total

1 25 69 (10) 6 101

0 3 24 6 33

0 2 11 (1) 2 15

0 0 5 3 8

0 1 4 1 6

1 31 113 18 163 211 385

Table 11. Association of mountain bikers profile and characteristics established through Cramrs V value. CRAMERS V VALUE .159 .017 .143 .648 .130 .173 .167

CROSSTABULATED VARIABLES Age of respondent & Origin Gender of respondent & Civil Status Age of respondent & Gender Age of respondent & civil status Civil Status & Educational attainment Average household income & Educational attainment Average household income & gender

VERBAL DESCRIPTION Weak association Extremely weak association Weak association Redundant Weak association Weak association Weak association

55

activity is not gender specific, nor it is enjoyed by just unmarried or married people. Another weak pair is the age class and gender of the mountain bikers (.143). As

mentioned earlier, mountain biking is not gender specific, and mountain biking is an activity done by people of all ages. The civil status and educational attainment of the mountain bikers in the sample also had a low Cramrs V value (.130) and marking it as having a weak association. Having an education is not a sure sign of someones marital status. The average household income and educational attainment of mountain bikers also garnered a low Cramrs V value (.173) but most of the respondents did not answer the question about income, nor did they answer as truthfully as they can; when people can expect a person with a higher educational attainment can earn a lot more than the claimed answers in the survey. The other pair of variables that are weak in association is the association of household income and gender (.167). The one with the strongest association is with the variables of age class and civil status (.648), which is a huge difference to the other variables showing weak or even extremely weak associations. Civil status is directly related to someones age, and though some people stay single for a long time, even until death, it is only by culture that people see a very young husband or a very young wife. Mountain Bike Preferences and Experience The survey also looked at the preferences of the mountain bikers as well as their experience in using their mountain bikes. The variety among mountain bike riders; be it on their length of experience, bike design preferences, and motivation were noted.

56

Estimated Costs of Mountain Bikes

A majority of the respondents (34%) who answered the question claim that the mountain bike or bikes that they own amount to as much as 10,000-20,000 pesos. It is likely that these people own one mountain bike, as a brand mountain bike with a good specification of parts can go at that price range, or the owner is an expert in looking for used parts. 71 riders claimed they own bikes worth 21,000-40,000. A hardtail mountain bike from a well-known brand falls in between this price range. At this range, a rider can also afford maybe two bikes, though one is definitely lower in specification. The 21,00040,000 price range also had the next highest responses (18%). A high end mountain bike can cost the same price, but a smart dealmaker or someone with the ability to pay can also create a small stable of mountain bikes for his use, known to bikers as a quiver. Table 13 shows the cross tabulation of gender, average household incomes, and mountain bike cost. As mentioned earlier, some respondents did not respond to some questions regarding household income (Table 9) and cost estimate of the mountain bike/s (Table 12). In addition, the very few numbers of female riders show an incomplete picture compared to the males. The males show a fairly consistent trend in the lowest income bracket, that they have the cheapest and most inexpensive bikes. The trend continues in the second level of the tier, but the differences between the bike costs are much smaller compared to the large gap in the lowest income tier. People who are in the upper ranges of the income spectrum also showed that they are capable of buying a mountain bike worth 100,000 pesos and more, and generally stay away from inexpensive bikes worth 10,000-20,000 pesos. Because of the high population of the 100,000-200,000 peso income bracket, there is a higher variety of answers and possible situations. Despite

57

Table 12. Estimated cost of mountain bikes used by mountain bikers.

ESTIMATED COST OF MOUNTAIN BIKE less than 10,000-20,000 21,000-40,000 41,000-60,000 61,000-100,000 more than 100,000 No answer Total

FREQUENCY 126 71 30 36 51 71 385

PERCENT OF TOTAL 34 18 8 9 13 18 100

Table 13. Gender, cost estimate of mountain bike/s, and average household incomes of riders in MFR.

GENDER AND AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME ESTIMATED COST OF MTB less than 10,000-20,000 21,000-40,000 41,000-60,000 61,000-100,000 more than 100,000 Total No Answer TOTAL Legend: Male (not in parenthesis) Female (in parenthesis) less than 601,000 greater 201,000- 401,000100,000than 400,000 600,000 200,000 900,000 900,000 50 (3) 32 (4) 11 10 (2) 14 (2) 117 (11) 12 4 9 4 9 38 1 1 (1) 3 9 3 17 (1) 1 2 1 4 1 9 1 1 0 1 7 10 Total 65 40 24 28 34 203 182 385

58

having the most number of inexpensive bikes, the lowest income bracket also showed people capable of owning a mountain bike way above their income level. Some really labored for their mountain bike, doing multiple jobs or having a high paying job at one point. Others did shrewd deal making for bike parts, and some bikes are bequeathed to them by wealthier family members or benefactors. Table 14 shows that the majority of mountain bikers who took the survey are new to the sport, or has at most five years experience, with 46% of respondents claiming so.

Table 14. Length of mountain bike experience in years by mountain bikers.

LENGTH OF BIKE EXPERIENCE less than 1 year- 5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years more than 20 years No Answer Total

FREQUENCY 175 49 17 8 11 125 385

PERCENT OF TOTAL 46 13 4 2 3 32 100.0

The distribution of age, gender, and riding experience is noted in Table 15 to provide answers on who is the new crop of mountain bikers that came out in the past half decade or so. Based on Table 11, there are 124 people who chose not to answer the particular question for various reasons, so the table only counts the people who answered in all the specified questions. The people who have started riding from last year up to 5 years ago, most of the new crop came from the 31-40 and 21-30 year old bracket,

59

especially for men. The majority of the women who ride also started riding five or so years ago, but compared to men, the women are more balanced with their distribution.

Table 15. Gender, age, and length of biking experience of MFR mountain bikers.

GENDER AND LENGTH OF BIKE EXPERIENCE AGE CLASS Less Than 1 Year- 5 Years 10 (2) 41 47 (2) 27 (3) 34 (1) 4 1 164 (8) Total Legend: male (without parenthesis); female (in parenthesis) More Than 20 Years 0 0 3 6 2 0 0 11

6-10 Years 4 13 12 (3) 8 5 2 1 45 (3)

11-15 Years 0 2 7 7 (1) 0 0 0 16 (1)

16-20 Years 0 0 4 2 1 1 0 8

No answer 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 128

Total 14 56 73 51 42 7 2 245 (12) 385

13-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80

Preferred Riding Discipline by Mountain Bikers Table 16 shows the favored mountain biking discipline of the respondents. The dominant discipline is cross country (XC) riding, with 31% of the respondents share. The next most numerous mtb discipline is downhill and free-ride, which took 19% of the sample. The fairly new All-mountain category is not far behind with 16% of the total respondents. Trials and Dirt Jumping are niche disciplines in mountain biking and are a tiny part in the sample. For rider foremost, but AM and DH are also considered good

60

Table 16. Preferred mountain biking discipline by mountain bikers.

PREFERRED MOUNTAIN BIKE DISCIPLINE XC AM DH/FR Trials DJ No Answer Total

FREQUENCY

PERCENT OF TOTAL

125 61 72 5 3 119 385

33 16 19 1 1 31 100

choices for new rider (Table 17). As time goes on, these XC riders would quit, stay in XC or branch out to DH, AM new segment of the sport, would be a rookies he and free ride might find XC too boring, and DH and free ride too scary. DH riding done by newbies can be very intimidating proposition indeed, but there is a certain cool factor a having a DH bike, which resembles a motorcross bike with no engine, and the riders wearing full-face helmets, armor and googles not out of place in a motorcross event. The first few years will determine how a new rider continues doing the said activity. Many times a rider will change discipline due to peer influence, many cases where an XC rider would find himself with DH riders and subsequently do DH himself, and reverse is also true. Or, the biker will just quit mountain biking altogether due to a major injury, family matters, or the biker just felt that there is no more fun anymore. If XC and AM have the

61

Table 17. Preferred bike discipline and biking experience of MFR bikers.

LENGTH OF BIKE EXPERIENCE less than 1 year- 5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years more than 20 years

PREFERRED BIKE DISCIPLINE XC 49 12 5 1 3 AM 33 8 3 2 1 DH/FR TRIALS 30 20 6 3 5 11 0 0 0 0 DJ 2 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 125 40 14 6 9 191

Total

70

47

64

11

385

fastest recruitment rate, XC and AM riders also have the steepest drop-off in participants. DH despite it being the most dangerous has a slower drop-out rate than XC and AM. It is due to the tighter bond and camaraderie of DH riders, who do more things than just ride. A big factor is that they would initiate trail building with fellow riders. The XC trails in Nuvali are designed by DH bikers, and the DH race courses around the country are designed and built by the DH riding groups. The arguably closer-knit DH community has helped DH riders stick to the activity for a long time, while XC riders tend to have shorter stints before quitting mountain biking altogether. Rider Skill Level

Rider skill is a highly subjective word and a point of contention among mountain bikers, especially during competition (Table 18), but some patterns show:

62

Table 18. Mountain bike rider skill levels. MOUNTAIN BIKE SKILL LEVEL Beginner Novice Advanced I don't know No Answer Total

FREQUENCY 143 100 47 24 71 385

PERCENT OF TOTAL 37 26 12 6 18 100

beginners brake way too much for the trail and has problems descending and traveling over technical terrain, and an inability to handle stunts like jumps and drops. A novice can carry better speed in a trail, and can ride descents and technical terrain with more control. A novice also has control over stunts like jumps. An advanced rider is fluid on the mountain bike and the trail, has the ability to clear big stunts with ease and is clearly the smoothest looking and usually the fittest rider on the trail. A beginner is upright and stiff looking on the bike, while novices and advanced riders have a lower, aggressive crouching stance on their mountain bikes called the attack position (McCormack and Lopes, 2010). The results came from the mountain biker survey, which asked the respondent on what do they think their current skill level on a mountain bike be. In the sample, the majority of riders listed themselves as a beginner (37%), which also matches the majority of the riders getting one to five years of riding experience (Table 15). Twenty-six (26) percent of the respondents consider themselves as novices or intermediate skill riders, and around 12% consider themselves as advanced riders. Surprisingly there is a small

63

group of riders (6%) who dont have any idea on what their skill level is on a mountain bike. The results in other countries show that mountain bikers rate themselves rather highly. Tiedeman (2002) used a scale of 1 to 10 to ask mountain bikers about their skill levels on a mountain bike and the mean amounted to 6.56, which is, according to Tiedeman is considered as a high-intermediate. In Canada, skill levels tend to regress when age advances, as younger riders who prefer downhill and free-ride tend to mellow down and enter cross country and at least all-mountain (City of Kelowna, 2007). Mountain Bike Racing Experience

Mountain bike racing is an integral part of the sport (Table 19). However, as the sample shows, the majority (65%) does not participate in mountain bike racing or competitions. When mountain bikers join and compete in races (Table 20), it would be either in XC or in DH; 23% of mountain bikers prefer the former and 22% preferred the latter. Experience in racing is not extensive even in other countries. Less than 25% had done more than 20 races. This may reflect the recent development of the activity. However, when compared to the number of days riding, these results suggest that racing is not currently a big part of mountain biking activity for most riders (Cessford, 1995).

Table 19. Racing experience of mountain bikers. RACING EXPERIENCE With race experience No race experience No answer Total FREQUENCY 100 252 33 385 PERCENT OF TOTAL 26 65 9 100

64

Table 20. Preferred MTB racing events by MFR mountain bikers. FAVORED RACING/COMPETITION EVENT XC race DH 4X/ Dual Slalom Enduro DJ No answer Total

FREQUENCY 87 84 17 15 2 180 385

PERCENT OF TOTAL 23 22 4 4 1 46 100

Amount of Time Allotted for Mountain Biking

Most of the respondents would ride at least two to three (2-3) days a week (Table 21); whereof the sample would allot at least two days of riding, while 25% of the respondents in the sample would allot three (3) days of riding. This pattern is quite consistent with studies in other countries (City of Kelowna, 2007) (Tiedeman, 2002) (Tourism Tasmania, 2008). Primary Use of MTB and Reason for Riding

The primary use of a mountain bike and the motivation to start mountain biking are closely related to each other (Table 22). Most of the respondents use their mountain bike as their form of exercise (38%), or as a form of recreation or as a hobby (32%). Competitive riders took up 18% of the sample, and people who use their bikes for other than the reasons mentioned were the least at 12%. Mountain bikers claimed that they started riding because of health factors, as represented by % of the people in the sample; or as a hobby, as answered by 31% of the respondents.

65

Table 21. Number of days allotted for mountain bike riding by mountain bikers. MTB USAGE IN ONE WEEK (days) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No answer Total

FREQUENCY 56 137 98 32 14 6 10 32 385

PERCENT OF TOTAL 15 35 25 8 4 2 3 8 100

Table 22. Primary usage of the mountain bike by mountain bikers.

PRIMARY USAGE OF MOUNTAIN BIKE Hobby Sport Exercise Other No Answer Total

FREQUENCY 143 57 135 18 32 385

PERCENT OF TOTAL 37 15 35 5 8 100

The City of Kelowna in 2007 made a study about their mountain biking community, and they found out that Fun/Enjoyment was the leading reason for the results in the sample. participating in mountain biking, followed closely by

Health/Fitness; which also mirrors the results in the sample.

66

Table 23. Primary reason in starting mountain biking by MFR bikers.

PRIMARY REASON FOR MOUNTAIN BIKING Exercise Hobby Competition peer influence Other I don't know No Answer Total

FREQUENCY 172 118 15 19 7 1 53 385

PERCENT OF TOTAL 45 31 4 5 2 0 14 100

Table 24 shows the cross tabulation between the primary use of the mountain bike, the reason for joining, and gender. For both men and women, their mountain bike is either a form of exercise or as a form of recreation. There is a clearer picture with the men, with most of the answers fall between either exercise or as a hobby. However, there are more men saying that they use the mountain bike and their reason to start the activity for health reasons. For women, they chose to go mountain biking because that was their chosen form of recreation. Table 25 shows the relationship between the reason for riding, and what age group the rider belongs to. Riders from 12-40 years of age own their bikes and ride mainly for recreational purposes as a hobby. Once they get older, health becomes the main motivation for mountain bikers why they start to do and persist in the said activities.

67

Table 24. Primary reason for mountain biking, primary use, and gender of MFR mountain bikers. PRIMARY REASON TO START Peer Hobby Competition Others Influence 79(12) 1 3 1(1) 17 9(1) 8 0 6 1 6 1 2 2 1 4

PRIMARY REASON Hobby Sport Exercise Other No Answer Total

Exercise 39 19(2) 93(4) 8

I dont know

Total 123 53 107 17

(1) 64

385

Legend: male (without parenthesis); female ( with parenthesis)

Table 25. Age class and Reason for mountain biking of MFR bikers.

AGE CLASS 13-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 No Answer Total

PRIMARY REASON TO START Exercise 6 35 60 38 24 8 1 Hobby 14 34 36 25 9 0 0 Competition 3 6 3 2 1 0 0 Peer influence 3 5 7 3 1 0 0 Other 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 I don't know 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Total 27 82 110 69 35 8 1 385

68

More riders chose to ride for health once the ages reach 50 years and above. People who ride for sport show a climbing trend until they reach their 40s, which by that time the rider will have mellowed down and compete less or move to another age bracket in mountain biking competitions.

Table 26 shows the trends of age class and the primary use of the mountain bike of MFR bikers. Younger age groups say that they primarily ride for fun, specifically the 21-30 and the 31-40 age groups. The same two age groups also use their mountain bikes primarily for sport and competition. The most balanced distribution is found with the people who ride as a form of exercise, from the 21-30 age group to the 51-60 group, the frequencies are roughly similar to one another. Interestingly, the youngest age group does not put exercise as their priority in using their mountain bike; it is more on recreation and sport.

Table 26. Age class and Primary use of mtb by MFR bikers.

AGE CLASS 13-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 No Answer Total

PRIMARY USE OF MTB Hobby 13 34 52 30 14 0 0 143 Sport 7 19 23 7 1 0 0 57 Exercise 5 23 30 33 33 10 1 135 Other 2 5 6 3 2 0 0 18 Total 27 81 111 73 50 10 1 32 385

69

Table 27 shows the trends of average income and the primary reason to start riding MTBs by the people who ride to the MFR. The frequencies show that the lowest income bracket (less than 100,000-200,000) are more focused on the exercise and recreation aspect of mountain biking. Peer pressure is also a good recruiting tool for mountain bikers, especially for riders in the lowest income bracket. Clubs are major factors in making people join in the activity.

Table 27. Average household income and primary reason for starting MTB by MFR bikers.

AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME less than 100,000-200,000 201,000-400,000 401,000-600,000 601,000-900,000 greater than 900,000 No Answer Total

PRIMARY REASON TO START exercise hobby competition 63 23 14 6 4 110 50 9 2 0 1 62 5 3 1 0 1 10 peer I don't other Total influence know 8 2 2 2 2 16 3 2 0 0 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 1 130 39 19 8 9 180 385

Table 28 looks at the average household income with respect to the primary use of the different MTB riders in the MFR. People who are listed in the lowest income bracket (100,000- 200,000) are either recreational bikers, or exercise bikers. The trend is basically found in all but one bracket (401,000-600,000).

70

Table 28. Average household income and primary use of MTB riders in the MFR.

AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME less than 100,000-200,000 201,000-400,000 401,000-600,000 601,000-900,000 greater than 900,000 No Answer Total

PRIMARY USE OF MTB hobby 56 17 4 3 4 sport 22 8 4 0 1 exercise 43 11 9 5 2 other 6 2 2 0 2 Total 127 38 19 8 9 184 385

Mountain Bike Configuration

There are two mountain bike configurations: hardtail and full/dual suspension. Both configurations have their own fans and critics, and both are used by mountain bikers everywhere. The hardtail is the most common form of mountain bike in the Philippines, with 55% of the respondents using them (Table 29). Full suspension users account for 27% of the sample size. Hardtails are arguably the most versatile form of mountain bike. It is also a good base to start learning basic skills in bike handling. A hardtail is very easy to maintain and run, and is light enough to build endurance and strength. It is also the cheapest way to get into mountain biking. Full suspension bikes are easily two to four times the price of an entry level hardtail, hence the lack of people getting one. A brand new built up hardtail from a good manufacturer will cost 20,000-35,000 Php. Prices skyrocket though when trying to get a built-up full suspension bike. Full suspension bike

71

Table 29. Mountain bike configuration used by mountain bikers. MOUNTAIN BIKE CONFIGURATION Hardtail Full Suspension No answer Total

FREQUENCY 210 104 71 385

PERCENT OF TOTAL 55 27 18 100

prices would range from 75,000-200,000Php. Many would turn to the used bike parts market instead to get parts. Many times a rider would get a decent bike to begin with, and then build it up gradually through upgrades to balance the budget. Riders who own multiple bikes, with intermediate to advanced skills and experience, with enough income will have a full suspension bike and a hardtail at home. The most preferred types were hardtail, road bikes, and full suspension with Specialized and Trek being the most popular brands. The average amount spent for a respondents last bike was $1,859, (75,996 Php) with $773 (31,600 Php) on equipment and accessories last year. Before purchasing bikes, components, and tires, research was conducted. Information was typically obtained by asking other riders. Other sources included bike shops, the Internet, and company materials (Tiedeman, 2002). Hardtails, being the most inexpensive form of mountain bike, is the favored bike configuration of the people who are in the lowest income bracket (100,000-200,000 Php). The low cost relative to other mountain bikes make it the choice for people who are not big earners. Hardtails however, are not the bike of choice for people with higher incomes. Their choices are the full suspension bikes. Though they still buy hardtails, it is used as a second bike or as a part of a small stable of bicycles. For higher income earning individuals, a hardtail is an optional purchase, even expendable if they started out as a

72

hardtail then they progressed to a full suspension mountain bike. A lot of advanced riders though started out on hardtails, and would keep one for training and variety (Table 30).

Table 30. Bike configuration and average household income of MFR bikers.

AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME BIKE CONFIGURATION Hardtail Full suspension No Answer Total less than 100,000- 201,000- 401,000- 601,000200,000 400,000 600,000 900,000 79 38 17 22 6 13 4 5 greater than 900,000 3 7

Total 109 85 191 385

As mentioned earlier, mountain bikes are now specialized into different disciplines, and with this diversity some bikes work better than others in the right terrain and situation. Hardtails and full suspension mountain bikes also have that kind of variations, and riders would choose a discipline that they like, and then choose what kind of mountain bike they want. In the sample, hardtails are the bike of choice for XC and AM riders, while for people with full suspension bikes, downhill and freeride is the discipline of choice (Table 31). Table 32 shows the relationship of bike configuration, preferred racing event and skill level of the mountain bikers. Hardtail riders, no matter the skill level prefer XC racing. For bikers with full suspension bikes, the racing discipline they choose is DH racing, again no matter the skill level. XC racing requires a different kind of mountain bike to DH, and bikers will set up their bikes accordingly. Full suspension bikes are more capable of handling DH terrain better than hardtails, but a mountain bike that is designed

73

Table 31. Bike configuration and preferred MTB discipline of MFR bikers. BIKE CONFIGURATION Hardtail Full suspension No answer Total

PREFERRED BIKE DISCIPLINE XC 88 28 AM 31 26 DH/FR 14 54 Trials 3 0 DJ 3 0 Total 139 108 138 385

Table 32. Bike configuration, preferred racing event, and skill level of MFR bikers. PREFERRED RACING EVENT 4X/Dual XC race DH race slalom Enduro 11 (7) 22 (9) 13 (7) 4 (1) 6 (11) 8 (30) 2 (14) 3 (5) 2 0 (1) 1 (1) 0 0 (1) 2 (4) 0 1(1) DJ 2 0 0 0 Total 21 (19) 32 (44) 16 (22) 8 (7) 216 385

RIDER SKILL LEVEL Beginner Novice Advanced I don't know No answer TOTAL

Legend: male (without parenthesis); female (with parenthesis)

for DH is a must for competitiveness and safety of the rider. A beginner may choose to ride DH on a hardtail, but only as a start to practice bike handling. Table 33 shows beginner riders use their mountain bikes primarily as a hobby (82) or as a form of exercise (51). Novice riders are more balanced in their motivation to ride, there are similar frequencies for hobbyists (37), sport (27) and exercise (28). Advanced riders use their mountain bikes mainly for sport and competition (16). For people who dont know their skill level, their main purpose is for exercise and fitness (Figure 7).

74

Table 33. Rider skill level and primary use of mountain bikes by MFR bikers.

RIDER SKILL LEVEL Beginner Novice Advanced I don't know No Answer TOTAL

PRIMARY USE OF MTB Hobby 82 37 12 3 Sport 4 27 16 7 Exercise 51 28 12 14 Other 3 7 6 0 Total 140 99 46 24 76 385

Figure 7. Rider skill level and primary use of mountain bikes.

75

The majority of riders who choose to ride as a hobby (71) or as a form of exercise (46) will mainly allot two (2) days to ride (Table 39). The next highest set would be for three (3) days worth of riding in one week, again with hobby riders (32) and exercise riders (37). Sport riders choose to allot two to three days (2-3) worth of riding. Exercise riders are the most active group, as they continue to use their bikes four to seven (4-7) days a week, which is more distributed compared to the hobby riders who mainly ride for the weekend (Figure 8) (Table 34). The majority of riders who choose to ride as a hobby (71) or as a form of exercise (46) will mainly allot two (2) days to ride (Table 39). The next highest set would be for three (3) days worth of riding in one week, again with hobby riders (32) and exercise riders (37). Sport riders choose to allot two to three days (2-3) worth of riding. Exercise riders are the most active group, as they continue to use their bikes four to seven (4-7) days a week, which is more distributed compared to the hobby riders who mainly ride for the weekend (Figure 8) (Table 34). Hardtails are the most common form of mountain bike. They are cheap to run and purchase (Figure 9) and is a good starting point for developing skills. XC riders choose hardtails because of that same purpose, with the costs estimated between 10,000-20,000 pesos. Hardtails are not recommended for downhill mountain biking, hence the low respondents. Dirt Jumping is also low on respondents as it is perceived as a very dangerous activity on a mountain bike. Trials are also very low on respondents because of the high difficulty level needed to perform trials maneuvers.

76

Table 34. Primary use of mountain bike and days allotted for riding by MFR bikers.

NUMBER OF DAYS TO RIDE 1day 2 days 3 days 4 days 5 days 6 days 7 days No Answer Total

PRIMARY USE OF MTB Hobby 22 71 32 7 1 1 4 138 Sport 10 20 11 7 4 1 1 54 Exercise 20 46 37 12 8 4 6 133 Other 1 6 5 2 3 0 0 17 Total 53 143 85 28 16 6 11 43 342

Figure 8. Riding days and primary use of mountain bike.

77

Figure 9. Association between mountain bike discipline, cost, and the hardtail bike configuration.

Full suspension mountain bikes are more expensive than hardtails. The advantage of relative comfort over rough terrain makes full suspension almost mandatory in mountain biking, as well as its different disciplines (Figure 10) (Table 35). The most expensive mountain bikes usually belong to downhill riders; who spends and can spend as much as 100,000 pesos on their bikes, upgrades, and spare parts. XC and AM bikes can be as expensive as downhill bikes, but with DH ridings propensity for higher speeds and greater risk of accidents, broken parts and broken riders raise the costs.

78

Figure 10. Association of full suspension bikes, bike discipline and estimated costs.

Table 35. Bike configuration, preferred discipline, and cost estimate of mtb of MFR bikers. COST ESTIMATE OF MTB 41,00060,000 5 (3) 6 (6) 1 (8) 0 0 61,000100,000 7 (8) 6 (5) 1 (8) 0 0 more than 100,000 2 (7) 1 (8) 0 (30) 0 1 Total 87 (28) 30 (24) 14 (54) 2 3 143 385

PREFERRED BIKE 10,000- 21,000DISCIPLINE 20,000 40,000 XC AM DH/FR Trials DJ No Answer 41 (8) 11 (3) 5 (4) 2 1 32 (2) 6 (2) 7 (4) 0 1

TOTAL Legend: male (without parenthesis); female (with parenthesis)

79

Table 36 shows the relationship between costs of the mountain bike, the bike configuration, and racing experience of the mountain bikers. Hardtails are used mostly by mountain bikers without any racing experience, and these people would have a bike worth 10,000 Php to 40,000 Php. People who race their hardtails are more evenly distributed among price, compared to the top-heavy non-racing population (Figure 11).

Table 36. Bike configuration, bike costs, and racing experience of MFR bikers.

COST ESTIMATE OF MTB RACING EXPERIENCE With race experience Without race experience No Answer TOTAL Legend: male(without parenthesis); female (with parenthesis) less than 10,00020,000 14 (3) 79 (12) 21,00040,000 16 (7) 41 (3) 41,000- 61,000- more than Total 60,000 100,000 100,000 6 (8) 7 (9) 8 (12) 6 (8) 3 (39) 2 (4) 47 (69) 135 (36) 98 385

When bikers would join mountain bike races, having the best equipment can be a big help, be it physically or psychologically. Mountain bikers that have full suspension bikes with racing experience will have bikes at the extreme end of the price range (39). Cheap full suspension bikes are considered dangerous and unsafe (3) for competition due to weak overall construction. People with full suspension bikes but have no competition experience have more balanced numbers than the top heavy racers (Figure 12).

80

Figure 11. Hardtails, racing experience, and estimated costs.

Figure 12. Full suspension bikes, racing experiences, and estimated costs.

81

Social Networks of Mountain Bikers

Social networking among mountain bikers is an important part of the mountain biking lifestyle. Tiedeman (2002) found out that mountain bikers are very much involved in the sport or the activity, and is a part of the highly active lifestyle that mountain bikers maintain. An important implication of club membership is the role clubs may play in enhancing the self-regulation of riding attitudes and behavior (Cessford, 1995). The sample showed an overwhelming majority of mountain bikers, with 82% of the respondents claiming to be a member of a mountain biking club or organization (Table 37). There are 46 clubs and organizations listed in the sample (Appendix II). This list shows what kind of mountain biking they favor and prefer. Some are location based (Kalayaan Bicycle Club, Elbi Bikers, Alaminos/La Trenchera, TBAC), some are colleagues and friends sharing the same interest (Fat Tyre, Team EXO, MAKBOYS, Sunpower Bikers, PMTB, 43Bikes), bike teams with backing from corporate sponsors and/or bike shops (Team Groundzero, Isuzu DMAX/Prima Cycling Team, John Wilkie, Team Green Planet, Papis Ride/Faren), and discipline-specific groups (DROP, MTG, DH Crew, Team Haooh, DIRT-TEK are DH oriented groups). 18% did not claim any membership to any organization. Some of these organizations sponsor or organize MTB events (Appendix III). For example, non competitive fun runs (Padyak LB done by Elbi Bikers, Takbo at Padyak Para sa Project Shoebox done by Masigasig Bikers, Padyak PWU, Tour de Bonpen) while others are more keen on full-on racing and competition (Nuvali Dirt Weekend, DROP National DH Series, Philippine Bike Adventure Race, Allan Purisima Cup, Alaminos XC race by the Alaminos La Trenchera Bikers, MTG Big

82

Daddy Cup). The sample also showed that these club members are very willing to lend their assistance in trail building and maintenance, with 49% of the sample size responding positively (Table 38).

Table 37. Social network of mountain bikers. MTB ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP YES NO Total

FREQUENCY 315 70 385

PERCENT OF TOTAL 82 18 100

Table 38. MTB organizations willingness to assist in trail construction.

RESPONSE OF BIKERS Yes, will help No, will not help Total No answer Total

FREQUENCY 192 71 263 122 385

PERCENT OF TOTAL 49.9 18.4 68.3 31.7 100

Increased club involvement by the more experienced riders is notably high when compared with that apparent for other outdoor activities; further commitment is indicated by the increasing investments made in bikes and modifications by the more experienced riders (Cessford, 1995). Table 39 shows the preferences of these MTB clubs and organizations when it comes to promoting MTB riding in the MFR. The respondents prefer organizing events

83

Table 39. MTB organizations method to promote MTB riding in the MFR. PROMOTION OF MTB RIDING IN MFR Trail Maintenance and Building Marketing and Publicity Event Organization Biking Advocacy Other I dont know No Answer Total

FREQUENCY 33 26 126 102 1 0 97 385

PERCENT OF TOTAL 8 7 33 26 1 0 25 100

like races and fun rides, with 33% of the respondents saying so. The next popular choice was creating mountain biking advocacy among the people; 26% of the respondents agree with advocacy work using mountain biking as the medium. Despite the lack of a trail in the MFR for mountain bikes, creating a trail or a trail network is not considered a priority for these groups, with only 8% of the sample listing it as a priority. This may look counter to Table 37, where club members of various groups have expressed willingness to build and maintain trails inside the MFR when given the chance. However, the choices of event organization and biking advocacy will entail trail building and maintenance as a part of the former. Creating a specific mountain biking event will require trail building and maintenance of existing trails to maximize the enjoyment of the event. Table 40 shows that bikers who are members of a biking association are willing to help in event organization (78), biking advocacy (33), trail maintenance (21) and in marketing and publicity (14). Mountain bike riders who are not group members have shown that they are not willing to help in any mountain bike riding promotions in the

84

MFR. However, there are still people (18) who will help out despite their lack of affiliation (Figure 13).

Table 40. Willingness to help, promotion of riding and active membership in an MTB organization. BIKE ORGANIZATION MEMBER Yes, a member 21 14 (4) 78 (3) 33 (8) 3 1 No, not a member 3 6 (2) 5 (17) 4 (12) 0 0 (2) Total 24 20 (6) 83 (20) 37 (20) 3 1 (2) 169 385

PROMOTION OF MTB RIDING IN MFR Trail maintenance Marketing and publicity Event organization Biking advocacy Other I don't know No Answer

Total Legend: male (without parenthesis); female (with parenthesis)

DH groups like Downhill Riders Organization of the Philippines (DROP), Team Haooh, TBAC, and MTG have the most experience in trail building, and are very active in mobilizing members to help out. The rise of social media allowed these groups to reach members faster and also get public attention. Team Haooh, TBAC, and MTG have experience in running DH events and creating DH trails in various locations in Luzon (MTG has helped out in creating trails and races in Rizal with Team Haooh, TBAC has helped MTG in Laguna, and MTG has helped out TBAC in Batangas) and have leaned on each other for additional manpower in promotion by word of mouth and social media. And when race day comes, one will always expect a good representation of these groups racing against each other in friendly competition. Some DH riders like Bans and Tena

85

Mendoza have done training with the international governing body Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) in designing and building trails. The DH community will definitely welcome an institution like the MFR when the MFR would open its doors officially to mountain bikers due to their experience and passion to further improve the existing community. Table 41 shows the different associations of mountain bike preferences of the mountain bikers in the MFR. The mountain bike preferences show much greater variety, and have more variables cross tabulated. The variables with weak associations are the age class of the respondent with the primary reason for starting mountain biking (.138), primary reason for mountain biking and income (.176), primary use of the mountain bike and average household income (.148), primary use of the MTB with days allotted for riding (.163), the age of the respondent and the length of their biking experience (.172), the length of bike experience and the preferred bike discipline (.143), and the primary use of the mountain bike and gender (.118). There were also extremely weak associations such as the cost estimate of the MTB and gender (.093) and gender and length of bike experience (.071). The variables with moderately strong associations are bike configuration and average household income (.292), and the cost estimate of the MTB and average household income (.286). The income of a household has an effect on what mountain bike someone can get. A hardtail, cheaper to buy and run is a good choice for a family with a limited income that wants to ride mountain bikes. The average household income also has some effect to the cost of the mountain bike a mountain biker owns.

86

Table 41. Association of mountain biker preferences established through Cramrs V. CRAMERS V VALUE .438 .138 .176 .148 .292 .485 .454 .360 .265 .163 .618 .383 .507 .286 .093 .071 .172 .143 .118

CROSSTABULATED VARIABLES Primary reason to start & Primary use Age class of respondent & primary reason to start MTB Primary reason to start MTB & average household income Primary use of MTB & average household income Bike configuration & average household income Bike configuration & preferred MTB discipline Bike configuration & preferred race MTB race discipline Bike configuration & rider skill level Rider skill level & primary use of MTB Primary use of MTB & days allotted for riding Bike configuration & cost estimate of MTB Bike configuration & racing experience Bike costs & racing experience Cost estimate of MTB & Average household income Cost estimate of MTB & gender Gender & length of bike experience Age of respondent & length of bike experience Length of bike experience & preferred bike discipline Primary use of MTB & Gender

VERBAL DESCRIPTION Extremely strong association Weak association Weak association Weak association Moderately strong association Extremely strong association Extremely strong association Very strong association Moderately strong association Weak association Redundant Very strong association Redundant Moderately strong association Extremely weak association Extremely weak association Weak association Weak association Weak association

The variables with the strongest associations have the primary reason to start and primary reason to use MTB (.438), bike configuration and preferred MTB discipline (.485), bike configuration and preferred MTB race discipline (.454), bike configuration

87

and racing experience (.383), bike configuration and rider skill level (.360). The highest numbers come from the bike configuration and cost estimate of the MTB (.618) and the bike costs and racing experience (.507). Mountain Biking Preferences of MFR bikers

Mountain biking, with its various disciplines will have an impact on the people who ride. An XC rider may not have the same preferences as a DH rider; an AM rider may find XC a bit too boring and DH way over his head. Or a rider prefers to ride all MTB disciplines with no complaint. Here the samples preferences about mountain biking are tallied and analyzed.

Travelling to MTB Destinations by Mountain Bikers Travelling is synonymous with mountain biking. People ride their bicycles around places for various reasons, but a sense of adventure is evident when travelling by mountain bike. The respondents prefer to travel to various places (Table 42) to ride mountain bikes. The people who said no (30% of respondents) are actually living close to at least a few times in the last year. A number (6%) claimed they did mountain bike outside the area five or more times per month (City of Kelowna, 2007). These mountain Table 42. Travel to MTB destinations by mountain bikers. TRAVEL TO MTB DESTINATIONS YES NO No answer Total

FREQUENCY 226 117 42 385

PERCENT OF TOTAL 59 30 11 100

88

bikers tend to travel to destinations within half day to a day away from home or base for the majority of mountain bike trips, but will travel further for unique experiences or competitions (Tourism Tasmania, 2008).

Awareness of the MFR as MTB Destination to MFR Bikers

Mount Makiling is already known as a hiking destination, but with only one multi-use trail to speak of, it may not be a well known mountain biking spot. However it was surprisingly well known to people who ride mountain bikes, with 68% of people in the survey responding yes (Table 43).

Table 43. Awareness on the MFR as a mountain biking destination among mountain bikers. AWARENESS OF MFR AS MTB DESTINATION Aware of MFR Not aware of MFR No answer Total FREQUENCY 263 65 57 385 PERCENT OF TOTAL 68 17 15 100

When asked what the MFR needs to become a mountain biking destination, people answered that the MFR needs mountain biking centered events to boost its reputation (36%), while the next biggest group is saying that for the MFR to gain more recognition as a MTB destination, a trail network inside the MFR would suffice (29%). The presence of support structures like lodging took the third largest number of respondents (13%) (Table 44). The presence of a trail is crucial, as mountain bike riders will look for a place to ride their mountain bikes. For some, the Mariang Makiling Trail is

89

enough, but for the more serious mountain biker, the risks of accidents with non-bikers and hikers pose too high a risk for them to continue using the Mariang Makiling Trail. Table 44. Mountain bikers opinion on what the MFR needs to become a MTB destination. WHAT DOES MFR NEED TO BE A MTB DESTINATION Trail Network Support Structures Events Others I dont know No answer Total

FREQUENCY 110 48 138 16 12 57 385

PERCENT OF TOTAL 29 13 36 4 3 15 100

Over 80% of the respondents felt that the provision of bike facilities like trails was important or very important. Less than 2% of the respondents felt it was not important (City of Kelowna, 2007). Also, these riders expect a relatively high level of trail infrastructure and associated services at MTB destinations (Tourism Tasmania, 2008).

Opinions on Trail Hazards and Trail Sharing of MFR Bikers

Mountain biking is dangerous, especially in the DH and FR ends of the spectrum. Hazards are found in all kinds of trails, whether natural or man-made. Also, the concept of sharing trails has been a hot topic when it comes to outdoor recreation use, and various stakeholders are many times at odds with each other on who has the right of way.

90

When asked about trail hazards encountered in the Mariang Makiling Trail in the MFR, opinions were divided. Motorized vehicles were the most commonly observed hazard, with 27% considering motorized vehicles a hazard, the second most observed hazard in the Mariang Makiling Trail would be hikers (24%). But surprisingly, a good number of people were unaware (17%) to hazards in the Mariang Makiling Trail (Table 45) Interviews with the officer of the day at Station 1 show that despite the large speed difference between mountain bikers riding downhill and hikers, accidents between them were few and far between. There has been a long standing problem that fast moving mountain bikes are perceived as a safety hazard (Cessford, 1995) but in many cases, these are overestimated and are mainly caused by a few, reckless and isolated incidents (Cessford, 1995).

Table 45. Hazards encountered by mountain bikers in the Mariang Makiling Trail. HAZARDS IN THE MARIANG MAKILING TRAIL Hikers Motorized Vehicles Animals Others I dont know No answer Total

FREQUENCY 91 103 31 15 66 79 385

PERCENT OF TOTAL 24 27 8 4 17 20 100

In the Mariang Makiling Trail, which is multi-use, this trail user problem can surface and conflicts can occur. However, mountain bikers are very much open to share trails with non-mountain bikers (Table 46), be it with a code of conduct and etiquette (25%) or having non-mountain bike users free rein on the trails (25%).

91

Table 46. Opinions about trail sharing by mountain bikers in the Mariang Makiling Trail. TRAIL SHARING AMONGNON-MTB USERS Sharing OK Sharing OK but with rules and etiquette No sharing of trails I dont know No answer Total

FREQUENCY 132 98 12 26 117 385

PERCENT OF TOTAL 34 25 3 8 30 100.00

Table 47 shows the observed hazards by mountain bikers of different disciplines in the Mariang Makiling Trail in the MFR. XC riders say that motorized vehicles are the most common form of hazard found in the Mariang Makiling Trail. AM riders say that both hikers and animals are their most observed hazards. DH riders, because of the higher speeds the bikes and riders go, consider everything to be a hazard, and at times these riders dont particularly care what is in front of them.

Table 47. Riding discipline of MFR bikers and their observed hazards in the Mariang Makiling trail. HAZARDS IN MM TRAIL Hikers Motorized vehicles Animals Others I don't know No Answer TOTAL

PREFERRED BIKE DISCIPLINE XC 16 45 5 5 30 AM 16 7 14 3 11 DH/FR 13 12 2 10 15 Trials 0 0 0 1 2 DJ 0 1 0 0 1 Total 45 65 21 19 59 176 385

92

Opinions on New Trails and Trail Features

Trails are the most important feature of mountain biking. No trails mean that mountain bikers do not have a place to ride. Creation of trails is a major point of contention in countries where mountain biking is part of the outdoor recreation field, and trail builders, wanting more places where they and their colleagues can ride, have to resort to building trails in secret. Opening a new trail is always good news for mountain bikers, and when asked the question of whether the MFR will open mountain bike specific trails, the response was overwhelmingly positive (66%), though there were still some dissenters to the idea (12%) because they regard the MFR as a purely conservation area (Table 48), which is different from the contemporary view held by the MFR as mentioned in the Master Plan of 1996.

Table 48. Mountain bikers opinion on new MTB trails in the MFR. OPENING AN MTB TRAIL IN MFR YES NO No answer Total

FREQUENCY 255 47 83 302

PERCENT OF TOTAL 66 12 22 100

Related to the earlier question on what is needed in the MFR to become a MTB destination is the design of a trail and its related features. Most riders prefer natural settings to ride in, with a variety of features (Goeft and Alder, 2001) and the most common choice among mountain bikers in the sample are obstacles (34% of respondents) like slopes and curves (Table 49) be it natural or man-made. Having visible trail markers and signage (26% of respondents) were considered important, then water supplies coming

93

from springs. Water sources are third most wanted trait in an MTB trail in the MFR (12% of respondents). Table 49. Mountain bikers opinions on elements present in proposed MTB trail in MFR. WHAT FEATURES PRESENT IN TRAIL Trail Signage Water Sources Obstacles Others I dont know No answer Total

FREQUENCY 101 47 131 9 0 97 385

PERCENT OF TOTAL 26 12 34 3 0 25 100

Table 50. Type of mountain bikers with preferred trail features in proposed MFR MTB trail.

TRAIL FEATURES IN MFR Signage Watersource Obstacles Others I don't know No answer Total 38 15 51 2 1

PREFERRED BIKE DISCIPLINE XC 16 9 26 1 0 AM DH/FR 13 3 22 10 0 0 0 2 0 0 Trials 1 0 1 0 0 DJ Total 68 27 102 13 1 174 385

From Table 50, there is a unanimous choice for trail obstacles to be present in a MTB trail in the MFR. XC, AM, and DH riders all were in agreement that a trail needs a mix of either natural or man-made obstacles to make it interesting. Mt. Makilings naturally rugged terrain will definitely be a plus factor in creating natural obstacles for a trail to pass through and be a selling point for mountain bikers to visit. The response of

94

the bikers towards trail obstacles makes it non-negotiable. When the MFR opens a MTB trail inside its borders, the riders will expect trail obstacles, be it natural or man-made to be a major part. Trail signage would be another important feature as it is used to designate the trail itself. Accidents occur when people are in the wrong place at the wrong time due to carelessness; for example hikers mistake an unmarked trail for a hiking trail and suddenly encounter fast moving mountain bikes going downhill. Trail signs are also used to designate trail difficulty and potential danger areas like drops and steep sections, so it is another indispensible part of a future trail. Water sources would just be an option and a preference of riders, hence the low answers found on the survey.

Access to Trails, Exclusivity, and Fees As mentioned earlier, the mountain bikers found in the study are very open to sharing the trail openly with non-MTB users, meaning that the future MTB specific trail be not exclusive to just one particular specialization of mountain biking (63% of respondents). The respondents believe that one trail should be enjoyed by all forms of mountain bikers, be it XC, AM, or DH (Table 51). Table 51. Mountain bikers preference on trail exclusivity. EXCLUSIVITY OF TRAIL (XC-Only, DH-Only) YES, Trail should be exclusive NO, Trail should not be exclusive No answer Total

FREQUENCY 77 244 64 385

PERCENT OF TOTAL 20 63 17 100

95

Like skill level, willingness to pay for services is also a rather contentious topic. The Mariang Makiling Trail only charges five to ten pesos just to enter the MFR. But when a mountain bike specific trail charges a different rate compared to the old one, there will be a different response. In Table 52, the result was an even split, with the affirmative and negative comprising 41% each of the sample. For an MTB specific trail, 35% respondents prefer to pay in the price range below and between 99 pesos and 8% selecting to pay in the next price level range, from 100-199 Php. (Table 53). The respondents willingness to pay for MTB trail access was countered by the unwillingness (56%) to answer a prospective price range for a specific price for access fees. Table 52. Mountain bikers willingness to pay for trail access. WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR TRAIL ACCESS YES, will pay for access NO, will not pay No answer Total

FREQUENCY 159 156 70 385

PERCENT OF TOTAL 41 41 18 100

Table 53. Accepted price range on access fee for the MFR. ACCEPTED PRICE RANGE OF FEE 99- 99 Php 100-199 200-299 300 No Answer Total

FREQUENCY 134 29 4 1 217 385

PERCENT OF TOTAL 35 8 1 0 56 100

96

The price range in the willingness to pay questions may be too expensive for a lot of the bikers in the sample, it is likely that they are already well used to the extremely cheap access fees entering the MFR and anything higher than the current prices unacceptable. In Canada, access fees were also a point of contention, with most of the responses at the extreme ends of the continuum: Will not pay a fee and more than $40 (City of Kelowna, 2007). When it comes to paying for a year-long pass (Table 54), the negative holds a slight advantage (44%) over the affirmative (38%). When asked again on how much would be the acceptable price for a year-long pass, the majority of the people who said yes are willing to pay at a price range of 100-199 Pesos (18%), but it is noted that the distribution is more even compared to the decreasing amount of respondents per increase in price range, in addition 65% of the respondents did not answer the question (Table 55). This is related to the trends found in Table 52, where the majority of the riders who said they are willing to pay for access balk at a possible price range.

Table 54. Mountain bikers willingness to pay for a year-long pass for mountain bike riding in the MFR. WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR YEAR LONG PASS YES for year long pass NO for year long pass No Answer Total FREQUENCY 145 169 71 385

PERCENT OF TOTAL 38 44 18 100

97

Table 55. Price range for a year long pass for mountain biking in the MFR. PRICE RANGE OF YEAR LONG PASS 100-199 200-299 300-399 400-499 No Answer Total

FREQUENCY 69 31 12 22 251 385

PERCENT OF TOTAL 18 8 3 6 65 100

This shows the weakness of the Willingness To Pay (WTP) system, which is constrained by the persons wealth. A person with less wealth will be naturally biased towards the low end of the price range while a person with the ability to pay will have more options whether to pay more or pay less. As shown in Table 12 that the majority of the riders are earned in the region of 100,000-200,000 Php yearly, so despite their willingness they are just simply unable to pay that much for trail access. There is also the possibility that the positive response is a bluff or just posturing by the respondent. A manager should take findings from WTP carefully and should not rely too much on WTP alone. It is best used as a complement of other travel valuation techniques.

Facilities Desired by Mountain Bikers in the MFR Mountain bikers do not just go to an area just to ride bikes; what they do after the ride is also as important. Socialization, as mentioned earlier is a big part of mountain biking and that happens mostly in areas away from the trail (Table 56). In the sample the respondents preferred either food establishments (33%) or campsites (27%) as complementary facilities inside the MFR to enhance the riding experience. The MFR has all the desired facilities, the Makiling Rainforest Park is a campsite inside the MFR that

98

Table 56. Other facilities desired by mountain bikers in the MFR. OTHER DESIRED FACILITIES INSIDE MFR Hotel/ Accommodation Food establishments Campsites Social Areas Others Health services I dont know No answer Total FREQUENCY 12 125 104 15 8 30 2 89 385 PERCENT OF TOTAL 3 33 27 2 8 1 4 23 100

mountain bikers like, there are stores near the Rainforest Park to provide food and refreshments, if not the UPLB campus and nearby areas provide food. Social areas like bars and hangouts are found outside the campus but close enough to the MFR. Also, there are three hospitals in Los Baos and one inside the UPLB campus to handle emergencies.

Table 57. MFR awareness, travel to MTB destinations, and opinions on MFR requirements to be a MTB destination.

WHAT MFR NEEDS TO BE A MTB DESTINATION TRAVEL TO MTB DESTINATIONS Yes, travel done 80 (5) No, does not travel No Answer TOTAL LEGEND: YES, AWARE OF MFR (without parenthesis); NO, NOT AWARE OF MFR (with parenthesis) 16 (4) 26 7 (1) 63 (14) 21 (5) 12 1 (1) 7 (4) 2 (8) 7 (4) 2 (1) 195 49 94 385 trail network Support structures events others I don't affordability know of service Total

99

As shown in Table 57, people who travel to MTB destinations are well aware of the existence of the MFR (195). These people believed that in order for the MFR to be an MTB destination, a trail network (80) must be present, together with MTB related events (63) and other support structures (26). Mountain bikers who want the MFR to open a trail would allow trail sharing. For these people (46), they consider vehicles to be the biggest hazard going along (Figure 13). For people who would allow a trail but would have specific trail etiquette (76 total), the distribution is more towards hikers (22), vehicles (23) and unknown hazards (20). There are mountain bikers who would not like to open a trail (Figure 14); though these people are also willing to share, they consider animals to be biggest hazard (6).

Figure 13. Travel to MTB sites, awareness of MFR, and what MFR needs to be a MTB destination.

100

Figure 14. Opinions on opening a trail in the MFR with trail sharing and observed hazards in the Mariang Makiling Trail.

Table 58. Opinions about perceived hazards, trail sharing, and when MFR opens MTB trail.

HAZARDS IN MM TRAIL TRAIL SHARING IN MFR Sharing OK Sharing OK but with rules No sharing I don't know Total Hikers 12 (1) 22 (1) 2 3 (1) 39 Motorized I don't vehicles Animals Others know 48 (2) 24 0 0 (1) 72 6 (6) 8 0 0 14 2 (1) 5 1 (1) 2 (2) 10 32 (6) 20 (2) 3 6 (5) 61 Total 100 79 6 11 196 160

No Answer LEGEND: YES, MFR OPENS TRAIL (without parenthesis) NO MFR TRAIL (with parenthesis)

101

Figure 15. Opinions on the MFR not opening a trail in the MFR together with trail sharing and observed hazards.

Table 59 shows the association of trail exclusivity, the bikers willingness to pay for trail access, and the bikers preferred trail features. 248 people were able to answer all the three variables in the survey, and there are 54 people who will pay for access and make the trail exclusive, 11 who will not pay for access yet make the trail exclusive. The second part are the people who think a trail should not be exclusive to only one kind of mountain biking. 84 says that they will pay for a non exclusive trail, and 99 will not pay for a non exclusive trail.

102

Table 59. Association of trail exclusivity, willingness to pay for trail access, and trail features in potential MFR trail.

PAYMENT FOR TRAIL ACCESS TRAIL FEATURES IN MFR Signage Watersource Obstacles Others I dont know No Answer TOTAL LEGEND: YES, EXCLUSIVE TRAIL; (without parenthesis) NO, NON-EXCLUSIVE TRAIL; (with parenthesis) Yes, will pay 23 (31) 6 (18) 20 (28) 5 (7) 5 (5) No, will not pay 4 (16) 0 (9) 7 (71) 0 (2) 2 (3) Total 27 (47) 6 (27) 27 (99) 5 (9) 7 (8) 137 385

Mountain bikers who want an exclusive trail, with features is generally open for access fees (Figure 16). These mountain bikers prefer trail signs (23) and obstacles (20). People who chose not to pay but want the trail to be exclusive want obstacles (7) and signages (4). In Figure 17, mountain bike riders who do not want the trail to be exclusive mainly want obstacles, and at the same time, do not want to pay for this trail feature (71) For people who paying an access fee is acceptable, they would pay for trail signs (31). This can lead to a situation called as the Tragedy of the Commons, where an open and free resource would be overused and abused that it can no longer sustain the population. Bike trails have their limits to limit erosion and damage; a manager must know how to fine tune the accessibility and technical limits of a trail.

103

Figure 16. Opinions on Trail exclusivity, trail features and payment for access towards personal data of mountain bikers.

Figure 17. Opinions on the non-exclusivity of trail, willingness to pay, and trail features.

104

People who chose to pay for a year pass and people who chose not to pay for one have the same preference to a non-MTB related facility in the MFR (Figure 16). Both parties prefer food establishments like restaurants and eateries. People who dont like to pay for a year pass have a preference for campsites (73) (Table 60). Table 61 is about the association of the different mountain biking preferences of the different mountain bikers in the MFR. Using cross tabulation, the variables Cramrs V value was taken. The variables with the weakest associations are the following: bike organization membership and promotion of MTB riding in the MFR (.122), the preferred MTB discipline and preferred trail feature (.184), traveling to MTB destinations and the bikers opinions on what the MFR needs to be a MTB destination (.153), Trail exclusivity and desired trail features (.179). The variables with a moderate level of association are: awareness of the MFR and traveling to MTB destinations (.208), the case of the MFR opening a trail and observed trail hazards in the Mariang Makiling Trail (.214), and trail sharing cross tabulated with observed trail hazards in the Mariang Makiling Trail (.246). There are variables when crosstabulated show strong association. The strongest association is the crosstabulation of bike organization membership and willingness to help in trail building and maintenance (.603). A bike organization member is highly likely to help in trail building efforts, and a manager must be able to establish links with mountain bike clubs and organizations to enlist willing partners in trail building. The next strongest association is the crosstabulation of awareness of the MFR and what does the MFR need to become a MTB destination (.371). The people who ride the Mariang

105

Table 60. Association for Willingness to Pay for a year pass and other facilities in MFR.

PAYMENT FOR YEAR PASS Hotel Yes, will pay for year pass No, will not pay for year pass No Answer TOTAL

OTHER FACILITIES DESIRED IN MFR

Food est. Campsites Others Health Dont Social TOTAL area know

52

27

15

119

70

73

12

163 103 385

Figure 18. WTP for a year pass and other non-MTB facilities in the MFR.

106

Table 61. Association of Mountain Bikers Social Network and Mountain Biking Preferences through Cramers V.

CROSSTABULATED VARIABLES Bike org membership & willingness to help in trails Bike org membership & promotion of MTB in MFR Promotion of riding in MFR & willingness to help in trails Preferred MTB discipline & preferred trail features Awareness of MFR & travel to MTB destinations Awareness of MFR & MFR requirements to be a MTB destination Travel to MTB destinations & MFR requirement Trail sharing & MFR opens a trail MFR opens trail & trail hazards in MM Trail Trail sharing & Trail hazards in MM Trail Trail exclusivity & WTP for trail access Trail exclusivity & trail features WTP for trail & trail features WTP for year pass & other MFR facilities

CRAMERS V VALUE .603 .122 .281 .184 .208 .371 .153 .311 .214 .246 .344 .179 .360 .321

VERBAL DESCRIPTION Redundant Weak association Moderately strong association Weak association Moderate association Very strong association Weak association Strong association Moderate association Moderate association Strong association Weak association Very strong association Strong association

Makiling Trail have their own opinions on the trail itself: some might think the Mariang Makiling Trail is enough, and some would think that while the Mariang Makiling Trail is acceptable, an MTB-specific trail or trail network would be very desirable for safety and enjoyment. A mountain bikers awareness of the MFR as a destination to ride mountain bikes is a first step in recognizing what potential the MFR has for mountain bikers and for mountain biking. Willingness to Pay for trail access and the desired trail features for a future MTB trail also showed a strong association (.360) though the WTP method is

107

flawed, a mountain biker who decides to pay for trail access will be expecting some form of service and facility in return to the money they paid. People who do not pay for something must also expect nothing in return. Trail exclusivity and willingness to pay for trail access showed a strong association (.344) as well. A mountain biker who pays any amount for a trail is in a way, making a line of exclusion towards people who cannot or will not pay. A mountain biker can also choose to become more generous, choosing the lowest levels of the price range in a WTP question to become more accommodating, while another mountain biker may choose the upper limits of the price range to exclude people, meaning that this person is not particularly willing to share trail access and usage by virtue of setting the bar high enough so that a few people can reach it, hence the strong association of the two. The last is the association of trail sharing and the MFR opening a MTB trail in the future (.311). MFR mountain bikers are unanimous in their opinion that the MFR should open a MTB-specific trail in the near future to supplement or replace the multi-use Mariang Makiling trail. And since people who ride the Mariang Makiling Trail have experienced how to share the trail to other trail users, they are also willing to give back. After using the mountain biker survey and tabulating the data through crosstabulation and deriving the Cramrs V, the study was able to identify the current trends of mountain biking present in the MFR, and the level of interest the mountain biking community towards mountain biking in the MFR. The survey showed that for the MFR to become known as a mountain biking destination in addition to the other ecotourism and outdoor recreation activities present, the MFR must also be in tune to the needs of the mountain bikers. Though some bikers might say the Mariang Makiling Trail

108

is enough for mountain biking, there are a good number of mountain bikers who crave more challenges. The survey also learned that mountain bikers who banded together to form organizations and clubs are very willing partners in trail design, construction, and maintenance as well as providing a steady flow of visitors. Mountain bikers are aware of the MFR thanks to personal experience, or through their fellow bikers. The advent of social media also increased awareness of the MFR and made promotion of the MFR easier for many mountain bikers. The same mountain bikers are also capable of using these forms of media to promote the MFR. The MFR however, has not been as responsive to the mountain biker as the mountain biker is responsive to the MFR. The Mariang Makiling Trail, though liked by the bikers has been paved in December 2012, removing the rough road that mountain bikers prefer to run. With that, the MFR is woefully unequipped and unprepared for mountain biking. Mountain bikers are unanimous in their demand for a new trail to be built inside the MFR and have shown to be willing to pay for trail access, exclusivity, and specific trail features like signages and obstacles. The mountain bikers also would like some other features and facilities like food establishments to add to the MFR mountain biking experience. The MFR Master Plan of 1996 also calls for development of ecotourism and outdoor recreation as a part of the Botanic Gardens, Parks, and Recreation Development Program. The Master Plan also stated that one of its goals is to provide recreation facilities and ecotourism opportunities to the public. The MFR has a legal right to develop and explore new opportunities for ecotourism and outdoor recreation, and mountain biking is also part of that equation.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION To create a profile of mountain bikers that travel to the MFR and determine the interest level of the mountain bikers, purposive sampling was used in the form of a mountain biker survey. The answers of the mountain bikers were analyzed using descriptive statistics, primarily cross tabulation and using Cramrs V from the obtained primary data from the mountain bikers to know the possible association between or among the variables. Secondary data collection from known sources and key informant interviews from personnel from the MCME were conducted. The Mountain Biker Profile From the survey, the mountain biker are predominantly male, 21-40 years old, mostly earning 100,000-400,000 Php range, with at least a college education and lives in a household with a family. The typical mountain biker has at most 5 years of

experience, rides XC at least 2 times a week, and is usually a beginner with little or no racing experience. The mountain bike that they own and use is directly related to their income and is usually a hardtail. The typical mountain biker primarily rides for exercise and for fun, and is likely to be a member of a mountain biking group or organization. The mountain biker is well aware of the MFR as a mountain biking destination and is willing to travel to the MFR to ride, and is very positive on opening a new trail for them to ride on, as well as help out in promoting it to fellow bikers. The mountain biker is capable of paying the MFR for access to a MTB specific trail, but not all are willing.

110

The Mount Makiling Forest Reserve A lack of personnel, funding, and knowledge about the mountain bikers save for the rogue bikers and the Maquiling Quest, the MFR has not done much to entice new bikers to the MFR. However, the MFR is not hindering mountain bikers to enter its slopes. The MFR is in a state of inertia when it comes to mountain biking. But in the recent past, the MFR may lose its mountain biking patrons; because he Mariang Makiling Trail, the main thoroughfare for mountain biking in the MFR is no longer an enjoyable mountain bike trail, as the road surface changed dramatically after December 2012. Because the trail that made the MFR an attractive enough destination for mountain bikers was removed, and there is no plan to accommodate MTB riding by opening up a trail, the MFR risks losing its already existing clients and potential mountain bike riding clients. The Maquiling Quest is a start, but the description for it is an adventure race, not a mountain bike related event. The MFR is not a hindrance to mountain bikers and mountain biking, but its inaction is not helping its cause to the former. The existing partnerships of the MFR, MBG and the MCME are to be retained, and a lot of mountain bikers are in the professional working class, can be used to tap corporate sponsorship and support for mountain biking centered projects To open new doors for corporate backing, the right people must be found, and the MFR will provide the start towards new working relationships with the corporate sector through means of mountain biking. Mountain biking and the MFR has a good deal of compatibility with each other but in this case, the MFR comes up wanting because of different factors: a lack of staffing, resources, and knowledge about mountain biking will keep the growing number of mountain bikers alienated; just looking at the MFR as just another mountain

111

because there is little attention paid to them, or they would reinforce the rogue image that the MFR has them by creating illegal trails inside the area. The study proved that these various mountain bike groups and riders are willing to talk and are willing to work with the MFR or any organization as long as they get a place for mountain bikers to ride on. Using Cramrs V test for association, the study found that mountain bikers, especially ones who are members of clubs and organizations are willing to help in trail building and maintenance. Mountain bikers are also well aware of the MFR as a mountain biking destination and are also willing to promote it through events, competitions, and trail work. Mountain bikers in the MFR demand first and foremost a trail or a trail network that has specific features like obstacles and signs. The mountain bikers of the MFR have shown to be willing to pay for trail access, as long as the prices are reasonable and they get their moneys worth in the form of the trail and the auxiliary facilities like campsites and food establishments. The money paid to the MFR for trail access can also go to trail features and additional facilities. The MFR is not well equipped and well prepared for mountain biking as of the moment, mainly because the only route for mountain bikers, the Mariang Makiling Trail, was paved in December 2012. Auxiliary facilities that can also serve mountain bikers are quite in abundance both in the MFR and outside, but for the MFR to also be considered a mountain biking destination the MFR must have its own dedicated MTB-specific trail or trail network.

112

Recommended Strategies To provide a mountain biking product which is in tune with the existing policy on creating a quality ecotourism and outdoor recreation product for the general population as mentioned in the Master Plan of 1996, the MFR should create a specific Mountain Bike Strategy with inputs and involvement from the various stakeholders, partners and the local mountain bike community. This strategy lists several components: Policy Creation

The MFR currently has no policies when it comes to mountain bikes, so it is recommended that new policies that are geared towards mountain bikes are created. A well thought out set of policies should be created so that when the MFR would determine a new mountain bike centered strategy, the transition would be smooth. This future strategy should also be done with inputs from the various stakeholders, partners, and the local mountain biking communities. Policies about trail access, riding etiquette, and a self-policed speed limits on certain sections of trail should be considered.

Trail Creation Despite the lack of a mountain bike specific trail, mountain bikers are still coming to the MFR to ride. The MFR, with its use of a specific mountain bike strategy, will help provide for its mountain biking visitors by creating mountain bike facilities for riders of various skill levels to provide a venue of natural progression as riders mature and their interest changes. A sanctioned mountain bike trail or trail network also accomplishes many objectives at once, including sustainability and protection of large natural areas,

113

promoting active communities, and providing facilities for all trail user groups. By also providing a place to ride for mountain bikers, the chances for rogue facilities also lessen. Utilize the bikers ability to help, and provide incentives for people who help in periodic maintenance and building. The International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) has several guides on building bike trails of various styles and disciplines. Some riders actually have done training from IMBA. Once the MFR makes its intentions felt, people will help out, as mentioned in the study. Office Specialization The Botanic Gardens, Parks, and Ecotourism division is the right office in the MFR to handle mountain biking, and to enact the mountain biking strategy, the office needs to assign people to handle mountain biking, specifically people who are knowledgeable about mountain biking and who has contacts with mountain bike groups so that the mobilization would be easier. The people assigned will handle the operation of the bike trail or trails, do periodic maintenance, and are on standby for emergencies. A bike patrol with a cellular phone and/or a two way radio will be used to get rapid response for emergencies. The bike patrol will also determine if the trail is rideable for the day, especially after heavy rains and typhoons. Another part is at least a part time trail building and maintenance crew, preferably with training and supervision from IMBA. Increasing Awareness Mountain bikers already have some awareness of the MFR as a mountain biking destination, it is imperative that the MFR also reach those people who are unaware. The Maquiling Quest, though using mountain bikes is not billed as a mountain biking event

114

but as an adventure race. A Makiling MTB Festival using trails in and around the MFR is a good way to let more people know that the MFR itself is spearheading the movement to provide for mountain bikers. The mountain biking communities will definitely appreciate the initiative done by a government institution no less, to mobilize and inspire mountain bikers not just to have fun, but also to teach them the value of the environment. Bike Clinics and advocacy rides share the same goal. Mountain biking organizations and clubs already have a distinct social network, and tapping these networks is key to increase awareness of the MFR and further. Use mountain biking as a way to not just attract mountain bikers but to also other outdoor recreationists. Creating an Active Partnership with Mountain Bikers The MFR and mountain bikers need to work together to establish common ground to make the planning process for making a mountain bike specific amenity in the MFR smooth and direct. The focus should now be on not just opening a trail for the mountain bikers benefit, but also to develop an appreciation to the environment through the use of mountain biking. Instead of just being trail users, the MFR should also look at mountain bikers as partners in promoting the other roles of the MFR. A partnership will also make maintenance of the trails easier, as proven earlier; mountain bike groups are easily mobilized to do trail creation, maintenance, promotion and other related things. Bike shops are also high on the list of cooperation, as bikers would convene in bike shops. Bike shops are also good sources of secondary information as well as an information dissemination area.

115

Improve Existing Facilities in the MFR The Mariang Makiling Trail in its current form is inadequate for a mountain bike trail by local mountain bikers. However, the facilities already present before the Mariang Makiling Trail was paved can be upgraded and improved, like bike parking. Local Government Intervention The Local Government Units should also be recruited to help in planning and development of a mountain bike centered product in the MFR. In places where mountain biking is a part of the lifestyle of the populace, like in British Columbia in Canada, the local leaderships of cities are actively creating state owned bike parks or operating those in conjunction with private entities. This not also raises the profile of the city as a mountain bike destination, it also earns the city or town revenue.

LITERATURE CITED AMERICANTRAILS.ORG, 2012: Economic Benefits of Trail Tourism. March 2013. http://www.americantrails.org/resources/economics/ AMICI DESIGN, 1999. FAT TIRE: A CELEBRATION OF THE MOUNTAIN BIKE. Chronicle Books; 1st edition. ISBN: 0811819825 pp. 144 BERTO, F. 1998. THE BIRTH OF DIRT: ORIGINS OF MOUNTAIN BIKING. Van der Plas Publications / Cycle Publishing; 2nd Edition, ISBN: 1892495619, pp.128 BAGADION, B.C. JR., 1999.BENDING THE WIND: lessons from Mt. Makiling. Asian Institute of Management. ISBN 917-679-046-5. pp. 130. BUKENYA, J.O.2012.:from the Pearl of Africa. Natural Resource Economics Program, West Virginia University, WV.CDM-SSC-PDD, 2007. CERENO, R.P. 2010. Lecture notes in NRC 232. CESSFORD, G. 1995. Offroad Impacts of Mountain Biking. A Review and Discussion Science & Research Series No.92. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand CESSFORD, G. 2002. Perception and Reality of Conflict: Walkers and Mountain Bikes on the Queen Charlotte Track in New Zealand. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand CITY OF KELOWNA, REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL OKANAGAN AND BC PARKS. 2007. Mountain Bike Community Profile. CRANE, N. and KELLY, C. 1988. Richards Mountain Bike Book. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0946609780 Pp. 192 FIX,P. and LOOMIS, J. 1998. The Economic Benefits of Mountain Biking at one of its Meccas: An Application of the Travel Cost Method to Mountain Biking in Moab, Utah. Colorado State University Colorado. GOEFT, U. and ALDER, J. 2001. Sustainable Mountain Biking: A Case Study from the Southwest of Western Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol.9 No.3. GREEN, D. 2003. Travel Patterns of Destination: Mountain Bikers. Internet Article. Ride the Shore Tours Inc. GRIFFITH, S. 2010. Off Road Origins. Rough Stuff Fellowship KALISZEWSKI, N. 2010. The Jackson Hole Trails Project Economic Impact Study.

117

Masters Thesis. University of Wyoming. Pp. 47 LAPITAN, P.G., FERNANDO, E.S., SUH, M.H., FUENTES, R.U., SHIN, Y.K., PAMPOLINA, N.M.,CASTILLO, M.L, CERENO, R.P., LEE, HAN, S., CHOI, T.B., and LEE, D.K.2010. Biodiversity and Natural Resources Conservation in Protected Areas of Korea and The Philippines. ASEAN-Korea Environmental Cooperation Unit. LOPES, B. and MCCORMACK, M. 2010. Mastering Mountain Bike Skills, 2nd Edition. USA. Human Kinetics: pp.264 MCDILL M., SILVA G., FINLEY J. and KAYS J.,1999.Promoting Ecotourism on Private Lands: Final Project Report. Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development The Pennsylvania State University. MOREY, E.R., BUCHANAN, T. and WALDMAN, D. 2002. Estimating the benefits and costs to mountain bikers of changes in trail characteristics, access fees, and site closures: choice experiments and benefits transfer. Journal of Environmental Management, 64:411-422. NATIONAL ECOTOURISM STEERING COMMITTEE. 2002. National Ecotourism Strategy. Philippines. PAGLIA,S. 2011. External Review of the Mt. Makiling Master Plan for Conservation and Development. United States Peace Corps. Pp. 128 PALYS,T. Undated. Purposive Sampling. Internet article. Simon Fraser University. RAHMAN, M.A. 2010.Appliocation of GIS in Ecotourism Development: A case study in Sundarbans, Bangladesh. MS. Thesis Mid-Sweden Univ. SPRUNG, G. 2004. Natural Resource Impacts of Mountain Biking: A summary of scientific Studies that compare mountain biking to other forms of trail travel. Trail Solutions: IMBAs Guide to Building Sweet Singletrack. Pp.273 THOMPSON, W. and HICKEY, J.2005. Society in Focus. Boston, MA: Pearson TOURISM BRITISH COLUMBIA. 2009. Cycling and Mountain Biking Product Overview. TOURISM TASMANIA. 2008. Mountain Bike Tourism Market Profile for Tasmania. Inspiring Place Pty Ltd Environmental Planning, Landscape Architecture, Tourism & Recreation 208 Collins St Hobart TAS 7000. Pp. 57 UPLB, 1996. Master Plan for Mt. Makiling Conservation and Development: Main Report.Pp 170

LIST OF ACRONYMS AM ASEAN BMX CALABARZON DH ERSG All-Mountain Association of South East Asian Nations Bicycle Motocross Cavite-Laguna-BatangasQuezon region Downhill racing Environmental Remote Sensing and Geoinformatics Laboratory Freeride Gross Domestic Product Geographic System Information

FR GDP GIS IMBA MCME MFR MTB TREES

International Mountain Bicycling Association Makiling Center Mountain Ecosystems for

The Mount Makiling Forest Reserve Mountain Bike Training Center for Tropical Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability Union Cycliste Internationale University of the Philippines Los Baos Cross-Country

UCI UPLB XC

119

APPENDIX I

Good day! I am Paolo S. Mendioro, a MS Natural Resource Conservation student currently studying in the University of the Philippines at Los Baos. I am doing my Masters Thesis entitled Potentials and Challenges of Mountain Biking as an Ecotourism Activity in the Mount Makiling Forest Reserve. One part of my thesis is to make a Mountain Bikers survey to get some relevant information regarding mountain bikers and mountain biking. Please answer as truthfully as you can. All answers will be considered confidential. Thank you very much for your cooperation. If you wish, you can answer the survey via email: paolothreezero@gmail.com or paoloxpaolo@yahoo.com. Thank you very much for your cooperation. SURVEY (Please encircle all answers) I. Personal Information Name: Age: Gender: Marital status: Address: Highest educational attainment: Elementary High School Occupation:__________________ What is your average yearly household income (in Php)? >100,000-200,000 200,000-400,000 400,000- 600,000 600,000- 900,000 >900,000 II. Mountain Bike preferences and experience Length of MTB Experience: ________________________________________________ Preferred discipline (multiple choices OK): XC AM DH/FR Trials DJ College Post-Graduate Single Married

Do you own multiple bikes: If yes, how many: _____________

YES

NO

120

Do you also have a road bike: Racing/Competition Experience:

YES YES

NO NO

If yes, how many times/years competing: ______________________________________ What would you think your current skill level is: Beginner Novice Advanced Dont know Favored MTB racing/competition discipline: XC race DH How many days do you ride in a week: 1 2 3 4 5 4X/DS Enduro 6 7 DJ

What is the primary use of your mountain bike: Hobby Sport Exercise Other Dont know Do you have a Hardtail or Full Suspension bike: Hardtail Full Suspension

Estimated cost/s of your MTB/s: <10,000-20,000 Php. 20,000-40,000 Php. 40,000- 60,000 Php. 60,000-100,000 Php. >100,000 Php How many months/years did you have your current MTB: <6 months 7mos- 1 year 1-2 years >2 years What is your reason to start MTB riding: Exercise/Health Hobby Competition Peer influence Other:___________ Dont know

III. Social networks Are you a member of a MTB club/association/organization: If YES, what is the name of your group: Does your club organize MTB-related events? If yes, please list the title of the event and/or type of competition. 1. 2. 3. Will your MTB group be able to assist in trail building and maintenance? YES How will you or your MTB-oriented group promote MTB riding in Mt Makiling? Trail maintenance/building Event organization Biking Advocacy NO YES NO

121

Marketing and Publicity

Other:____________

Dont know

IV. Mountain Bike Riding Preferences Do you have to travel to a certain area just to ride mountain bikes? YES NO

If YES, please list down some of your favored riding areas (regardless of distance) 1. 2. 3. YES NO 4.

Are you aware of Mt Makiling as a MTB destination?

In your opinion, what does Mt Makiling need to do to be a MTB destination? Trail network and access rides, etc) Affordability of services Support structures (lodging, etc) Other:______________________ Events (races, fun Dont know

When you ride in the Mariang Makiling Trail, what are the hazards that you encounter? Hikers Motorized vehicles Animals Other:_____________ Dont know

What do you think of sharing trail usage with non- MTB users? Sharing OK Sharing OK, but with rules and etiquette No Sharing of trails Dont know Do you like to open a MTB-specific trail/s inside the Mount Makiling Forest Reserve? YES NO

If YES, what facilities/features do you think that this MTB- specific trail/s should have? Trail Signage Water sources Other:________ Dont know Obstacles (natural & man-made)

Is this trail/s only for a specific group for mountain biking (XC-only, DH-only) YES NO

Are you amenable to access fees when you want to use the trail/s and related facilities? YES NO

122

If YES, what price range would you prefer: <99- 99PHP >300PHP

100-199PHP 200-299PHP

Would you prefer a year-long (or multiple year) season pass for trail access? YES NO If YES, what price range would you prefer: 100-199 PHP 200-299 PHP 300-399PHP 400-499PHP How will you or your MTB-oriented group promote MTB riding in Mt Makiling? Trail maintenance/building Marketing and Publicity Event organization Other:____________ Biking Advocacy Dont know

What other facilities not necessarily related to mountain biking would you like to see in Mt. Makiling? Hotel/Accommodation Social areas (Bars, etc.) Food establishments Campsite Health services Dont know

Other:____________

123

APPENDIX II

LIST OF MTB ORGANIZATIONS/CLUBS/TEAMS DH Crew Team Groundzero Makiling Team Gravity (MTG) VMobile Elbi Bikers STK Pakil Turumba Bikers Club LSGH 99 Downhill Riders Organization of the Team Haooh Philippines (DROP) Team Los Baos Team Antipolo Green Planet Team Batibols Bikers/One Ilocos La Trenchera Alaminos Biker Mice Club Quezon Bikers Team SCOM Sunpower Bikers Boondatz Padyak Elbi PMTB IRRI Bikers Antenna MTBikers Sabak Bikeshop John Wilkie Tanauan Biking Adventure Club (TBAC) UPLB Vultures Alaminos Cycling Team (ACTC) Kulas.com 43Bikes Team Endless Racing PBAR Leon Arcillas Bikers MAKBOYS Isuzu DMAX Prima Cycling Team Papis Ride/Faren Masigasig Bikers Dirt Bros. Executive Offroad Racing Association DIRT-TEK Fat Tyre Kalayaan Bikers Club (KBC) Sampaloc Bikers Club Team EXO

124

APPENDIX III

LIST OF EVENTS DONE BY MTB GROUPS/ORGANIZATIONS Nuvali Dirt Weekend Philippine Bike Adventure Race MTG Big Daddy Cup Takbo at Padyak Para sa Project Shoebox Fast din Kami DH race Executive XC race DROP National Downhill series Fun Ride with Tree planting and feeding 20:20 DH Fun races Pakil-Caliraya XC race I-On Mountain Bike Challenge Bike 4 Elections Quezon Extreme DH Lagunos DH Challenge Sinnalugan @ Sapat APEC XC race st 1 Allan Purisima Cup Mag Bike Tayo- Camp Aguinaldo The Battle Ground Jailhouse Rock DH Padyak Elbi Antenna DH race Ycad-100km Bike Clinic for kids XC @ LB Padyak PWU LaLaguna Baloc All Mountain Race Escudero Cup Mt. Banoy DH race XC Race Alaminos Tour de Bonpen

125

APPENDIX IV

LIST OF POPULAR DESTINATIONS LAGUNA Caliraya UPLB Nuvali San Antonio, Kalayaan Bugarin Hidden Valley Tayak Hill, Rizal QUEZON Lucban Padre Burgos Dolores Lucena RIZAL Patiis Antenna Angono Timberland Tanay Taytay San Mateo MINDANAO Cagayan de Oro Davao Gen. Santos City Iligan NORTHERN LUZON Baguio Laoag Pangasinan Bataan La Union Batac

Binangonan Montalban BATANGAS Tanauan Lagunos, Santo Tomas Lipa Balete San Juan Banoy, Batangas City Laiya CAVITE Tagaytay Alfonso Hamilo Coast Silang PAMPANGA ZAMBALES Subic BICOL REGION Iriga Sorsogon METRO MANILA Fort Bonifacio Camp Aguinaldo McKinley Marikina Filinvest VISAYAS Ormoc Iloilo OVERSEAS California, USA

La Mesa Ecopark

APPENDIX V

126