Understanding the role of traditional and user-created recreation data in the cumulative footprint of recreation

Outdoor recreation is becoming more popular globally. However, recreation can contribute to biodiversity loss by modifying habitats and disturbing species. Understanding what activities are happening and where is crucial for mitigating negative impacts but is hampered by information gaps on patterns of human use, including the spatial footprint of recreation. Data on recreation trails and linear features traditionally have been managed in centralized government databases. Social media and user-created content, however, largely has been unexplored for tracking recreation patterns across large spatial extents, which is needed for landscape-level conservation (i. e., beyond a single protected area), planning, and management that meets the needs of people and wildlife. We compiled recreation data from government (documented) and non-government (undocumented) databases for motorized and non-motorized recreation in western Canada. Of all the trails mapped, 73% were classified as documented whereas 27% were undocumented. For undocumented trails, the primary data source was Open Street Maps, which is the basis for many recreation smartphone applications. Most undocumented trails had unknown activity types, indicating a lack of information in government databases about where recreation occurs, and which type(s) of activity occur there. Modeling revealed an increased probability of a trail being undocumented as elevation increased and the distance to nearest road decreased. Our results indicate that including data from user-created sources can improve estimates of the recreation human footprint. Management implications: -Over 51% of trails and linear features were primarily used for motorized activities. This calls for better land-use planning to ensure high quality recreation experiences. -27% of our trail data originated from non-government data sources, primarily Open Street Maps. Undocumented trails were similarly likely to occur in protected areas (PA), as compared to unprotected areas. Better monitoring of the recreation footprint is required, inside and outside PAs, and data quality control methods implemented. -Likely, the situation will require a large-scale effort to centralize trail data, such as we have done here, strategically plan when and where recreation should occur, and educate user groups to mitigate ecological and wildlife effects.