Why are recreational users ignore forestry road closures?

Valuable insights into the answer to that question have come from a new survey of recreational forest users – and it’s not for a lack of understanding the risks.

The Forest Industry Safety Council survey, part of the current review of the Best Practice Guideline for Temporary Traffic Control on Private Forest Roads, attracted a strong response from a range of recreational users including walkers, hunters, mountain bikers and trail runners.

Its findings align with an earlier industry survey on several key issues, but also shed light on what closures look like from the other side of the gate – and why some people choose to ignore them. This includes users becoming frustrated with closures that appear outdated.

“One of the most striking findings is that non-compliance is not a result of the public not understanding the risks,” says review programme manager Nic Steens.

“More than nine in 10 respondents (92%) said they were aware or very aware of the risks associated with active forestry operations. Despite this, more than half (54%) admitted they had continued past a closure at some point anyway.

"The most hazard-aware respondents have the highest rate of continuing past closures (61%) – not the lowest."

The most common reason cited for ignoring the warnings was a belief the user could assess and manage the risks themselves.

“The findings suggest that simply increasing hazard warnings or adding more safety messaging may not be enough,” Mr Steens says.

“Recreational users appear to be making judgements about whether a closure is justified, current and relevant for themselves, and proceeding on that basis.”

A major theme was frustration with closures that appear outdated, with many respondents describing going past closed gates because there was no visible sign of forestry activity.

Closures that looked to be permanent, or overly broad, were also more likely to be ignored than those clearly linked to current operations.

“The two most-requested changes were clear contact information and QR codes providing access to current closure status.

“Respondents repeatedly said that having a phone number to call, or a quick way to check whether a closure remained active, would improve trust and compliance.”

The survey also highlighted broader access issues, including questions around public roads through forests and rights of way to reach public land beyond forestry operations.

Not all respondents had concerns, however. Mr Steens says a meaningful number believed current signage and practice were already clear and they always complied.

The review group plans to do further work in this area, with the revised BPG on track for publication later this year.