The need for practical work to prevent erosion of upland paths and protect the upland landscape has now been accepted by most organisations who have an interest in the uplands. During the 1980s, there was controversy about the need for any form of path work in the mountains and moorlands. The controversy was centred around the following three questions.
- Will improving the path cause the rate of use to increase?
- Will improving the path change the type of use, and in particular tempt ill-equipped or inexperienced walkers to venture further up the mountain than they can safely cope with?
- Will the improvements mar the appearance of the hillside, and the experience of being in a ‘wild’ landscape?
To answer these three questions:
Improving the path may increase the number of people who use it. However, the presence or absence of car parks, information centres, guide books, leaflets and other publicity are likely to be much more important factors than the physical state of the path. During the 1980s, many well- publicised paths such as sections of the Pennine Way, Lyke Wake Walk, and parts of the ascents up peaks in the National Parks became so eroded that major damage was occurring far beyond the original margins of the path. In Scotland, the provision of a car park and information centre at Ben Lawers, Tayside, was the trigger which greatly increased the rate of use and erosion of the path up the mountain. Erosion and bad walking conditions do not deter walkers, and action has to be taken to contain trampling in order to protect the landscape.
Will improvements tempt the ill equipped? Possibly, but it is the case that hundreds of ill equipped people already climb mountains, as shown by the numbers who reach the summits of Ben Nevis or Helvellyn unsuitably clothed and unprepared for changes in the weather. This is the opportunity to make positive improvements, by proper management of the path so that it can cater for the number wishing to climb it, and by education and information to encourage the public to be properly prepared and to treat the mountains with respect.
On the initial stages of mountain paths, any natural features which may be a barrier to some walkers, such as stream crossings or rock scrambles, can be retained to give walkers an idea of the conditions to be encountered further up the mountain. The aim of upland path improvements are not to make access easier, but to allow those people with the proper equipment and skills to walk in the mountains and moorlands without causing further erosion. Whilst retaining the legal requirement to sign rights of way from junctions with roads, another technique is to not improve the path surface on the first section which is within view of a road or car park, so that casual passers-by are not tempted to start along the path.
The actions of organised groups have a great impact, as they not only converge on the familiar places, but reinforce the popularity of certain paths as group members return on family visits, or even return years later when they themselves are group leaders. To explore lesser known, if less spectacular paths would be more of a challenge, and less environmentally damaging. Sponsored and other mass walks have been extremely damaging, especially when they coincide with a spell of wet weather. The single passing of a large group of walkers in wet conditions can cause failure and erosion of a fragile slope, or make lines of trampling in wet peat that may be visible for years.
There are several points relevant to the question of the marring of a wild landscape:
- An eroded path is already a scar in a wild landscape, and is itself a focus of further erosion as water is diverted to flow down the eroded path. Even in the absence of trampling, erosion scars on upland slopes will not repair themselves, as soil making processes and vegetation growth are slow in the extreme conditions and short growing season of mountain areas.
- The designs in this handbook recommend the use of natural materials and labour intensive methods which blend with the landscape. The landscape of Britain is not a wild one, it is semi-natural, and similar types of work done in previous centuries are now an admired part of it. There is no reason why 20th Century improvements should not likewise mellow with time. In the past, when paths and tracks were the main means of communication, they were regularly maintained by ‘lengthsmen’. Regular maintenance and small-scale ‘stitch in time’ improvements should also be the approach for today, instead of large-scale one-off projects, often done too late.
- The days when one could walk alone through the now popular peaks of upland Britain are probably gone. The people who lament those days perhaps also lament all the other changes brought about by car-ownership, motorways and five day working weeks. It is worth remembering Nan Fairbrother ’s description in ‘New Lives, New Landscapes’ of the Lake District just before World War II, which is one of thanks, not lament, “… how lucky we were to coincide with the tiny span of social history when such conditions existed: a generation before we should never have reached the hills as playground, a generation on and everyone will be there.” And so they are.
From its early development in the late 1970s, mainly by volunteers, path and erosion control work has developed into a skilled craft employing a small but significant number of people full-time. The need for upland path repair was accepted in 1990 by the British Mountaineering Council in their Policy and Guidelines on the Repair and Maintenance of Upland Footpaths. This led to the founding of a new charity, the British Upland Footpath Trust (BUFT), which was a joint initiative between the British Mountaineering Council, the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, the Ramblers’ Association and the trade body Camping and Outdoor Leisure Association. The aim of the charity is ‘to improve the quality and standard of footpath works and maintenance in the uplands by raising funds and grant aiding footpath schemes which observe and satisfy the terms of the Upland Footpath Policy’.
The Upland Footpath Policy is as follows. ‘BUFT is concerned by the visual intrusion and environmental damage caused by some path maintenance. However, BUFT supports the repair and maintenance of footpaths in open country, subject to the following considerations:
- That the repairs are necessary
- Works should be of a high standard of design and implementation, using local materials where possible and carried out on a scale appropriate to users on foot.
- Techniques used should protect existing vegetation and normally only locally occurring plant species should be used in restoration.
- The more remote the path, the more stringently the criteria for the path repairs should be applied.
- Repaired footpaths should be fit for the intended purpose; in particular steps should be avoided if at all possible and surfaces should not be of a type that would lead unprepared or ill-equipped users into danger.
BUFT does not support the use of waymarks, cairns or other intrusive features other than those traditionally established on summits and path junctions.
BUFT urges the sustained commitment of resources to path management so that small scale, continuous maintenance can replace infrequent major repairs as the normal method of path management.’
In their first full year of operation, BUFT was able to commit spending of £110,000 to four path restoration schemes. Partly in recognition of the fact that the scale of upland erosion is far beyond the scope of any single organisation, BUFT is working to further improve the quality of upland path repair through information, training and publicity. The Trust is also promoting the importance of regular maintenance work, as a low cost and environmentally sensitive method of preventing serious path erosion.
