Such recreational trail will facilitate a value system in such communities and that will propel a great need for idealized conservation of nature. Awareness level and perception of the communities to natures reserve must be considered as well. 

I work in conjunction with the US Forest Service on different forest restoration projects and often times, organizations (e.g., off-road vehicles, horseback riders) that utilize trails/roads for recreation often exhibit push back when some of those recreation access points will be reduced to facilitate conservation/restoration of particular habitats for various species.  There is often, but not always, a sense of entitlement by some users that they have the right to access public areas, especially if those areas have a historical background of use with a particular organization.  Therefore, conservation projects are often looked at as a threat by which their access to areas will be reduced.  Other consumptive users, such as hikers/birdwatchers/hunters "generally" have a much greater appreciation and understanding of conservation programs, even if it might limit their access to certain areas (although of those groups, hunters may have some push back depending on the type of game they seek).  At least that has been my experience in the area of the Northwestern US where I work.  Therefore, I think it depends on the group of consumptive users that a conservation project may be affecting.  I do agree that getting people out into nature gives them a better appreciation for nature and can garner support for conservation projects.  

"...we will conserve only what we love; we will love only what we understand; and we will understand only what we are taught."

Access to public land does not equal understanding. For example, in my local country park, months of resources and volunteer hours are spent clearing away ALL deadwood of a birch dominated woodland, principally to 'tidy' the land up and make it look nice for visitors.  The consumer (land user) may enjoy the manicured landscape.  If they understood the importance of deadwood, saproxylic organisms, and the diversity that echoes through all trophic levels, would they  call for the deadwood to be left?   

When using cattle stocking to suppress bracken, which, with the aid of flail mowing, returned an area to acid grassland, the woodland users were resistant to the idea of stock fencing impacting on their 'natural' experience.  The ranger service  became a sales team that continually sold  the idea to the enraged, and push through with it regardless.

Notions of corridors, symbiosis, vegetative communities, invasive species, etc., are, in themselves, quite difficult to get ones head around.  Social media pages, email newsletters,  and other media associated with the proposed recreational land use (e.g. an area's Facebook page) can offer bite-sized ecological concepts with a high nutritional value (knowledge that can be applied).  Would opening up public land to recreation in itself lead to increased support for conservation? Or should it be juxtaposed to a force-fed diet of eco-education snippets?

You need people to consider the land their own in orther for them to care, there needs to be an appropriation on their behalf (in terms of appreciation). If you control what kind of recreational use are allowed it could be beneficial for the site. For instance jogging trails, dogs allowed only on a leash, photography (non invasive), guided tours. You need control in terms of what you can do and can´t (lighting fires, taking wildlife, etc.). Going in with a local guide (works in several parks in Madagascar), and I find it to be a good job opportuinity for local folk, learning as part of recreation can be attained and should be looked for.  You need to get the people of the community involved with the natural protected area in order for it to succeed in the long term.

Recreational hunting may be the most rewarding, financially and effectively, activity in conservation areas. A fair share of state/public protected areas originates in (Huntable) Game Reserves(e.g, Etosha NP; Central Kalahari Game reserve; NP Hoge Veluwe). In many hunting is subsequently prohibited, but not in all. 

In many cases the state is not the optimal protector/conservator of nature. An empirical example from Bolivia is attached. Another example are the hunting farms in Namibia where even a carnivore (cheetah) is thriving. Rhino seems only protected well on private land in Namibia as well.

A case where recreational trails drive the spread of an invasive plant is also attached.

As a parent I found out that that nature playgrounds for young children in protected area are more relevant than trails for grown-ups. I have been building huts, waded rivers (California), swimming in water bodies and rivers, all off-trail, within nature reserves (locally allowed) both as a child and with my children. The usual exhibitions, prohibitions and excursions of PAs are boring to the extreme.   

Article What Drives Conversion of Tropical Forest in Carrasco Provin...

Article Efficacy of Chromolaena odorata control in a South African c...

Recreation is human-centered and conservation is biodiversity-centered. If the humans getting recreation out of biodiversity, they start orienting themselves for conservation as their recreation will be perpetuated only with such efforts. Trails  if really happens with a motive of appreciating biodiversity by observation then they will form the basis for conservation.

You say, that a recreational access is needed so that people may experience land. By loving the nature they will support the conservation. This is one possible effect, but I think this is not the most important one. Most people, who come to recreate in nature did love nature before they come and people who do not love nature won't come.

But there is another important effect of this approach. In or at protected areas live people. THEY must accept the conservation. But often they are affected personal or economical through the protection project in a bad manner. This must be turned into a good manner to get acceptance. Recreational access can lead to new or better economical advantages of the native people and can bring the necessary acceptation of the project.

Rudolf,

I like your perspective.  I think truthfully this is the real approach to conservation where I work.  "Give us money for conservation and you'll get a trail out of it."  It's tit for tat.  But that approach seems a bit distasteful, so we try to sell this ex post facto justification that public access will build an environmental ethic within the community.  But what's wrong with a payoff, of sorts?  I get my nature, you get your bike trail, and we're both happy.  And if I can get a few people to stop and consider some signage about native plants or water quality or whatever, then that's a bonus.

Thanks.