Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation 

Visitors to National Forests

Eric M. White

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-961

October

2017
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, 

and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from 

discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including 

gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, 

income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation 

for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all 

bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or 

incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program 

information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should 

contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination 

Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.

html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all 

of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 

632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue,

SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@

usda.gov .

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Author

Eric M. White is a research social scientist, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 

3625 93

rd Avenue SW, Olympia, WA 98512-1101.

Cover: Fishing at Lost Lake, Mount Hood National Forest, Oregon. 

Photo by Jason Blake.
Abstract

White, Eric M. 2017. Spending patterns of outdoor recreation visitors to national 

forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-961. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 70 p. 

The economic linkages between national forests and surrounding areas are one of 

the important ways public lands contribute to the well-being of private individuals 

and communities. One way national forests contribute to the economies of surrounding communities is by attracting recreation visitors who, as part of their trip, 

spend money in communities on the peripheries of national forests. We use survey 

data collected from visitors to all forest and grasslands in the National Forest 

System to estimate the average spending per trip of national forest recreation visitors engaged in various types of recreation trips and activities. Average spending of 

national forest visitors ranges from about $36 per party per trip for local residents 

on day trips to more than $740 per party per trip for visitors downhill skiing or 

snowboarding on national forest lands and staying overnight off forest in local 

areas. We report key parameters to complete economic contribution analysis for 

individual national forests and for the entire National Forest System. 

Keywords: Recreation spending, economic impact, National Visitor Use 

Monitoring.
Contents

1 Introduction

1 Background on NVUM Surveys

2 Pertinent Survey Questions

2 NVUM Sample

3 Spending Profile Estimation

3 Analysis Considerations

7 Visitor Segments

8 National-Level Segment Shares

9 Nights Away From Home

10 Spending Profiles

10 Basic 7 Trip Spending 

11 High and Low Spending Averages

14 Downhill Skier/Snowboarder Visitor Spending

16 Lodging-Based Segmentation

17 Lodging-Based Segment Spending Profiles

21 Conclusions

22 Acknowledgments

22 Metric Equivalents

23 References

25 Appendix 1: Applying the National Spending Profiles

30 Example: Estimating Total Spending for the Mount Hood National Forest

33 Appendix 2: Supplemental Tables for Completing Economic Analyses

42 Appendix 3: Wildlife-Related Visit Characteristics and Spending Averages

42 Spending Profiles by Trip Segments

44 High and Low Spending Averages

47 Wildlife-Related Visitor Trip and Party Characteristics

50 Wildlife-Related Visits

56 Appendix 4: Activity-Specific Spending Averages

56 Activity Groupings

56 Small Sample Size Conditions

58 Spending Profiles
1

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

Introduction

Recreation is the most common way that people personally interact with land managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The national forests and grasslands of the United 

States receive about 148 million visits annually (USDA FS 2016). Expenditures on 

recreation trips in gateway communities by visitors to the National Forest System 

(NFS) is an important contributor to the economies of many local communities 

(White et al. 2016). This report updates previous figures on the average spending 

of national forest recreation visitors (Stynes and White 2005a, 2005b; White et al. 

2013). The data used in this update come from the 120 administrative NFS units 

sampled in federal fiscal years 2010 through 2015 under the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service’s National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program 

(Zarnoch et al. 2011). In this report, we provide updated estimates of average recreation visitor spending, the share of recreation visits by trip type, average people 

per party, and other visit characteristics to assist in economic analyses of outdoor 

recreation use. 

We discuss the analytical considerations in developing the spending profiles; 

present the national-level segment shares; and report the average, high, and low 

spending averages for seven trip-type segments (referred to as the “Basic 7” in 

round 1 of NVUM). In addition, we present spending averages for downhill skiers/

snowboarders and for a more discrete set of lodging-based segments. 

In appendix 1, we provide guidance on how to apply the spending profiles 

for economic impact or contribution analysis with an example application for the 

Mount Hood National Forest. Appendix 2 contains additional tables that can serve 

as inputs for economic analyses at the forest level. In appendix 3, we report on the 

recreation behavior and spending patterns of wildlife-related visitors for use in 

analyses focused on that user group. Appendix 4 contains spending profiles and 

parameters necessary for activity-specific analyses. 

Background on NVUM Surveys

The objective of the NVUM program is to estimate the number of recreation visits 

to the NFS (Zarnoch et al. 2011). To achieve this objective, a subset of national 

forests in each Forest Service region is sampled yearly with each administrative 

unit (typically an administrative national forest) in the NFS sampled once every 5 

years. The NVUM program gathers information on visitor and trip characteristics 

in addition to data necessary to estimate visitation. A separate economics survey 

administered to roughly a third of those sampled gathered spending information 

that provides the basis for development of the spending profiles reported here. The 

NVUM survey approach involves a sample of recreation visits to national forests. 

Recreation visitor 

spending is an 

important contribution 

to many local 

economies.
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

A national forest visit is defined as one person recreating on national forest land for 

an indeterminate period of time that ends when the individual leaves the national 

forest to spend the night off national forest lands. 

Pertinent Survey Questions

The results reported here are drawn from a subset of the questions on the NVUM 

survey instrument. To classify visitors into groups for economic analysis, we rely 

on questions related to the distance traveled to the site; if nights away from home 

were spent in the local area; the different types, if any, of lodging used; and the 

primary purpose for the trip away from home. Wording of survey questions and 

directions to surveyors for administration of the survey are available in the 2007 

National Visitor Use Monitoring Handbook (USDA FS 2007: 37). 

For visitor spending, NVUM respondents are asked to report the spending of 

their travel party (generally those traveling in the same vehicle) within 50 mi of 

the interview site. Spending is collected for 10 expenditure categories (e.g., money 

spent in restaurants/bars, for gas and oil, for souvenirs, and for motels/hotels). 

Respondents are asked to only report spending in the local area of the recreation 

site that is related to the current trip—both expenses already made and those 

anticipated. Visitors are allowed to opt out of reporting expenses altogether if they 

cannot recall their spending or prefer to not report it. Respondents opting out of 

reporting their spending were excluded when calculating average trip spending. 

Some respondents report spending in some categories but leave other categories 

blank. Field interviewers are instructed to not leave spending categories blank and 

confirm spending is zero. However, in cases where spending in some categories is 

reported and other categories are left blank, the blanks were filled with zeros and 

the respondent’s spending was included in the analysis. 

NVUM Sample

National forest visitors were sampled at both designated recreation sites (e.g., 

picnic areas, campgrounds, and visitor centers on national forest lands) and in the 

general forest area of individual national forests. A stratified sampling scheme 

was employed based upon the expected visitation (very high, high, medium, or 

low last-exiting recreation traffic) for a given location on a given day (termed a 

“site day”). Individual dates and locations selected for recreation sampling were 

termed “sample days.” Site days are the total collection of all potential days and 

locations in the population; sample days are a subset of these site days. On sample 

days, individuals leaving the recreation site that was selected for sampling who 

voluntarily stopped at the interview point and who stated they were recreating on 
3

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

the national forest and leaving the site (or leaving the national forest at general 

forest area sites) that day completed an NVUM survey. About 24 forests were 

surveyed each year in the 5 years of sampling included in this study (table 1). More 

than 96,000 individuals sampled on national forests agreed to participate in the 

survey; about 30,000 completed the economic supplemental survey requested from 

about every third person. 

Table 1—National forests sampled and number of respondents in the 5 years of 

Round 3 of National Visitor Use Monitoring

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total

National forests sampled 23 25 22 25 25 120

Basic survey respondents 22,096 18,236 21,714 16,915 17,691 96,652

Economic survey respondents 6,953 5,747 6,786 5,125 5,298 29,909

Spending Pro ile Estimation

Analysis Considerations

The spending analysis involved several decisions related to (1) identifying local 

visitors, (2) identifying outlier and contaminant observations, (3) identifying visitors whose primary trip purpose was something other than recreating on a national 

forest, (4) determining the appropriate weights to place on individual observations, 

and (5) identifying recreation visits where the primary purpose was downhill skiing/snowboarding or wildlife-related recreation. 

Local visitors—

Locals were defined as those claiming to have traveled 60 mi or less from home to 

the recreation interview location. Previous analysis (Stynes and White 2005a) found 

that a travel distance of between 50 and 60 mi approximated a ZIP code proximity 

to a national forest boundary of 30 straight-line miles. 

Outliers and contaminants—

The criteria adopted here to identify outliers are meant to reduce the likelihood of 

including both contaminant observations and true outliers when estimating spending averages. Contaminants are observations that do not belong to the population or 

are erroneous observations. Recreation visitors were asked to report only expenses 

that occurred within 50 mi of the interview site and that were related to the current recreation trip. An example of a contaminant would be a survey observation 

that included spending that actually occurred outside the 50-mi radius around the 

recreation site or on another recreation trip.

An outlier is an observation that does belong to the population under study 

but has undue influence on the estimation of the sample mean given the size of the 

More than 96,000 

individuals sampled 

on national forests 

agreed to participate 

in the survey.
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

sample. For example, some day visitors may spend $800 during a recreation trip to 

a national forest, but such spending is uncommon, and the vast majority of visitors 

spend substantially less or nothing at all (Stynes and White 2006). When sample 

sizes are small, outlier observations can significantly influence the estimate of the 

sample mean. See Stynes and White (2006) for additional discussion of outliers and 

contaminants in the context of measuring recreation visitor spending. 

Three rules—related to length of stay, party size, and total spending—were 

developed to remove likely outliers and contaminants. Collectively, these rules 

excluded 1,515 cases from this analysis (table 2). Respondents stating that they 

stayed overnight away from home in local forest areas for more than 30 nights were 

excluded. Rylander et al. (1995) found that individuals on long trips have greater 

difficulty in accurately recalling trip spending. Respondents recreating in parties 

of eight or more individuals were excluded (about 1 percent of all respondents) 

owing to likely problems in estimating expenses for everyone in the party. Finally, 

respondents that reported spending $500 or more per night or a total of $500 or 

more in sporting goods expenditures in local forest areas were also excluded. Some 

of these respondents are likely contaminants and others are true outliers that would 

influence the estimates of sample means. Omitting cases with high reported expenditures on sporting goods was designed to omit purchases of durable goods. See 

appendix D of White and Stynes 2010a for additional analysis on the criteria used 

in defining all outliers. 

Table 2—Cases excluded and used in developing spending averages, by 

aggregate recreation activity group

Downhill 

skiing

Wildlife 

related

General 

recreation Total

Economic survey respondents 2,024 3,819 24,066 29,909

Respondents excluded as outliers and 

contaminants:

• Nights in the local area >30 11 31 140 182

• People per vehicle >8 35 23 362 420

• Spending per night >$500 or

sporting goods expenditures

>$500

141 100 672 913

 Total 187 154 1,174 1,515

Missing distance traveleda 2 9 54 65

Refused to report expenses 67 267 1,356 1,690

Could not recall expenses 81 266 1,741 2,088

Total for economic analysis 1,687 3,123 19,741 24,551

a In total, 86 cases had missing travel distances. Of these, nine were removed as outliers and appear in those 

totals. Of the remaining 77 cases, 12 were classified into the nonprimary segment and included in analyses. The 

final 65 cases missing a travel distance were excluded from analyses involving the trip segments.
5

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

Travel distance is used in the classification of visitors and 65 cases that did not 

include a reported travel distance and were not foreign visitors or “nonprimary” 

visitors (see below) were removed. Nearly 1,700 respondents (6 percent of economic 

respondents not otherwise removed) stated that they did not wish to report their 

expenses. These cases were excluded from calculating spending averages. Similarly, about 2,100 respondents (7 percent of economic respondents not otherwise 

removed) stated they could not recall their expenses; these cases were also removed 

from calculation of the spending averages. 

Trip purpose—

Those claiming to be traveling away from home primarily for the purpose of 

recreating on a national forest are classified as “primary purpose” visitors. Visitors 

stating that their primary reason for being away from home was to recreate somewhere other than a national forest, visit family/friends, for business, or for some 

other reason are classified as “nonprimary” visitors. The spending of individuals 

in this “nonprimary” group is typically excluded from economic contribution and 

impact analyses (Crompton et al. 2001, Watson et al. 2007). 

Weighting scheme—

Survey data collected from a random sample of people are often weighted to 

improve the representativeness of the sample to the population of people covered by 

the sample. There are two weighting schemes used in NVUM. The first, exposure 

weighting, is used to correct the collected sample for overrepresentation of those 

who recreate at multiple sites during the visit. The NVUM sample days (days and 

locations for sampling) are randomly selected in advance of the sample year. To 

have the opportunity to participate in sampling, a recreationist must “correctly 

choose” to recreate at the specific site undergoing NVUM sampling. Most national 

forest visitors recreate at just one site on their visit—meaning those visitors have 

only one chance to “correctly choose” a site undergoing NVUM sampling. Visitors who recreate at more than one site have more than one chance at selecting an 

NVUM sampling site to recreate. Consequently, those who visit more recreation 

sites during their visit are overrepresented in an unweighted sample. Exposure 

weighting is important because those who recreate at multiple sites may have different recreation behavior than visitors who recreate at just one site. The weight is 

calculated as the inverse of the total number of sites visited on a national forest visit. 

An undeveloped area and a wilderness area on a national forest are each counted as 

one site. 

The second weighting scheme used in NVUM is national visit expansion 

weighting (referred to here simply as case weights). Under NVUM, sites and areas 
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

of national forests are classified into strata for sampling. For the most part, each 

NVUM stratum receives roughly the same number of sample days. However, the 

strata differ in the amount of recreation use they experience. That differing recreation use means that the ratio of individuals sampled to the amount of recreation use 

differs across the strata. In a simplified example, stratum A may have yielded five 

visitor interviews and have the recreation use of 1,000 visits. Stratum B may have 

yielded 10 visitor interviews and have the recreation use of 5,000 visits. Stratum B 

has five times the recreation use of stratum A, but only twice the number of recreation interviews. The simple numbers of visitors sampled in strata A and B do not 

reflect the pattern of use for those strata. The case weights applied to respondents 

in each stratum adjusts the sample to be representative of the amount of use in each 

stratum. In this simplified example, the case weight applied to each respondent in 

stratum A would be 200 (1,000 visits/five interviews). The case weight assigned to 

each respondent sampled in stratum B would be 500 (5,000 visits/10 interviews). 

Although not shown in this simplified example, the actual case weights also incorporate the expansion weights described above. 

National Visitor Use Monitoring relies on a complex stratified, clustered, 

sampling design to estimate recreation use and characterize visitors. For estimating 

visitor spending, we treat the sample as if it is a simple random sample and adjust 

the sample for overrepresentation of those visiting multiple sites using the exposure 

weights. We estimate the variance of the spending averages assuming a simple 

random sample rather than stratified cluster design. For the remaining parameters 

estimated in this report, we treated the sample as coming from the full stratified 

cluster design and used the case weights in developing estimates. We show only the 

point estimates for these parameters and do not report the variance or confidence 

interval. 

Downhill skiing/snowboarding and wildlife-related recreation—

Recreation visits by individuals whose primary recreation activity is downhill 

skiing or snowboarding account for about 16 percent of all national forest visits 

(USDA FS 20165 ). On average, downhill skiers/snowboarders spend more during 

recreation trips than individuals engaged in other recreation activities. If left in 

the general recreation sample, downhill skiers/snowboarders inflate the general 

trip spending averages. In particular, spending in the “entry fees” and “recreation 

and entertainment” categories is very sensitive to the inclusion of downhill skiers/

snowboarders. Given how their spending can influence general recreation spending 

averages, we have excluded downhill skiers/snowboarders when estimating the 

general spending averages and developed separate spending profiles for downhill 

skiers /snowboarders. The skier/snowboarder profiles can be used when conducting 

Downhill skiers/

snowboarders spend 

more during recreation 

trips than individuals 

engaged in other 

recreation activities. 
7

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

economic analyses related to downhill skiing/snowboarding recreation. The basic 

profiles, omitting downhill skiers/snowboarders, apply to recreation that is not 

downhill skiing/snowboarding. 

The Forest Service has a variety of policies and management efforts aimed at 

conserving wildlife habitat and wildlife populations. The agency is regularly asked 

to report outcomes related to these investments. The spending patterns and characteristics for recreation that are wildlife related (hunting, fishing, viewing wildlife) 

are reported separately for some analyses in the main body of this report and in 

appendix 3. 

Visitor Segments

A primary objective of the spending analysis is to estimate spending profiles for a 

set of meaningful segments of recreation visitors to national forests. To be useful, 

the segments must (1) be identifiable from the NVUM survey variables, (2) help to 

explain differences in spending across different applications, (3) be large enough 

to obtain adequate sample sizes in the survey, and (4) be meaningful to anticipated 

recreation management and policy applications. 

Recreation visits are classified into one of seven trip-type segments (also 

referred to as the “Basic 7”):

• Nonlocal day trips: nonlocal residents on day trips to national forests

• Nonlocal OVN-NF: nonlocal residents staying overnight on national forests

• Nonlocal OVN: nonlocal residents staying overnight off national forests in

local areas

• Local day trips: local residents on day trips to national forests

• Local OVN-NF: local residents staying overnight on national forests

• Local-OVN: local residents staying overnight off national forests in

local areas

• Nonprimary: visits where recreating on national forests is not the primary

trip purpose

Local visitors are those who have traveled 60 mi or less from home to reach

a recreation site. Day visitors are those who did not report a night spent in a local 

(within 50 mi) forest area. Visitors in the day segment include those who did not 

spend a night away from home as well as those passing through a forest area and 

spending a night away from home outside the local forest area. 

Overnight national forest visitors are those who spent a night away from home 

and reported lodging in a cabin, developed campground, or primitive area on a 

national forest (or some combination of those three). Visitors in the overnight offforest OVN category are those who spent a night away from home in a local forest 
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

area and reported using any lodging off the national forest or some combination 

of lodging on and off the national forest. The OVN segment also includes a few 

respondents who would otherwise be classified as on day trips, but who reported 

lodging expenses. 

Based on ANOVA tests using round 1 NVUM data, these seven trip-type 

visitor segments explain about 27 percent of the variation in trip spending by travel 

parties (White and Stynes 2008). For comparison, primary recreation activities 

explain 1 percent of variation in visitor spending. This segmentation yields total 

spending averages for general recreation that are statistically and practically different for each trip segment. The ability to find statistically significant difference may 

have been bolstered by the relatively large sample sizes within each trip type. These 

trip segments have proven useful in Forest Service economic analyses and appear to 

now be intuitive to agency economists and analysts.

National-Level Segment Shares

The national-level visitor segment shares are estimated from all cases and represent 

general patterns in trip type across all NFS units (table 3). Segment shares for 

individual NFS units are reported in appendix 2. Day trips by individuals who live 

in a local forest area are the most common type of national forest visit (45 percent 

of all forest visits). Local visits collectively account for more than half of all visits to 

national forests. Visits by nonlocals are most frequently overnight trips away from 

home with nights off national forests. Finally, approximately 15 percent of national 

forest visits result from a nonprimary trip where recreation on a national forest is 

secondary to some other reason for the visitor being away from home. The vast 

majority of nonprimary visits come from nonlocal individuals. 

Table 3—Segment shares for national forest visitsa

Nonlocal Local

Visit types Day OVN-NF OVN Day OVN-NF OVN Nonprimary Total

Percent

All visits (including skiers) 11 8 16 45 4 1 15 100

Downhill skiing/

snowboarding visits

16 b 46 33 b 1 4 100

Wildlife-related visits 11 11 9 54 4 2 9 100

General recreationc 9 8 12 48 4 1 18 100

All visits except downhill 

skiing/snowboarding

10 9 11 48 4 1 17 100

a

 Estimated from the full sample using case weights. OVN = overnight, NF = national forest.

b

 For skiers/snowboarders, the OVN-NF visits are included in the OVN segments.

c General recreation visits are those not downhill skiing/snowboarding and not wildlife related. 
9

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

Relative to visits for other activities, ski/snowboarding visits are more likely to 

be nonlocal visits and are most likely to be overnight trips (table 3). Well more than 

half of ski/snowboarding visits come from nonlocals, and more than half of those 

visits involve an overnight stay. Local visits for skiing/snowboarding are almost 

entirely day trips; about one-third of all ski/snowboard visits nationally are generated by locals on day trips. Nonprimary visits comprise a much smaller share of ski/

snowboard visits compared to other activities on national forests. Wildlife-related 

visits are more likely to be from local residents compared to other types of visits. 

When wildlife-related visitors are on nonlocal trips, they are less likely than other 

users to use overnight lodging off national forests (e.g., hotels/motels). Wildliferelated visits are also less likely to be nonprimary trips compared to other types of 

visits.

Nights Away From Home

Understanding patterns in length of stay is important because travel parties spend 

more money in a greater number of economic sectors when they stay more nights in 

or near local communities. Additionally, understanding patterns in length of stay can 

inform recreation management and policy actions and help to characterize recreation 

visitors. The average lengths of stay for those who are and are not downhill skiing/

snowboarding are similar (table 4). Across all activities, visitors on overnight trips 

to national forests spend between three and five nights if they live outside the local 

areas and two to four nights if they live in the local areas. In both cases, those staying overnight off national forests have longer stays. Those on nonprimary trips have 

Table 4—Average number of nights away from homea and in local forest areas 

for national forest (NF) visitors on overnight (OVN) tripsb

Nonlocal Local 

OVN-NF OVN OVN-NF OVN Nonprimary

All visits:

Nights away from home 4.3 6.4 2.2 4.2 8.6

Nights in the local area 3.3 5.0 2.1 3.7 3.5

Nondownhill skiing/snowboarding visits:

Nights away from home 4.1 6.3 2.2 4.2 8.7

Nights in the local area 3.1 4.6 2.1 3.7 3.5

Only downhill skiing/snowboarding visits:

Nights away from home c 6.4 c 3.6 6.0

Nights in the local area c 5.4 c 3.6 3.9

a “Nights away from home” includes both “nights in the local area” and nights outside the local area.

b Estimated from the full sample using case weights. 

c

 For skiers/snowboarders, the OVN-NF visits, which are minimal, are included in the OVN segments.
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

the greatest disparity between total nights away from home and the nights spent in 

local forest areas—reflecting the lesser importance of national forests in these trips. 

Spending Profiles

Spending profiles describe the average spending within a set of spending categories 

for a particular trip type. The unit of analysis for the spending profiles presented 

here is the party, and it includes all expenses by the travel party within 50 mi of 

the interview site during the trip. The reported spending was price adjusted to 

2014 using a distinct U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics price index for each spending 

category. 

Basic 7 Trip Spending

The average expenditures per party per trip for national forest visitors ranges from 

$36 for local visitors on day trips to $580 for nonlocal visitors on OVN trips (table 

5). The 95 percent confidence intervals around our estimates of total spending, for 

all but the local overnight segment, are less than 6 percent of the total spending 

figure. For the local overnight segment (the least common segment and the one 

with the smallest sample size) the 95 percent confidence interval is 15 percent of 

Table 5—National forest visitor spending profiles by trip-type segment and spending category, dollars per 

party per tripa

Spending categories

Nonlocal Local

Nonprimary

All 

visitsb Day OVN-NF OVN Day OVN-NF OVN

Dollars 

Motel 0 44.77 203.85 0 6.39 51.62 139.67 53.96

Camping 0 27.79 13.68 0 28.25 23.01 12.23 7.43

Restaurant 14.77 27.47 116.41 5.66 7.65 32.43 93.23 37.63

Groceries 10.67 55.09 72.52 6.62 71.54 59.62 49.85 29.68

Gas and oil 30.20 62.27 82.47 15.43 46.59 58.05 62.71 38.74

Other transportation 0.58 1.34 4.98 0.16 0.04 1.19 3.35 1.45

Entry fees 4.12 7.13 12.85 2.70 4.51 5.12 7.58 5.38

Recreation and entertainment 2.96 7.36 33.31 1.01 2.01 3.61 21.84 9.38

Sporting goods 3.15 10.77 13.75 3.83 11.78 9.48 7.91 6.62

Souvenirs and other expenses 1.93 7.73 25.87 0.60 1.10 11.48 23.74 8.62

 Total 68.39 251.74 579.70 36.00 179.86 255.60 422.12 198.87

Sample size (unweighted) 2,112 3,600 2,289 9,225 1,388 295 3,955 22,864

Standard deviation of total 72 399 714 53 199 325 653 n/a

a Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars. These 

averages exclude visitors who claimed their primary activity was downhill skiing/snowboarding. When completing analyses involving 

skiers/snowboarders, refer to subsequent tables. OVN = overnight, NF = national forest, n/a = not applicable. 

b The all-visit averages are computed as a weighted average of the columns using the national trip segment shares for nondownhill 

skiing/nonsnowboarding as weights.
11

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

total spending. For day trips, spending on gas and oil is the greatest single expense 

followed by spending on food in either restaurants or grocery stores depending on 

whether the visitor is a local. Lodging expenses (camping and motel/hotel expenses 

combined) are the greatest single expense for nonlocal visitors on overnight trips 

(on or off the national forest), followed by spending for food and for gas and oil. 

Spending in grocery stores and for gas and oil are the greatest expenditures for 

local visitors staying overnight on national forests. Lodging, groceries, and gas and 

oil account for almost all the expenses of the few local visitors who stay overnight 

off national forests. The total spending of this group is about half that of their 

nonlocal counterparts. The spending of nonprimary visitors is generally similar to 

that of nonlocal OVN visitors. 

Average motel and camping expenses for OVN and OVN-NF visitors may 

appear low. However, visitors in both of those segments use a variety of lodging 

types that have a range of costs. Some lodging (e.g., homes of friends/relatives, 

owned seasonal homes, and national forest roadsides) will be used free and will not 

require expenditure specifically on the trip. The shown averages reflect this mix of 

costs, including many cases where the overnight lodging was free. In a later section, 

we report spending profiles for visitors engaged in a variety of lodging types. In 

those profiles, average expenditure for motels and camping are more consistent with 

average room rates and camping fees that one typically experiences. 

Dividing the spending averages for trips involving overnight stays shown in 

table 5 by the average number of nights in the local area for each segment (table 4) 

gives average party spending on a per-night basis (not shown). For nonlocal OVN 

visitors, average spending is a little less than $126 per night. Local OVN visitor 

spending is about $69 per night, on average. On a per-night basis, the total spending 

of nonlocal and local OVN-NF visitors is similar—about $80 per night—although 

there are differences in patterns within specific expenditure categories. On a pernight basis, the total spending of nonprimary visitors is about $114 per night. 

High and Low Spending Averages

For most NFS units, between 100 and 300 respondents were asked to complete the 

economic survey. After breaking those respondents into trip type and excluding 

outliers and contaminants, sample sizes at the forest level are generally too small 

to reliably estimate spending averages for all seven visitor segments for individual 

national forests. For many forests, the national-level basic spending profile presented in the previous section is applicable and can be combined with segment 

share estimates for the specific forest under consideration (see app. 2, table 19) to 

estimate total visitor spending for the forest (see app. 1 for a detailed example of 
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

the steps to estimating total spending). However, visitor spending can differ from 

place to place owing to the extent of local spending opportunities and local prices; 

to accommodate these differences, we developed spending profiles for areas with 

above- and below-average spending.

Following the same approach used in prior analyses (e.g., White et al. 2013), we 

grouped observations from forests with above- or below-average spending (see app. 

2, table 18) to develop “high” and “low” spending profiles. Forests with above- or 

below-average spending were identified by comparing spending averages for each 

forest with the national averages. Day and overnight visitor spending averages 

(excluding nonprimary visitors and downhill skiers/snowboarders) were estimated 

based on the sample of visitors on each forest. To control for differences in the 

visitor mix across forests, a standardized overall average was computed for each 

forest, assuming a fixed mix of 60 percent day trips and 40 percent overnight trips. 

The standardized spending average for each forest was compared to the national 

standardized spending average (see Stynes et al. 2002 for additional discussion of 

this analysis). Of the 120 units sampled between fiscal years 2010 and 2015, 58 have 

spending that was not found to be statistically different from the national average. 

Of those national forests where spending did differ from the national average, 

18 forests were classified as “above-average spending” and 44 forests as “belowaverage spending.” 

On average, the high and low spending profiles are approximately 33 percent 

higher/lower than the average spending profile (tables 6 and 7). The spending 

of local day visitors does not follow this pattern and is lower at “high” spending 

forests than “low” spending forests. It is possible that local residents on day trips 

to high spending forest areas avoid many higher expense services that are aimed at 

tourists. A forest identified as a high spending area (see app. 2, table 18) may elect 

to use the profiles in table 6 instead of the national averages in table 5. Similarly, 

forests identified as low spending areas (see app. 2, table 18) may elect to use the 

averages in table 7 for analyses. In addition, the high and low spending profiles 

also can be used for economic analysis aimed at specific geographic areas around a 

national forest with higher or lower than average spending opportunities or prices. 

Areas near major tourist destinations or in proximity or easy access to commercial 

areas and spending opportunities can generally expect above-average visitor spending, while sites in more remote, rural areas will likely experience below-average 

spending (and often lower costs because of less demand for services). On many 

national forests, there will be both “high” and “low” spending areas. An assessment 

of nearby spending opportunities and prices can help in deciding between the average, high, or low spending profiles for a particular application.

Areas near major 

tourist destinations 

can generally expect 

above-average visitor 

spending.
13

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

Table 6—High spending profiles by trip-type segment and spending category, dollars per party per tripa

Spending categories

Nonlocal Local

Nonprimary

All 

visitsb Day OVN-NF OVN Day OVN-NF OVN

Dollars

Motel 0 81.33 293.91 0 5.09 135.07 214.72 81.98

Camping 0 38.35 14.10 0 32.13 10.49 15.80 8.99

Restaurant 23.57 60.73 176.20 5.24 6.53 101.32 139.68 57.05

Groceries 7.86 67.71 83.26 4.48 80.21 46.32 65.85 33.79

Gas and oil 30.05 83.68 98.65 11.27 40.89 53.17 80.72 43.34

Other transportation 0.64 1.44 7.80 0.15 0 2.17 5.26 2.15

Entry fees 5.40 8.70 18.99 1.52 2.08 8.16 8.71 5.93

Recreation and entertainment 3.13 16.63 52.47 1.32 1.20 12.50 29.19 13.97

Sporting goods 2.42 13.57 17.96 1.67 12.56 1.16 10.23 6.62

Souvenirs and other expenses 3.54 16.10 44.75 0.72 0.70 14.41 39.95 14.68

 Total 76.59 388.26 808.09 26.38 181.38 384.77 610.10 268.51

Sample size (unweighted) 278 517 745 1,628 157 32 1,050 4,407

Standard deviation of total 80 496 814 47 186 565 796 n/a

OVN = overnight, NF = national forest, n/a = not applicable.

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars. These 

averages exclude visitors who claimed their primary activity was downhill skiing/snowboarding. When completing analyses involving 

skiers/snowboarders, refer to subsequent tables. 

b

 The all-visit averages are computed as a weighted average of the columns using the national trip segment shares for nondownhill 

skiing/non-snowboarding as weights.

Table 7—Low spending profiles by trip-type segment and spending category, dollars per party per tripa

Spending categories

Nonlocal Local

Nonprimary

All 

visitsb Day OVN-NF OVN Day OVN-NF OVN

Dollars

Motel 0 20.00 110.55 0 4.53 35.53 79.58 29.73

Camping 0 20.75 16.13 0 24.63 17.95 9.34 6.44

Restaurant 11.63 18.98 70.20 5.70 7.17 26.40 65.23 26.02

Groceries 9.38 45.20 44.39 6.98 64.93 52.49 36.22 22.78

Gas and oil 27.52 49.10 60.94 15.87 41.57 47.32 49.40 32.36

Other transportation 0.10 0.75 1.63 0.06 0.06 1.05 2.06 0.68

Entry fees 3.72 8.09 5.60 3.11 5.79 3.42 6.61 4.60

Recreation and entertainment 2.80 4.50 9.93 0.73 2.17 0.45 15.76 5.08

Sporting goods 2.54 7.82 9.02 3.75 10.98 10.23 5.75 5.31

Souvenirs and other expenses 0.91 4.04 9.77 0.39 0.90 10.69 13.27 4.30

 Total 58.61 179.24 338.18 36.59 162.73 205.53 283.22 137.30

Sample size (unweighted) 966 1,291 538 4,309 654 112 1,077 8,947

Standard deviation of total 63 262 359 50 168 206 412 n/a

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars. These 

averages exclude visitors who claimed their primary activity was downhill skiing/snowboarding. When completing analyses involving 

skiers/snowboarders, refer to subsequent tables. OVN = overnight, NF = national forest, n/a = not applicable. 

b

 The all-visit averages are computed as a weighted average of the columns using the national trip segment shares for nondownhill 

skiing/nonsnowboarding as weights.
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

Downhill Skier/Snowboarder Visitor Spending

The trip spending of downhill skiers/snowboarders on day trips is about 65 percent 

greater than day visitors on other national forest recreation trips (table 8). Similarly, 

nonlocal overnight visitors who are downhill skiing or snowboarding spend about 

28 percent more than nonlocal overnight visitors doing other activities on national 

forest trips. The additional spending by downhill skiers/snowboarders primarily 

can be traced to greater spending on entry fees, recreation and entertainment, and 

restaurants. Within trip types, downhill skiers/snowboarders spend less than other 

visitors on gas and oil; for all trip types except nonlocal overnight and nonprimary, 

downhill skiers/snowboarders spend less than other visitors on groceries. Note that 

expenses for season passes likely are not represented in these trip-specific spending 

averages. Similarly, lift tickets sold as part of a package deal that includes lodging 

may not have been reported by respondents separately as entry fees or recreation 

and entertainment expenses. Economic analyses that incorporate analyses of downhill skier/snowboarder spending should use table 8, or reliable visitor spending 

figures available from other sources applicable to the study area. 

Table 8—Spending profiles of downhill skiers and snowboarders, dollars per party per tripa

Nonlocal segments Local segments

Spending category Day OVN Day OVNb Nonprimary All visitsc

Dollars

Motel 0 193.53 0 88.83 146.10 95.76

Camping 0 0.43 0 0.20 4.23 0.37

Restaurant 20.53 158.80 9.83 72.89 129.36 85.48

Groceries 4.57 76.78 3.21 35.24 68.60 40.21

Gas and oil 24.43 64.96 13.44 29.82 55.28 40.73

Other transportation 0.28 1.89 0.24 0.87 9.78 1.39

Entry fees 37.68 90.73 17.93 41.65 107.20 58.39

Recreation and entertainment 18.62 107.74 11.13 49.45 52.21 58.79

Sporting goods 5.02 26.08 2.81 11.97 22.14 14.73

Souvenirs and other expenses 2.01 22.88 0.68 10.50 12.84 11.69

 Total 113.15 743.81 59.26 341.41 607.74 407.54

Sample size (unweighted) 371 431 784 N/A 71 N/A

Standard deviation of total 96 825 81 772 N/A

N/A = not applicable.

a Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars. 

These averages are based on visitors who claimed their primary activity was downhill skiing or snowboarding and analyses 

involving nonskier/nonsnowboarder visits should refer to previous tables on national forest visitor average spending. For downhill 

skiers and snowboarders, we have combined the overnight (OVN) national forest and OVN segments into a single OVN segment.

b The sample size for local overnight visitors sampled at ski areas was insufficient and here we calculate average spending as 

46 percent of the nonlocal overnight average. See appendix 4 for further information on this calculation.

c

 The all-visit averages are computed as a weighted average of the columns using the national skier/snowboarder segment 

shares as weights.
15

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

Those national forests that are classified as either high or low spending may 

elect to use high or low spending skier/snowboarder profiles (tables 9 and 10). 

Within trip segments, spending figures at high spending areas are not always 

greater than the corresponding spending figures at average areas for that trip segment. Likewise, spending figures at low spending areas are not always less than the 

corresponding average spending figures. This inconsistency likely results from the 

mix of spending opportunities at these places and differing average visitor lengths 

of stay in high and low spending areas. 

Table 9—High spending profiles of downhill skiers and snowboarders, dollars per party 

per tripa

Nonlocal segments Local segments

Spending category Dayb OVN Day OVNc Nonprimary All visits

Dollars 

Motel 0 248.41 0 97.85 292.71 126.96

Camping 0 0.31 0 0.22 0 0.14

Restaurant 22.96 234.15 10.36 80.29 219.19 124.37

Groceries 5.11 88.62 1.97 38.82 17.08 43.30

Gas and oil 27.32 71.95 10.74 32.84 28.40 42.48

Other transportation 0.31 1.93 0.01 0.96 0 0.95

Entry fees 42.14 181.05 19.66 45.87 415.92 113.61

Recreation and entertainment 20.83 120.23 7.25 54.47 68.78 64.33

Sporting goods 5.61 32.33 1.23 13.19 11.21 16.76

Souvenirs and other expenses 2.25 23.38 0.26 11.57 42.85 13.03

 Total 126.54 1,002.36 51.48 376.07 1,096.14 545.93

Sample size (unweighted) n/a 122 168 n/a 337 n/a

Standard deviation of total 971 77 785

n/a = not applicable.

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars. 

These averages are based on visitors who claimed their primary activity was downhill skiing or snowboarding and analyses involving 

nonskier/nonsnowboarder visits should refer to previous tables on national forest visitor average spending. For downhill skiers and 

snowboarders, we have combined the overnight (OVN) national forest and OVN segments into a single OVN segment.

b

 The sample size for nonlocal day visitors sampled at high spending ski areas was insufficient and here we calculate average 

spending at high spending areas as 112 percent of nonlocal day skier spending at average spending areas. See appendix 4 for 

further information on this calculation.

c

 The sample size for local overnight visitors sampled at high spending ski areas was insufficient and here we calculate average 

spending at high spending areas as 110 percent of the nonlocal overnight skier/snowboarder spending at average spending areas. 

See appendix 4 for further information on this calculation.

d

 The all-visit averages are computed as a weighted average of the columns using the national skier/snowboarder segment 

shares as weights.
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

Lodging-Based Segmentation

The OVN and, to a lesser extent, the OVN-NF segments of the Basic 7 trip segments contain a mix of visitors using a variety of overnight lodging. Overnight 

visitors were asked to report what type(s) of lodging they used during their stay. 

Responses to that question allow us to further classify and better estimate spending 

for overnight visitors. However, local visitors on overnight trips are not separated 

from nonlocal visitors because sample sizes were not large enough to estimate 

lodging-based spending profiles separately for locals and nonlocals. When respondents reported using multiple lodging types, they were placed in the most expensive 

lodging segment. For example, a number of respondents reported using both a 

campground and hotel/motel on their trip. Those respondents were classified in the 

“motel” segment. The lodging-based segments provide an alternative to the Basic 7 

trip segments and will prove most useful when the economic analysis has a strong 

focus on overnight trips. Using the responses to the lodging question, and extending 

from the Basic 7 trip segments, yields 10 lodging-based segments: 

Table 10—Low spending profiles of downhill skiers and snowboarders, dollars per party per tripa

Nonlocal segments Local segments

Spending category Day OVN Day OVNb Nonprimary All visitsc

Dollars 

Motel 0 234.51 0 77.11 196.87 116.52

Camping 0 0.18 0 0.17 0 0.08

Restaurant 14.43 184.09 8.29 63.27 172.49 97.26

Groceries 4.61 92.10 2.59 30.59 76.27 47.32

Gas and oil 24.09 68.93 14.33 25.88 80.90 43.79

Other transportation 0 0.53 0 0.75 29.75 1.44

Entry fees 33.13 84.76 17.00 36.15 73.84 53.22

Recreation and entertainment 9.95 134.34 9.58 42.93 41.67 68.65

Sporting goods 2.95 35.43 3.21 10.39 36.84 19.41

Souvenirs and other expenses 1.84 20.34 0.33 9.12 9.10 10.21

 Total 90.99 855.21 55.33 296.35 717.73 457.89

Sample size (unweighted) 133 81 294 Rule 2 21 n/a

Standard deviation of total 87 1,002 78 744

n/a = not applicable.

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars. These 

averages are based on visitors who claimed their primary activity was downhill skiing or snowboarding and analyses involving nonskier 

visits should refer to previous tables on national forest visitor average spending. For downhill skiers and snowboarders, we have combined 

the overnight (OVN) national forest and OVN segments into a single OVN segment.

b

 The sample size for local overnight visitors sampled at low spending ski areas was insufficient and here we calculate average spending as 

87 percent of the nonlocal overnight spending at average ski areas. See appendix 4 for further information on this calculation.

c

 The all-visit averages are computed as a weighted average of the columns using the national skier/snowboarder segment shares as weights.
17

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

1. Nonlocal day trips: nonlocal residents on day trips to national forests

2. Local day trips: local residents on day trips to national forests

3. National forest undeveloped: visitors lodging in undeveloped areas on 

national forests

4. National forest developed: visitors lodging in developed campgrounds on 

national forests

5. National forest cabin: visitors lodging in cabins on national forests

6. Motel: visitors staying in rented hotels, cabins, condos, homes, etc. 

off national forests

7. Off-forest camp: visitors lodging in campgrounds off national forests 

8. Private home: visitors staying at private homes of friends or relatives or 

their second homes 

9. Other/multiple: visits with undesignated, missing, or multiple lodging types

10. Nonprimary: visits where recreating on national forests is not the primary 

trip purpose

The day trip and nonprimary segment shares for the lodging-based segments are 

unchanged from those found for the Basic 7 segments (table 11). Of the overnight 

visits, motel stays (including B&Bs, rented condos, etc.) are the most frequent lodging choice (10 percent of all visits) followed by developed campgrounds on national 

forests (6 percent of all visits) and private homes (6 percent of all visits). The least 

common overnight lodging types for national forest visits are private campgrounds 

located off national forests, national forest cabins, and other/multiple lodging. 

Excluding downhill skiers/snowboarders from the segment share estimation reduces 

the percentage of visits staying in motels and private homes and increases the percentage of visits staying in developed campgrounds on national forests. Considering 

only downhill skiers/snowboarders, 27 percent of visits involve stays in motels, and 

14 percent involve stays in private homes. 

Lodging-Based Segment Spending Profiles

The day and nonprimary trip spending averages (table 12) are unchanged from those 

shown in table 5. Trip spending in the overnight segments ranges from $156 for those 

camping in the undeveloped portions of forests to more than $800 for those staying 

overnight off forests in motels. Those staying in private homes and camping off 

forests spend about half that of individuals staying in motels off forests. 

Placing overnight segment spending on a per-night basis and using the lodgingbased segments provides the best opportunity to gauge the face validity of the spending averages. On a per-night basis, the spending of the overnight visitors ranges from 

$57 for those camping in undeveloped portions of the forest to $181 for those staying 

Spending in the 

overnight segments 

ranges from $156 for 

those camping in the 

undeveloped portions 

of forests to more than 

$800 for those staying 

in motels. 
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

Table 11—Segment shares for lodging-based segmentsa

Segment All visits 

Nondownhill skiing/

nonsnowboarding visits

Downhill skiing/

snowboarding visits

Percent

Nonlocal day 11 10 16

Local day 45 48 34

National forest undeveloped camping 3 3 b

National forest developed camping 6 8 b

National forest cabin 2 2 4

Motel 10 6 27

Private campground 1 1 b

Private home 6 4 14

Other/multiple 1 1 1

Nonprimary 15 17 4

 Total 100 100 100

a

 Estimated using case weights and the full sample.

b

 Lodging types on the national forest are combined into a single segment: national forest cabin. No visits occurred in the private 

campground segment.

Table 12—National forest visitor spending profiles by lodging type segment and spending category, 

dollars per party per tripa

 National forest

Spending category

Nonlocal day

Local day

Undeveloped

Developed

Cabin

Motel

Private 

campground

Private home

Other/multiple

Nonprimary

All visitsb

Dollars

Motel 0 0 9.08 5.20 226.11 396.15 43.53 32.48 102.81 139.67 55.49

Camping 0 0 8.34 41.20 4.29 0.73 84.11 0.77 26.18 12.23 6.89

Restaurant 14.77 5.66 15.22 15.05 64.73 158.65 63.11 91.98 65.36 93.23 37.48

Groceries 10.67 6.62 43.94 65.59 65.23 60.48 70.63 91.64 67.19 49.85 29.26

Gas and oil 30.20 15.43 51.25 56.65 68.54 79.71 86.01 73.92 89.58 62.71 38.02

Other transportation 0.58 0.16 1.82 0.12 1.19 3.78 0.72 4.56 12.75 3.35 1.33

Entry fees 4.12 2.70 5.96 6.09 6.86 16.21 11.96 10.47 8.53 7.58 5.40

Recreation and entertainment 2.96 1.01 3.74 4.37 14.63 39.17 12.59 31.63 27.65 21.84 9.27

Sporting goods 3.15 3.83 13.44 9.86 10.14 14.04 11.25 13.77 17.01 7.91 6.57

Souvenirs and other expenses 1.93 0.60 2.93 4.56 17.44 32.72 19.98 22.24 16.57 23.74 8.54

 Total 68.39 36.00 155.73 208.69 479.17 801.63 403.90 373.47 433.62 422.12 198.24

Sample size (unweighted) 2,112 9,225 1,128 2,977 660 990 261 710 523 3,955 22,541

Standard deviation of total 72 53 304 249 564 801 453 472 710 653 n/a

n/a = not applicable.

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars. These 

averages exclude visitors who claimed their primary activity was downhill skiing or snowboarding. When completing analyses involving 

skiers and snowboarders, refer to subsequent tables on average skier/snowboarder spending. 

b

 The all-visit averages are computed as a weighted average of the columns using the lodging-based segment shares for nondownhill skiing

nonsnowboarding visits as weights.
19

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

off forests in motels (table 13). Those staying in motels spend, on average, $89 for 

lodging expenses, $36 for restaurant meals and drinks, and $18 for gas and oil, per 

night. Those staying in developed national forest campgrounds pay approximately 

$18 for lodging/campground fees, $25 for groceries, and $21 for gas and oil, per 

night. 

Table 13—Per-day/night national forest visitor spending profiles by lodging type segment and spending 

category, dollars per partya

 National forest

Spending category

Nonlocal day

Local day

Undeveloped

Developed

Cabin

Motel

Private 

campground

Private home

Other/multiple

Nonprimary

All visitsb

Dollars

Motel 0 0 3.32 1.97 75.12 89.22 8.78 6.87 22.11 39.79 26.65

Camping 0 0 3.05 15.61 1.43 0.16 16.96 0.16 5.63 3.49 3.31

Restaurant 14.77 5.66 5.55 5.70 21.51 35.73 12.72 19.45 14.05 26.56 18.00

Groceries 10.67 6.62 16.04 24.85 21.67 13.62 14.24 19.37 14.45 14.20 14.05

Gas and oil 30.20 15.43 18.70 21.46 22.77 17.95 17.34 15.63 19.26 17.87 18.26

Other transportation 0.58 0.16 0.66 0.04 0.39 0.85 0.15 0.96 2.74 0.95 0.64

Entry fees 4.12 2.70 2.17 2.31 2.28 3.65 2.41 2.21 1.84 2.16 2.59

Recreation and entertainment 2.96 1.01 1.37 1.66 4.86 8.82 2.54 6.69 5.95 6.22 4.45

Sporting goods 3.15 3.83 4.91 3.73 3.37 3.16 2.27 2.91 3.66 2.25 3.15

Souvenirs and other expenses 1.93 0.60 1.07 1.73 5.80 7.37 4.03 4.70 3.56 6.76 4.10

 Total 68.39 36.00 56.83 79.05 159.19 180.55 81.43 78.96 93.25 120.26 95.22

Sample size (unweighted) 2,112 9,225 1,128 2,977 660 990 261 710 523 3,955 22,541

Average days/nights in the 

 local area

1.0 1.0 2.7 2.6 3.0 4.4 5.0 4.7 4.7 3.5 2.1

a Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars. These 

averages exclude visitors who claimed their primary activity was downhill skiing or snowboarding. When completing analyses involving 

skiers and snowboarders refer to subsequent tables on average skier/snowboarding spending. 

b The all-visit averages are computed as a weighted average of the columns using the lodging-based segment shares computed without 

downhill skiers and snowboarders as weights and divided by the average number of nights in the local area.

The trip spending of those engaged in downhill skiing/snowboarding in the 

lodging-based segments ranges from $59 for those on local day trips to $886 for 

those staying in motels, hotels, or bed and breakfasts (B&Bs) in local forest areas 

(table 14). Those staying in motels, hotels, or B&Bs average approximately $341 per 

trip on lodging expenditures, while those staying in private homes average $53 in 

lodging expenses. The private home category is likely capturing a mix of visitors 

staying for free with friends and relatives and those renting private homes. 
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

Table 14—National forest visitor spending profiles of downhill skiers and snowboarders by lodging-type 

segment and spending category, dollars per party per tripa

Spending category

Nonlocal 

day

Local 

day

National 

forestb Motel

Private 

home

Other/

multiplec Nonprimary

All 

visitsd

Dollars

Motel 0 0 185.79 341.29 52.90 102.81 146.10 113.86

Camping 0 0 0 0 0.02 26.18 4.23 0.43

Restaurant 20.53 9.83 102.43 155.70 169.78 65.36 129.36 82.36

Groceries 4.57 3.21 63.22 59.64 93.85 67.19 68.60 37.01

Gas and oil 24.43 13.44 60.15 66.72 56.65 89.58 55.28 39.94

Other transportation 0.28 0.24 2.40 0.42 3.16 12.75 9.78 1.30

Entry fees 37.68 17.93 39.93 105.65 87.95 8.53 107.20 58.93

Recreation and entertainment 18.62 11.13 134.61 105.67 100.18 27.65 52.21 57.07

Sporting goods 5.02 2.81 33.53 22.76 26.27 17.01 22.14 13.98

Souvenirs and other expenses 2.01 0.68 13.27 28.04 20.69 16.57 12.84 12.23

 Total 113.15 59.26 635.33 885.90 611.44 433.62 607.74 417.11

Sample size (unweighted) 371 784 60 170 193 523 71 1,670

Standard deviation of total 96 81 603 838 855 710 772 n/a

n/a = not applicable.

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars. 

These averages are for visitors engaged in downhill skiing and snowboarding. 

b

 All lodging types on the national forest are combined here in a single segment. The analyst should be cautious in using this segment 

as it is not clear if visitors are able to differentiate between lodging on or off the national forest. 

c

 There was an insufficient number of downhill skiing/snowboarding respondents in the other/multiple segment, and we substitute 

the spending averages shown for the general lodging-based segments here. 

d

 The all-visit averages are computed as a weighted average of the columns using the lodging-based segment shares computed for 

downhill skiers and snowboarders as weights.

Those engaged in downhill skiing/snowboarding and staying overnight in 

motels/hotels/B&Bs average 3.9 nights in the local areas and spend about $229 

per night, on average (table 15). Lodging constitutes the greatest single expense 

for these visitors. Groups using private homes for lodging spend about $128 per 

night and the greatest expense for these groups is food. Increased spending on 

entry fees and recreation and entertainment are the distinguishing features of the 

downhill skier/snowboarder spending averages compared to the spending of visitors not engaging in these activities. Downhill skiers/snowboarders tend to spend 

slightly less than other visitors on gas and oil purchased in the local area. With 

the exception of those categories, the spending of downhill skiers/snowboarders is 

fairly similar to that of visitors not engaged in these activities when trip length is 

accounted for by placing spending on a per-night basis. 
21

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

Table 15—Per-day/night national forest visitor spending profiles of downhill skiers and snowboarders by 

lodging-type segment and spending category, dollars per partya

Spending category

Nonlocal 

day

Local 

day

National 

forestb Motel

Private 

home

Other/

multiplec Nonprimary

All 

visitsd

Dollars

Motel 0 0 61.72 76.87 11.18 22.11 41.62 42.67

Camping 0 0 0 0 0 5.63 1.20 0.16

Restaurant 20.53 9.83 34.03 35.07 35.89 14.05 36.86 30.87

Groceries 4.57 3.21 21.00 13.43 19.84 14.45 19.55 13.87

Gas and oil 24.43 13.44 19.98 15.03 11.98 19.26 15.75 14.97

Other transportation 0.28 0.24 0.80 0.09 0.67 2.74 2.79 0.49

Entry fees 37.68 17.93 13.27 23.80 18.59 1.84 30.54 22.09

Recreation and entertainment 18.62 11.13 44.72 23.80 21.18 5.95 14.87 21.39

Sporting goods 5.02 2.81 11.14 5.13 5.55 3.66 6.31 5.24

Souvenirs and other expenses 2.01 0.68 4.41 6.32 4.37 3.56 3.66 4.58

 Total 113.15 59.26 211.07 199.53 129.27 93.25 173.14 156.32

Sample size (unweighted) 371 784 60 170 193 523 71 1,670

Average days/nights in the 

local area

1.0 1.0 3.0 4.4 4.7 4.7 3.5 2.7

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 

2014 dollars. These averages are for visitors engaged in downhill skiing and snowboarding. 

b

 All lodging types on the national forest are combined here in a single segment. The analyst should be cautious in 

using this segment as it is not clear if visitors are able to differentiate between lodging on or off the national forest.

c

 There was an insufficient number of downhill skiing/snowboarding respondents in the other/multiple segment 

and we substitute the spending averages shown for the general lodging-based segments here. 

d

 The all-visit averages are computed as a weighted average of the columns using the lodging-based segment shares 

computed for downhill skiers and snowboarders as weights and divided by the average number of nights in the local area.

Conclusions

The spending averages and visit and trip characteristics in this report can be used 

to better understand the behavior of outdoor recreationists and to estimate the 

economic contribution and impact on local communities from outdoor recreation 

visitor spending. The data collected in this analysis come from visitors to NFS 

lands, but the results presented here are likely applicable to outdoor recreation 

resources managed by other land agencies. The spending figures and trip characteristics reported here are consistent with those found in analysis of data collected 

from outdoor recreationists visiting lands managed by other agencies (e.g., USDI 

NPS 2016, White and Goodding 2015). 

The data in this report come from visitor interviews conducted on NFS lands 

between 2010 and 2015. This report updates results from the previous analysis 

(White et al. 2013) that used data collected under the NVUM program between 
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

2005 and 2009. The visitor spending patterns and trip characteristics changed very 

little between the two periods. The similarity between these two reports reinforces 

the relatively stable patterns we have found in visitor spending and trip characteristics since the beginning of the NVUM program (White et al. 2013). Any significant 

changes in spending averages or visitor spending parameters in the early years of 

NVUM have come about primarily from changes in the NVUM survey instrument 

and analytical changes. The stability in visitor spending between the two most 

recent data series likely traces to steadily declining unemployment, improving 

consumer confidence, and very low inflation over the past 8 years. Between the 

data periods, consumer prices have remained largely steady, meaning that pernight costs to recreate remained largely unchanged during the period of economic 

improvement. 

For many applications, the Basic 7 trip segments and the associated spending 

averages will be appropriate. In situations where downhill skiing/snowboarding 

visits are an important component of the analysis, the downhill skiing/snowboarding profiles and estimated characteristics should be incorporated in the analysis for 

that portion of use. In instances where overnight trips are particularly important to 

the analysis, the lodging-based segments should prove useful. The wildlife-related 

spending figures reported in appendix 3 can be applied for wildlife-related analyses. Finally, the activity-specific spending profiles in appendix 4 can be used for 

analyses aimed at specific activities. 

Acknowledgments

Henry Eichman, Kawa Ng, and Stan Zarnoch provided helpful reviews of an earlier 

version of this document. This work is a continuation of the joint effort of the late 

Daniel J. Stynes and Eric M. White that started at the beginning of the NVUM 

program in 2000. The development of the approach to reporting NVUM visitor 

spending benefited from the involvement of many individuals. Early contributors 

to this research include Greg Alward, J. Ross Arnold, Rickard Hokans, Sue Kocis, 

Mike Niccolucci, Mike Retzlaff, Mike Vasievich, and Susan Winter. 

Metric Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To get:

Miles (mi) 1.609 Kilometers

Spending patterns 

have been relatively 

stable since the 

beginning of the 

NVUM program.
23

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

References

Crompton, J.L.; Lee, S.; Shuster, T.J. 2001. A guide for undertaking economic 

impact studies: the Springfest example. Journal of Travel Research. 40: 79–87. 

Rylander, R.G., II; Propst, D.B.; McMurty, T.R. 1995. Nonresponse and recall 

biases in a survey of traveler spending. Journal of Travel Research. 33: 39–45.

Stynes, D.J.; White, E.M. 2005a. Effects of changes in the FY 2003 NVUM 

instrument and development of national forest visitor spending profiles for 

lodging-based segments. 37 p. Unpublished report. On file with: Eric White, 

Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3625 93rd Avenue SW, Olympia, WA 98512-1101.

Stynes, D.J.; White, E.M. 2005b. Spending profiles of national forest visitors, 

NVUM four-year report. Unpublished report. On file with: Eric White, Forestry 

Sciences Laboratory, 3625 93rd Avenue SW, Olympia, WA 98512-1101.

Stynes, D.J.; White, E.M. 2006. Reflections on measuring recreation and travel 

spending. Journal of Travel Research. 45: 8–16. 

Stynes, D.J.; White, E.M.; Leefers, L.A. 2002. Spending profiles of national 

forest visitors: years 2000 and 2001. Unpublished report. On file with: Eric 

White, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3625 93rd Avenue SW, Olympia, WA 

98512-1101.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2007. National 

visitor use monitoring handbook: July 2007. 87 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/

recreation/programs/nvum/reference/july07_handbook.pdf. (29 December 2016). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2016. National 

Visitor Use Monitoring survey results: data collected FY 2011 through FY 

2015. 29 p. https://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/pdf/508pdf2015_

National_Summary_Report.pdf. (29 December 2016). 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service [USDI NPS]. 2016. 

2015 national park visitor spending effects: economic contributions to local 

communities, states and the nation. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/EQD/

NRR-2016/1200. Fort Collins, CO: Fort Collins Science Center. 53 p. 

Watson, P.; Wilson, J.; Thilmany, D.; Winter, S. 2007. Determining economic 

contributions and impacts: What is the difference and why do we care? Regional 

Analysis and Policy. 37(2): 140–146. 
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

White, E.M.; Bowker, J.M.; Askew, A.E.; Langner, L.; Arnold, J.R.; 

English, D.B.K. 2016. Federal outdoor recreation trends: effects on economic 

opportunities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-945. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 46 p.

White, E.M.; Goodding, D.B. 2015. Spending and economic activity from 

recreation at Oregon State Park properties, Valleys Region and selection 

Mountain Region properties, 2015 update. https://www.oregon.gov/oprd/PLANS/

docs/scorp/2013-2018_SCORP/2015_Valleys_Region_Economic_Report.pdf. 

(29 December 2016).

White, E.M.; Goodding, D.B.; Stynes, D.J. 2013. Estimation of national forest 

visitor spending averages from National Visitor Use Monitoring: Round 2. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-883. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 65 p.

White, E.M.; Stynes, D.J. 2008. National forest visitor spending averages and the 

influence of trip type and recreation activity. Journal of Forestry. 116(1): 17–24.

White, E.M.; Stynes, D.J. 2010a. Spending profiles of national forest visitors, 

NVUM Round 2 update. 68 p. http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lulcd/Publicationsalpha_

files/White_Stynes_NVUM2010a.pdf. (29 December 2016).

White, E.M.; Stynes, D.J. 2010b. Updated spending profiles for national forest 

recreation visitors by activity. 42 p. On file with: Eric White, Forestry Sciences 

Laboratory, 3625 93rd Avenue SW, Olympia, WA 98512-1101.

Zarnoch, S.J.; White, E.M.; English, D.B.K.; Kocis, S.M.; Arnold, R. 2011.

The National Visitor Use Monitoring methodology and final results for Round 1. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-144. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 74 p.
25

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

Appendix 1: Applying the National Spending Profiles

This section provides guidance on applying the spending profiles for economic 

analysis and has been adapted from Stynes et al. (2002). A number of distinct 

spending profiles have been generated from the National Visitor Use Monitoring 

(NVUM) survey data. These include:

• National average spending profiles by trip segments (table 5)

• High and low spending profiles by trip segments (tables 6 and 7)

• Downhill skier/snowboarder spending profiles (tables 8 through 10)

• Spending profiles by lodging-based segment (tables 12 through 15)

• Spending profiles for select segment/activity combinations (app. 4).

These spending profiles can be used in national-, regional-, forest-, and 

subforest-level planning. For economic impact or contribution analyses, the spending profiles must be combined with (1) estimates of total visits, (2) estimates of the 

percentage of visits within trip or activity segments, (3) estimates of average party 

sizes within trip segments, and (4) an economic model of the local economy (usually an input-output [I-O] model). 

For national-, regional-, and forest-level analyses of visits to National Forest 

System lands, the number of visits and trip segment shares may be derived from 

NVUM results or other sources. The NVUM results will be most reliable at the 

national level, with increasing variability at regional and forest levels. Other local 

sources may be more reliable in estimating the number of visits within particular 

activity subgroups or for subforest-level analysis. 

The NVUM spending categories were developed to easily bridge to sectors in 

I-O models estimated with IMPLAN so the application of the spending data to I-O 

models is reasonably straightforward. For most applications, acquiring the estimates 

of visits and segment shares will be a greater problem than bridging to the I-O 

model. 

The general steps for making spending and economic impact/contribution 

estimates with the NVUM spending profiles are: 

1. Choose a set of visitor segments—When analyzing spending by all visitors, 

we recommend using the Basic 7 trip segments. When conducting more targeted analyses, one or more of the wildlife-related spending profiles (app. 3) or 

activity-based profiles (app. 4) may be used. We suggest using the Basic 7 trip 

segments as defaults and developing more specific segments only for groups 

whose spending will differ from these and for which reliable visit estimates can 

be made. For most analyses, a set of mutually exclusive visitor segments should 

be chosen for which both visit estimates and spending profiles can be generated. 
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

2. Choose a spending profile for each segment—If using the NVUM trip segments, begin by selecting from the high, national-average, or low profiles based 

on the characteristics of a particular application. Note that even though a forest 

may be classified (app. 2, table 18) as an above-average spending area, if the 

application relates to more remote areas of the forest, the low spending profiles 

may be more appropriate, as spending within trip segments is largely a function 

of the number and kinds of nearby spending opportunities. The NVUM spending profiles may be adjusted to suit the local situation/application, as needed. 

See text later in this appendix for guidance on adjusting spending averages 

for local applications and for how to use an engineering approach to estimate 

spending profiles when survey data are not available or of limited applicability. 

When the analysis involves downhill skier or snowboarder visits, the downhill 

skier/snowboarder spending profiles should be incorporated in the analysis 

and both the downhill skier/snowboarder spending profiles (e.g., table 8 or 14) 

and the basic spending profiles (e.g., table 5 or 12) may need to be used in the 

analysis. The wildlife-related spending profiles in appendix 3 may also be used 

for analyses that need to account for wildlife-related visitor spending. 

3. Estimate the number of visits by each segment—At the national or forest 

level, one may multiply the NVUM estimated number of nondownhill skiing/

snowboarding visits by the estimates of general trip segment shares (app. 2, 

table 19) to distribute total visits across the trip segments.1

 Downhill skiing/

snowboarding visits (if any) can be distributed across segments using the forestor national-level information in appendix 2, table 20. A similar procedure could 

be used for wildlife-related visits using information in appendix 3.

4. Convert the estimate of visits to party visits—Be careful to put 

visits and spending into common units. Recreation visits are on a per-person 

basis, while the spending averages reported here are on a per-party basis. Either 

divide the spending averages by the average party size to put spending on a 

per-person basis or convert visits to parties by dividing visits by an average 

party size. The NVUM estimates of average party sizes by segment for each 

forest are reported in appendix 2, table 21; the national-level average size of 

skier/snowboarder parties is reported in appendix 2, table 22. If you elect to use 

the spending profiles estimated on a per-night basis, then it is also necessary to 

 1 Another complication for some applications is potential double counting of spending 

by visitors staying overnight off forests and making multiple national forest visits during 

their stay in the area. Spending averages are on a trip basis (to the area). If the incidence of 

multiple national forest visits per trip is known, national forest visits should be converted to 

distinct trips to the area by dividing by an estimate of visits per trip.
27

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

place the party visits on a night basis by multiplying party visits by the average numbers of nights in the local area (treating day trips as involving 1 day/

night). The NVUM estimates of the average numbers of nights in the local area 

for each forest are in appendix 2, table 23. For downhill skiers/snowboarders, 

analysts will need to use the national-level average number of nights shown in 

table 4. 

5. Estimate total spending—The estimate of total spending is calculated by 

multiplying the number of visits (i.e., party visits or party night visits) of 

each trip type (segment) by the appropriate per-trip or per-day/night spending 

averages for that segment and summing across segments. 

6. Apply total spending within spending categories as final demand changes 

to an I-O model for local regions—The total spending estimated within each 

spending category can be applied to an I-O model for local regions using appropriate bridge tables to match the NVUM spending categories. The spending 

profiles represent spending within a 50-mi radius of forests. For Forest Service 

applications, Ecosystem Management Coordination (EMC—Washington office) 

has developed a custom set of I-O bridges for recreation visitor spending. Other 

federal recreation agencies (e.g., the National Park Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) have also developed customized I-O bridging for recreation visitor spending for their applications. 

7. Attribution issues—When making spending and contribution/economic 

impact estimates, some decisions must be made regarding which visits or 

spending should be counted. There are several alternatives. At one extreme is 

to count all spending within 50 mi of forests by anyone who visits the national 

forests during a trip to the area. Adopting this extreme, all of the spending of 

anyone (including locals and nonprimary visitors) who visits the forests would 

be counted. This approach would include spending from incidental visits and 

quite a bit of spending not directly related to recreation on national forests. At 

the other extreme is to make a “with vs. without” impact estimate and count 

only trips and spending that would not have been made in the absence of the 

forest recreation opportunities. Most situations, however, call for something in 

between.

Whether to include spending by local residents is a common question. 

Some argue that local residents would spend the money locally regardless of 

the recreation opportunities on national forests and that such spending does 

not represent “new” money to the region. Others are interested in capturing all 

spending associated with forest recreation trips, which includes local resident 
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

spending. Taking a “with vs. without” approach, the question is whether this 

spending would remain in the region or go outside in the absence of forest 

recreation opportunities. If locals would go outside the region for recreation in 

the absence of national forest opportunities, their trip spending would represent a loss to the region’s economy. That is, a loss of $100 in spending by a 

local resident is equivalent to the loss from not attracting a nonresident trip. It 

therefore should be included in a “with vs. without” economic impact assessment. In most cases, some local residents would find somewhere else to go 

locally if national forests were not present and some others would go outside the 

region for recreation. Ultimately, there is not a perfect answer to the question of 

whether spending by local residents should be included. We recommend including spending by local residents when estimating the economic contribution 

of forest recreation opportunities to the region, but excluding all of the local 

spending when estimating economic impacts of forest recreation to the region. 

More problematic are trips to regions that are not generated by national 

forests, but are made for some other purpose. The “nonprimary” purpose trip 

segment is included in this report so that these trips and associated spending 

may be treated separately. We recommend using the local day trip spending 

profile for nonprimary purpose trips when estimating the contribution of forests 

to local economies. The rationale is that the local day trip profile covers the 

additional spending of a recreation visit to national forests for visitors who are 

already in the area for some other reason. It possibly excludes several nights of 

lodging and other expenses that are evident in the nonprimary trip spending 

profile, on the basis that this spending was not associated with national forest 

visits. Only the additional spending for national forest visits is assumed to be 

lost to the local economy in the absence of national forest recreation opportunities. This procedure will omit some lodging and related expenses associated 

with extending a stay in the area to visit national forests, but is a reasonable, 

conservative, approach.

Some visitors would likely substitute other nearby recreation opportunities 

in the absence of those provided on national forests. The extent of substitutions 

will depend on the local supply of recreation opportunities. In a pure “with 

vs. without” analysis, trips and associated spending that would not be lost to 

regions (i.e., the visitor would recreate elsewhere in the 50-mi area) would also 

be excluded. Further study of substitution patterns would be required to fully 

address the substitution issue. More generally, many trips involving visits to 

national forests will involve multiple purposes and activities, making it difficult 

in some cases to isolate which “caused” the trips to be made. 
29

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

8. High spending recreation parties—Nationally, a majority of those on recreation visits to the National Forest System spend less than $50 during the trip. 

However, a limited number of visits involve greater spending and, because of 

the fairly conservative spending outlier rule we adopt in estimating spending 

profiles, our standard spending profiles may not fully represent spending by 

these high spending groups. One such group, downhill skiers/snowboarders, do 

have high spending patterns, and we have identified a spending profile applicable to economic analyses involving that group. Another group with potentially 

high spending that is not represented in our standard spending profiles are visitors using guides and outfitters. In the current NVUM survey instrument, no 

question clearly identifies respondents using guides and outfitters. Even if such 

a question existed, it is possible that the resulting sample size of respondents 

using guides and outfitters would be inadequate to reliably estimate the spending patterns of that group. That would likely result because these visits are 

thought to be a small component of total recreation use, and these visitors may 

be hard to intercept as they use nontraditional entry and exit points, not identified in NVUM sampling, between private lands and the national forest. One of 

the spending categories (recreation and entertainment) does include reference 

to recreation guide fees, but the generality of the spending category makes it 

impossible to definitively identify those reporting guide expenses. 

In cases where the spending by visitors using guides and outfitters, or other 

analyses involving high spenders, is an important component of the economic 

analysis and that spending is not adequately represented by the existing spending profiles, the forest could opt to (1) use one of the high spending profiles 

(or the downhill skier/snowboarder profile) we have reported here for the 

component of recreation use associated with guides and outfitters, (2) use the 

results of other studies that have reported reliable estimates of average or total 

spending of visits associated with guides and outfitters, or (3) use an engineering approach to construct a guide and outfitter spending profile applicable to the 

specific application. For the last option, the analyst can use an existing profile 

(e.g., the national-level average spending profile) and modify the average spending values in the appropriate categories (e.g., recreation and entertainment and 

lodging) to reflect the average costs in the local area associated with guide and 

outfitter use. See White et al. (2013) for an example of how to use an engineering approach for guide and outfitter expenses. 
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

Example: Estimating Total Spending for the Mount Hood 

National Forest 

The above steps for applying the spending profiles are illustrated for the Mount 

Hood National Forest east of Portland, Oregon, and south of Hood River, Oregon. 

The Mount Hood National Forest is a very popular destination for downhill skiing/

snowboarding and our example depicts how to handle that spending separate from 

general recreation visitor spending. The number of recreation visits annually to the 

Mount Hood National Forest is 1.95 million (USDA FS 2015). 

Computation of total visitor spending is shown in table 16. We depict the calculation of total visitor spending using the per-trip (rather than per-night) approach 

because the Forest Service and other agencies are using this approach. See White 

et al. (2013) for an example that uses the per-night approach. We draw on several 

Table 16—Calculation of annual visitor spending on the Mount Hood National Foresta

Nonlocal Local Nonprimary Totalb Day OVN-NF OVN Day OVN-NF OVN Units

Total recreation — — — — — — — 1,946,800 Number

Downhill skiers/snowboarders:

Visits 1,275,154 Number

Segment shares 24 0 11 52 0 1 12 100 Percent

Visits by segment 306,037 0 140,267 663,080 0 12,752 153,018 1,275,154 Number

Party size 2.7 3.0 2.1 2.4 2.9 Number

Party visits 113,347 46,756 315,752 5,313 52,765 533,933 Number

Spending ($/party/trip) 113.15 743.81 59.26 341.41 59.26c Dollars

Spending total 12,825 0 34,777 18,711 0 1,814 3,127 71,255 Dollars 

(thousands)

Nondownhill skiers/snowboarders:

Visits 671,646 Number

Segment shares 18 10 3 52 5 2 10 100 Percent

Visits by segment 120,896 67,165 20,149 349,256 33,582 13,433 67,165 671,646 Number

Party size 3 2.6 3.0 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.7 Number

Party visits 40,299 25,833 6,716 145,523 13,993 5,840 24,876 263,080 Number

Spending ($/party/trip) 68.39 251.74 579.70 36.00 179.86 255.60 36.00 Dollars

Spending total 2,756 6,503 3,894 5,239 2,517 1,493 896 23,297 Dollars 

(thousands)

Spending (all visits) 15,581 6,503 38,671 23,950 2,517 3,307 4,022 94,551 Dollars 

(thousands)

OVN = overnight, NF = national forest. 

a

 Recreation visit estimate from the Mount Hood National Forest National Visitor Use Monitoring report, segments shares from tables 19 and 20, 

party sizes from tables 21 and 22, and spending averages from tables 5 and 8. All dollar values expressed in 2014 dollars. 

b

 Calculated rows: visits by segment = total recreation visits × segment share, party visits = visits by segment / party size, spending total = 

spending ($/party/trip) × party visits, and spending (all visits) = spending total (downhill skiers/snowboarders) + spending total (nondownhill 

skiers/nonsnowboarders).

c

 The spending average for local day trips is used for nonprimary purpose trips to capture only the marginal increase in spending tracing 

to the national forest visit. 
31

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

forest-specific figures from tables in appendix 2. At some points in the calculation, because of small sample sizes, forest-specific parameters are not available, 

and we substitute national-level parameters. 

Recreation visits are first split into those with and without downhill skiing/

snowboarding as the primary recreation activity using NVUM results for the 

Mount Hood National Forest (USDA FS 2015). Visits are then allocated to trip 

segments using the forest-level segment shares for skiers/snowboarders (see app. 

2, table 20) and nonskiers/nonsnowboarders (see app. 2, table 19) for the Mount 

Hood National Forest. Next visits are converted to party visits by dividing by the 

national-level party sizes from table 22 in appendix 2 for downhill skiers/snowboarders and the Mount Hood National Forest party sizes from table 21 in appendix 2 for nondownhill skiers/nonsnowboarders. Party visits are then multiplied 

by the party trip spending averages to obtain total spending. The national average 

spending profiles for downhill skiers/snowboarders (table 8) and nondownhill skiers/nonsnowboarders (table 5) are used in this example because the Mount Hood 

National Forest is classified as an “average” spending forest (see app. 2, table 18). 

The spending of local visitors is included in this example calculation of total visitor spending. For nonprimary visits, we assumed that average spending on local 

day trip visits represents the spending attributable to the Mount Hood National 

Forest during nonprimary visits. 

Based on these calculations, recreation visits to the Mount Hood National 

Forest generate approximately $95 million (in 2014 dollars) in visitor spending 

each year in the local area around the national forest (table 16). Nearly 75 percent 

of that spending is associated with downhill skiers/snowboarders. Collectively, 

local day trips accounted for 52 percent of visits and 25 percent of spending. 

Nonlocals on overnight (OVN) trips staying off the forest account for 41 percent 

of the spending and 8 percent of visits. 

To obtain spending in detailed expenditure categories simply multiply party 

visits for each segment by the complete spending profile for that segment (e.g., 

table 5 or 8). This itemizes spending within specific categories/sectors. The greatest spending by Mount Hood National Forest visitors (table 17) is for gas and oil 

($17.9 million), restaurant food and alcohol ($17.1 million), entry fees ($16.3 million), and lodging ($12.4 million). Nonlocal OVN visitors account for the majority 

of spending for restaurant food and alcohol and for lodging; local day visitors 

account for most of the spending for gas and oil and for entry fees. 
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

As new recreation visit estimates become available, spending estimates may 

be updated by simply replacing the total visit estimate and redoing the calculation. 

Segment shares, party sizes, and spending averages based on the NVUM survey 

may also be modified by other local information sources or to simulate and evaluate 

future scenarios. In any event, the estimate of total spending for a given application 

should be based on the best estimates of each of the different inputs in the spending 

calculation. 

Table 17—Annual visitor spending by expense category on the Mount Hood National Foresta

Nonlocal Local NonDay OVN-NF OVN Day OVN-NF OVN primary Total

Dollars (thousands)

Motel 0 1,157 10,418 0 89 773 0 12,437

Camping 0 718 112 0 395 135 0 1,361

Restaurant 2,922 710 8,207 3,928 107 577 659 17,109

Groceries 948 1,423 4,077 1,977 1,001 535 334 10,296

Gas and oil 3,986 1,609 3,591 6,489 652 497 1,093 17,917

Other transportation 55 35 122 99 1 12 17 339

Entry fees 4,437 184 4,328 6,054 63 251 1,013 16,331

Recreation and entertainment 2,230 190 5,261 3,661 28 284 612 12,267

Sporting goods 696 278 1,312 1,445 165 119 244 4,258

Souvenirs and other expenses 306 200 1,244 302 15 123 51 2,240

 Total 15,580 6,503 38,671 23,955 2,517 3,307 4,023 94,555

a

 Values are in 2014 dollars. Totals do not match values in table 16 because of rounding. OVN = overnight. NF = national forest.
33

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

Table 18—Classification of National Forest System administrative units as above, below, or average spending

Above-average spending Average spending Below-average spending

Black Hills

Bridger-Teton

Cibola

Coconino

Gallatin

Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-

 Gunnison

Hiawatha

Inyo

Lake Tahoe Management Unit

National forests in North Carolina

Ottawa

Rio Grande

San Juan

Siuslaw

Tongass—Juneau, Admiralty

Tongass—Sitka, Hoonah

White Mountain 

White River

Allegheny

Apache-Sitgreaves

Bighorn

Caribou-Targhee

Carson

Chattahoochee-Oconee

Chequamegon-Nicolet

Chippewa

Chugach

Clearwater

Coronado

Custer

Deschutes

El-Yunque

Fishlake

Flathead

Francis Marion-Sumter

George Washington

Humboldt-Toiyabe

Humboldt-Toiyabe—

Spring Mountains

Huron-Manistee

Idaho Panhandle

Jefferson 

Kaibab

Kootenai

Land Between the Lakes

Lassen

Lewis and Clark

Lincoln

Lolo

Manti-La Sal

Medicine Bow 

Modoc 

Mount Hood

National forests in Alabama

National forests in Florida

Nebraska

Nez Perce

Okanogan

Ouachita 

Payette

Pike-San Isabel

Plumas

Routt

Salmon-Challis

San Bernardino

Sawtooth

Sequoia 

Shasta-Trinity

Shoshone

Sierra

Six Rivers

Stanislaus

Superior

Tahoe

Tongass—Ketchikan, 

Misty, Thorne Bay

Tongass—Yakutat, 

Petersberg, Wrangell

Umpqua

Wayne

Angeles

Arapahoe-Roosevelt

Ashley

Beaverhead-Deerlodge 

Bitterroot

Boise

Cherokee

Cleveland 

Columbia River Gorge

Colville

Dakota Prairie

Daniel Boone

Dixie 

Eldorado

Finger Lakes

Fremont-Winema

Gifford Pinchot

Gila

Green Mountains

Helena

Hoosier

Kisatchie

Klamath 

Los Padres

Malheur

Mark Twain

Mendocino

Midewin Tallgrass Prairie

Mount Baker-Snoqualmie

Monongahela

National forests in Mississippi

National forests in Texas

Ochoco

Olympic

Ozark-St. Francis

Prescott

Rogue River-Siskiyou

Santa Fe

Shawnee

Tonto 

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache

Umatilla

Wallowa-Whitman

Wenatchee

Willamette

Appendix 2: Supplemental Tables for Completing 

Economic Analyses

A variety of intermediate parameters and inputs are needed to estimate total 

spending. Most of the figures elsewhere in this report are at the national level. In 

this appendix, we provide the parameters at the forest level. The classification of 

each unit in the National Forest System as “above average,” “average,” or “below 

average” is shown in table 18. The total number of visits to national forests is 

reported by the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program (https://apps.

fs.fed.us/nfs/nrm/nvum/results/), and we report the share of those visits occurring 

within each visitor spending segment (tables 19 and 20). 
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

Table 19—General recreation segment shares by administrative unita

Nonlocal Local

Administrative unit Day OVN-NF OVN Day OVN-NF OVN Nonprimary Total

Percent

Allegheny 13 14 11 39 10 3 10 100

Angeles 7 3 1 76 8 0 5 100

Apache-Sitgreaves 11 49 4 22 1 1 12 100

Arapaho-Roosevelt 10 4 16 56 4 1 9 100

Ashley 13 23 4 34 8 1 17 100

Beaverhead-Deerlodge 6 5 3 72 3 0 11 100

Bighorn 15 16 2 23 8 1 35 100

Bitterroot 4 1 1 81 5 2 6 100

Black Hills 6 5 23 41 6 2 17 100

Boise 10 17 8 42 7 3 13 100

Bridger-Teton 8 9 15 55 2 1 10 100

Caribbean 4 0 26 7 0 0 63 100

Caribou-Targhee 5 9 8 54 5 1 18 100

Carson 10 8 17 42 1 1 21 100

Chattahoochee-Oconee 9 8 7 44 3 3 26 100

Chequamegon-Nicolet 4 10 19 14 7 4 42 100

Cherokee 10 6 10 63 4 0 7 100

Chippewa 8 18 8 34 11 0 21 100

Chugach 9 7 10 35 4 2 33 100

Cibola 3 2 2 69 1 1 22 100

Clearwater 9 12 4 50 6 0 19 100

Cleveland 5 5 0 76 7 1 6 100

Coconino 15 6 16 27 2 0 34 100

Columbia River Gorge 8 1 5 55 1 0 30 100

Colville 9 32 1 40 9 1 8 100

Coronado 5 4 9 59 10 2 11 100

Custer 25 11 9 26 5 1 23 100

Dakota Prairie 10 7 11 37 6 0 29 100

Daniel Boone 14 12 12 38 9 1 14 100

Deschutes 2 8 10 53 4 1 22 100

Dixie 13 16 7 29 4 2 29 100

Eldorado 15 30 4 28 10 1 12 100

Fishlake 5 13 25 39 3 0 15 100

Flathead 6 6 4 54 6 1 23 100

Francis Marion-Sumter 6 2 0 78 1 0 13 100

Fremont-Winema 10 5 5 59 12 2 7 100

Gallatin 3 3 20 68 2 0 4 100

George Washington-Jefferson 10 6 6 57 4 1 16 100

Gifford Pinchot 27 13 6 20 1 1 32 100

Gila 10 6 4 63 3 0 14 100

Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison 7 4 10 56 1 1 21 100

Green Mountain and Finger Lakes 7 2 7 52 1 3 28 100

Helena 2 2 6 74 4 1 11 100

Hiawatha 5 5 17 32 8 2 31 100

Hoosier 6 13 3 52 12 2 12 100

Humboldt-Toiyabe 1 23 68 4 2 0 2 100

Humboldt-Toiyabe—Spring Mountains 4 1 1 75 6 1 12 100

Huron Manistee 28 8 12 33 2 4 13 100

Idaho Panhandle 14 7 7 56 3 2 11 100

Inyo 7 35 17 9 3 0 29 100

Kaibab 8 14 7 6 1 0 64 100

Kisatchie 21 7 2 60 4 0 6 100

Klamath 5 12 6 54 2 0 21 100

Kootenai 10 4 7 47 8 1 23 100

Lake Tahoe Management Unit 8 9 31 21 1 0 30 100

Land Between the Lakes 6 33 3 17 32 1 8 100

Lassen 12 17 6 42 5 3 15 100

Lewis and Clark 21 9 7 18 2 4 39 100

Lincoln 18 6 9 18 3 0 46 100

Lolo 3 3 5 80 1 1 7 100

Los Padres 9 7 4 58 3 0 19 100

Malheur 3 29 6 33 7 0 22 100
35

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

Table 19—General recreation segment shares by administrative unita (continued)

Nonlocal Local

Administrative unit Day OVN-NF OVN Day OVN-NF OVN Nonprimary Total

 Percent

Manti-La Sal 16 12 2 35 8 1 26 100

Mark Twain 6 7 9 61 3 0 14 100

Medicine Bow 9 17 6 55 5 1 7 100

Mendocino 6 18 1 59 3 0 13 100

Midewin Tallgrass Prairie 11 0 0 82 0 0 7 100

Modoc 9 1 3 67 1 0 19 100

Monongahela 10 16 16 28 3 0 27 100

Mount Baker-Snoqualmie 22 9 3 44 11 2 9 100

Mount Hood 18 10 3 52 5 2 10 100

National Forests in Alabama 13 1 1 81 1 2 1 100

National Forests in Florida 9 15 3 47 20 0 6 100

National Forests in Mississippi 7 2 0 74 4 0 13 100

National Forests in North Carolina 10 5 13 50 3 0 19 100

National Forests in Texas 18 9 1 47 12 1 12 100

Nebraska 12 4 4 41 1 5 33 100

Nez Perce 6 21 5 52 3 1 12 100

Ochoco 4 8 3 46 14 0 25 100

Okanogan 9 16 23 23 2 1 26 100

Olympic 9 7 12 39 7 1 25 100

Ottawa 4 10 28 17 1 2 38 100

Ouachita 20 14 13 46 4 0 3 100

Ozark-St Francis 7 21 5 39 9 6 13 100

Payette 12 12 35 30 1 2 8 100

Pike-San Isabel 12 7 8 54 3 1 15 100

Plumas 7 25 5 47 9 1 6 100

Prescott 13 10 4 61 4 1 7 100

Rio Grande 13 20 21 31 0 1 14 100

Rogue River-Siskiyou 9 5 3 56 4 0 23 100

Routt 2 5 16 29 3 1 44 100

Salmon-Challis 17 23 12 32 5 0 11 100

San Bernardino 16 10 22 36 4 3 9 100

San Juan 4 15 12 26 16 1 26 100

Santa Fe 7 9 3 67 2 0 12 100

Sawtooth 8 16 13 41 5 0 17 100

Sequoia 7 33 7 36 3 0 14 100

Shasta Trinity 8 13 7 46 5 1 20 100

Shawnee 11 7 18 41 3 4 16 100

Shoshone 10 9 9 46 4 1 21 100

Sierra 10 18 8 41 6 1 16 100

Siuslaw 13 15 10 34 3 0 25 100

Six Rivers 11 6 5 44 2 1 31 100

Stanislaus 15 25 15 30 3 1 11 100

Superior 2 22 14 46 1 0 15 100

Tahoe 8 6 11 57 6 1 11 100

Tongass (total) 4 0 5 73 2 1 15 100

Tongass—Juneau, Admiralty 2 0 5 72 4 0 17 100

Tongass—Ketchikan, Misty, Thorne Bay 2 0 8 69 1 2 18 100

Tongass—Sitka, Hoonah 2 1 6 75 0 1 15 100

Tongass—Yakutat, Petersberg, Wrangell 11 1 1 76 3 1 7 100

Tonto 17 5 0 68 3 0 7 100

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache 4 5 3 69 8 0 11 100

Umatilla 21 18 2 37 15 0 7 100

Umpqua 26 16 4 21 2 0 31 100

Wallowa-Whitman 10 18 8 44 1 0 19 100

Wayne 7 16 2 60 10 1 4 100

Wenatchee 17 18 6 36 13 0 10 100

White Mountain 13 8 30 16 1 1 31 100

White River 6 3 23 35 1 0 32 100

Willamette 19 18 3 27 8 2 23 100

National average 9 8 12 48 4 1 18 100

a Estimated using the full sample and case weights. Cases where the primary activity was downhill skiing/snowboarding or wildlife-related recreation 

were excluded. OVN = overnight, NF = national forest.
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

Table 20—Segment shares by administrative unit for downhill skiing visitsa

Administrative unit

Nonlocal Local

Day OVN Day OVN Nonprimary Total

Percent

Angeles 38 1 46 3 12 100

Arapaho-Roosevelt 26 33 37 1 3 100

Beaverhead-Deerlodge 19 12 61 4 4 100

Bighorn 37 1 62 0 0 100

Bitterroot 21 3 73 0 3 100

Boise 5 0 93 0 2 100

Bridger-Teton 4 30 62 2 2 100

Caribou-Targhee 13 18 60 3 6 100

Carson 11 62 27 0 0 100

Chequamegon-Nicolet 16 46 33 1 4 100

Chippewa 16 46 33 1 4 100

Chugach 16 46 33 1 4 100

Cibola 1 2 88 0 9 100

Clearwater 16 46 33 1 4 100

Coconino 19 21 55 1 4 100

Colville 22 6 67 3 2 100

Coronado 16 46 33 1 4 100

Custer 15 40 32 6 7 100

Deschutes 5 37 50 1 7 100

Dixie 25 25 50 0 0 100

Eldorado 38 29 21 3 9 100

Flathead 6 26 62 1 5 100

Gallatin 2 6 89 1 2 100

Gifford Pinchot 16 46 33 1 4 100

Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison 14 16 68 1 1 100

Green Mountain and Finger Lakes 8 61 25 3 3 100

Helena 16 46 33 1 4 100

Hiawatha 16 46 33 1 4 100

Humboldt-Toiyabe—Spring Mountains 8 8 67 4 13 100

Idaho Panhandle 43 6 23 1 27 100

Inyo 4 80 14 0 2 100

Kaibab 25 18 41 2 14 100

Klamath 0 0 80 0 20 100

Kootenai 10 3 74 0 13 100

Lake Tahoe Management Unit 4 61 30 2 3 100

Lassen 16 46 33 1 4 100

Lewis and Clark 67 18 8 3 4 100

Lincoln 17 25 46 1 11 100

Lolo 1 3 95 1 0 100

Los Padres 16 46 33 1 4 100

Manti-La Sal 0 14 57 0 29 100

Medicine Bow 28 18 51 0 3 100

Mount Baker-Snoqualmie 51 13 30 2 4 100

Mount Hood 24 11 52 1 12 100

Nez Perce 16 46 33 1 4 100

Okanogan 2 9 85 0 4 100

Ozark-St Francis 16 46 33 1 4 100

Payette 14 46 30 6 4 100

Pike-San Isabel 24 32 36 1 7 100

Plumas 16 46 33 1 4 100
37

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

Table 20—Segment shares by administrative unit for downhill skiing visitsa (continued)

Administrative unit

Nonlocal Local

Day OVN Day OVN Nonprimary Total

Percent

Rio Grande 21 51 27 0 1 100

Rogue River-Siskiyou 7 1 90 1 1 100

Routt 1 61 30 0 8 100

Salmon-Challis 16 46 33 1 4 100

San Bernardino 39 26 20 2 13 100

San Juan 11 16 71 0 2 100

Santa Fe 20 9 61 1 9 100

Sawtooth 28 27 43 1 1 100

Sequoia 37 3 59 1 0 100

Shasta-Trinity 0 17 83 0 0 100

Shoshone 19 12 53 9 7 100

Sierra 33 20 33 6 8 100

Stanislaus 29 52 15 1 3 100

Superior 16 46 33 1 4 100

Tahoe 29 33 32 0 6 100

Tonto 16 46 33 1 4 100

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache 8 30 55 1 6 100

Umatilla 53 6 39 0 2 100

Wallowa-Whitman 18 14 58 3 7 100

Wenatchee 29 9 57 2 3 100

White Mountain 25 62 9 1 3 100

White River 19 67 11 1 2 100

Willamette 39 23 37 1 0 100

National average 16 46 33 1 4 100

a

 Estimated using the full sample and case weights. Only forests with downhill skiing visits are shown. OVN = overnight.

The spending averages presented in this report relate to the entire travel party 

for the entire trip. To estimate total spending, divide the estimate of recreation visits 

by the average party size (table 21 or 22) to place NVUM visits and spending in the 

same units. Users may complete spending analysis either on a per-trip or per-night 

basis. To convert per-trip spending to per-night spending, we provide an estimate 

of the average number of nights in the local area for visitors to each national forest 

(table 23). 

Table 21—Downhill skier party size by trip segmenta

Nonlocal Local

Day OVN Day OVN Nonprimary

2.7 3.0 2.1 2.4 2.9

OVN = overnight.

a

 Estimated using the full sample and case weights. There are insufficient 

cases to estimate skier party sizes for individual national forests. The 

national average party sizes can be used for forest-level analyses. 
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

Table 22—General recreation average party size by trip segment and administrative unita

Nonlocal Local

Administrative unit Day OVN-NF OVN Day OVN-NF OVN Nonprimary

Number 

Allegheny 2.6 2.8 1.9 2.5 3.5 2.3 3.4

Angeles 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.3 2.7 2.3 2.3

Apache-Sitgreaves 2.6 2.9 2.5 2.4 2.8 2.3 2.5

Arapaho-Roosevelt 2.5 2.8 2.3 2.2 2.8 2.3 3.2

Ashley 2.6 3.0 2.8 2.9 3.2 2.3 2.9

Beaverhead-Deerlodge 2.2 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.9

Bighorn 3.0 2.6 3.3 2.7 3.0 2.3 2.9

Bitterroot 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.2 2.7 2.3 2.6

Black Hills 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.3 3.2 2.3 2.8

Boise 3.0 3.3 2.7 2.4 3.0 2.3 2.2

Bridger-Teton 3.1 3.3 3.3 2.1 3.5 2.3 3.4

Caribbean 2.6 2.8 2.8 3.2 2.8 2.3 2.8

Caribou-Targhee 2.3 3.6 3.5 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.7

Carson 2.4 2.9 2.5 1.7 2.8 2.3 2.2

Chattahoochee-Oconee 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.5 1.9 2.3 2.5

Chequamegon-Nicolet 2.0 2.4 2.2 1.8 2.6 2.3 2.5

Cherokee 3.7 2.3 2.9 2.5 3.3 2.3 2.6

Chippewa 2.6 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.1

Chugach 3.2 2.3 2.5 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.8

Cibola 2.3 1.7 2.2 2.3 2.8 2.3 2.5

Clearwater 2.8 2.4 2.8 2.4 3.0 2.3 2.4

Cleveland 1.9 2.5 2.8 2.2 2.7 2.3 2.3

Coconino 2.8 3.0 2.7 2.1 2.0 2.3 2.8

Columbia River Gorge 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.6

Colville 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.4 2.7 2.3 2.1

Coronado 2.7 2.5 2.6 1.9 3.1 2.3 2.5

Custer 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.9 2.3 2.6

Dakota Prairie 2.6 2.8 2.8 1.9 2.8 2.3 1.7

Daniel Boone 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.2 2.5 2.3 2.2

Deschutes 2.2 2.9 3.0 2.1 2.6 2.3 2.7

Dixie 2.7 2.3 4.1 2.5 2.7 2.3 2.5

Eldorado 3.0 3.0 2.6 2.3 2.8 2.3 2.3

Fishlake 2.6 3.1 3.2 2.2 2.8 2.3 2.6

Flathead 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.7

Francis Marion-Sumter 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.2 2.3 3.7

Fremont-Winema 2.8 2.0 2.8 2.4 3.1 2.3 1.8

Gallatin 2.2 3.4 2.9 1.8 2.5 2.3 2.7

George Washington-Jefferson 3.2 2.7 2.3 2.0 2.4 2.3 2.8

Gifford Pinchot 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.0 2.8 2.3 2.5

Gila 3.4 2.6 2.7 2.0 2.8 2.3 2.8

Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison 2.4 2.2 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.2

Green Mountain and Finger Lakes 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.5 3.1 2.3 2.0

Helena 2.6 2.8 2.8 1.9 2.4 2.3 2.1

Hiawatha 2.0 3.3 2.7 1.7 3.1 2.3 2.8

Hoosier 3.2 2.4 2.8 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3

Humboldt-Toiyabe 1.9 5.3 2.1 2.7 2.8 2.3 2.0

Humboldt-Toiyabe—Spring Mountains 3.3 2.8 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.3 2.5

Huron-Manistee 2.7 2.3 2.9 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3

Idaho Panhandle 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.0 2.9 1.9 2.3

Inyo 2.0 2.5 2.8 1.5 2.8 2.3 2.7

Kaibab 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.8 2.3 2.7

Kisatchie 2.0 3.6 3.9 2.5 4.1 2.3 2.1

Klamath 2.6 2.2 2.8 2.5 3.1 2.3 2.4

Kootenai 2.3 2.7 2.9 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.5

Lake Tahoe Management Unit 1.8 2.6 3.0 1.9 2.8 2.3 2.8

Land Between the Lakes 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.7 3.4 2.3 2.8

Lassen 2.4 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.9 2.3 2.2

Lewis and Clark 2.5 3.4 3.8 1.7 2.7 2.3 2.3

Lincoln 2.9 2.6 2.8 1.6 2.8 2.3 2.9

Lolo 2.8 2.4 2.6 1.8 2.4 2.3 1.9

Los Padres 2.8 2.9 2.7 1.9 2.6 2.3 2.4

Malheur 2.6 3.8 2.8 2.4 2.9 2.3 2.2
39

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

Table 22—General recreation average party size by trip segment and administrative unita (continued)

Nonlocal Local

Administrative unit Day OVN-NF OVN Day OVN-NF OVN Nonprimary

Number 

Manti-La Sal 3.2 3.2 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.3 3.2

Mark Twain 2.5 3.6 3.6 2.7 2.1 2.3 3.2

Medicine Bow 2.9 3.1 3.0 1.9 2.9 2.3 2.3

Mendocino 2.5 2.2 2.8 1.6 2.8 2.3 1.8

Midewin Tallgrass Prairie 2.6 2.8 2.8 1.7 2.8 2.3 2.7

Modoc 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.2 2.8 2.3 2.7

Monongahela 2.5 2.2 2.5 1.9 1.9 2.3 2.6

Mount Baker-Snoqualmie 2.3 3.1 3.0 2.5 2.8 2.3 2.2

Mount Hood 3.0 2.6 3.0 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.7

National forests in Alabama 2.1 2.8 2.8 2.4 2.8 2.3 2.7

National forests in Florida 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.8 2.3 2.3

National forests in Mississippi 2.0 2.8 2.8 2.7 1.7 2.3 2.2

National forests in North Carolina 2.4 2.1 2.3 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.5

National forests in Texas 2.0 2.5 2.8 2.1 2.9 2.3 2.2

Nebraska 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.8 2.3 2.7

Nez Perce 2.2 2.9 3.1 2.1 2.6 2.3 2.4

Ochoco 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.5 2.8 2.3 1.7

Okanogan 2.0 2.2 2.9 2.2 5.5 2.3 2.2

Olympic 2.0 2.6 2.8 2.1 2.6 2.5 2.7

Ottawa 3.5 2.6 3.0 1.9 2.8 2.3 2.7

Ouachita 2.2 2.4 1.5 2.5 3.2 2.3 2.7

Ozark-St. Francis 2.7 2.3 2.8 2.9 3.1 2.3 2.8

Payette 2.5 2.6 3.1 2.1 2.8 2.3 2.1

Pike-San Isabel 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.4

Plumas 3.9 2.3 2.6 2.3 2.7 2.3 2.1

Prescott 2.7 2.7 2.7 1.7 3.1 2.3 2.3

Rio Grande 2.3 2.3 3.0 2.2 2.8 2.3 2.3

Rogue River-Siskiyou 2.1 2.7 2.6 2.0 2.4 2.3 2.5

Routt 2.6 2.4 3.2 2.0 1.9 2.3 2.8

Salmon-Challis 2.1 2.9 2.7 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.7

San Bernardino 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.3 3.2 2.4 3.0

San Juan 2.1 2.7 3.0 2.0 2.5 2.3 2.7

Santa Fe 2.6 2.6 2.6 1.9 3.2 2.3 2.5

Sawtooth 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.0 2.4 2.3 2.4

Sequoia 3.1 2.9 3.9 2.3 2.8 2.3 2.4

Shasta-Trinity 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.2 2.7 2.3 2.4

Shawnee 2.9 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.6

Shoshone 2.6 2.8 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.5

Sierra 3.5 3.0 3.7 2.5 3.2 3.7 2.7

Siuslaw 2.2 2.7 2.9 2.0 2.8 2.3 2.6

Six Rivers 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.0 3.2 2.3 2.3

Stanislaus 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.9

Superior 2.6 3.1 2.4 2.1 2.8 2.3 2.3

Tahoe 2.2 2.8 2.5 1.9 3.5 2.3 2.5

Tongass (total) 2.6 2.8 2.5 1.9 2.8 2.8 2.4

Tongass—Juneau, Admiralty 2.6 2.8 2.4 1.7 2.8 2.3 2.4

Tongass—Ketchikan, Misty, Thorne Bay 2.6 2.8 2.4 2.3 2.8 3.5 2.4

Tongass—Sitka, Hoonah 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.1 2.8 2.3 2.2

Tongass—Yakutat, Petersberg, Wrangell 2.6 2.8 2.8 1.4 2.8 2.3 2.7

Tonto 3.2 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.3 2.1

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache 2.5 3.1 3.0 2.4 3.3 2.3 2.6

Umatilla 2.1 2.6 2.8 2.8 4.6 2.3 2.7

Umpqua 2.4 2.4 2.4 1.8 2.8 2.3 2.5

Wallowa-Whitman 2.2 2.6 2.8 2.5 3.3 2.3 2.5

Wayne 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.7

Wenatchee 2.1 2.5 2.1 2.0 2.6 2.3 2.2

White Mountain 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.3 2.8 2.2 2.8

White River 3.0 2.7 3.1 1.9 2.9 2.3 3.3

Willamette 2.8 2.6 3.4 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.6

National average 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.2 2.8 2.3 2.7

a

 When there were fewer than 15 cases in a trip segment/forest combination, we have inserted the national average party size for that trip 

segment. OVN = overnight, NF = national forest.
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

Table 23—Average number of nights spent in the local area by segment and administrative unita

Nonlocal Local

Administrative unit OVN-NF OVN OVN-NF OVN Nonprimary

 Number of nights

Allegheny 2.5 3.9 1.9 3.7 2.2

Angeles 1.9 4.6 1.4 3.7 4.6

Apache-Sitgreaves 3.4 4.7 2.1 3.7 3.3

Arapaho-Roosevelt 2.2 3.7 2.3 2.8 3.5

Ashley 4.4 4.7 2.1 3.7 1.9

Beaverhead-Deerlodge 5.8 9.1 3.1 3.7 1.6

Bighorn 3.0 2.1 2.7 3.7 0.8

Bitterroot 3.1 4.6 2.6 3.7 2.5

Black Hills 4.4 4.2 2.1 3.7 3.3

Boise 2.4 2.2 1.9 3.7 3.4

Bridger-Teton 3.7 4.9 3.8 3.7 3.6

Caribbean 3.1 6.2 2.1 3.7 5.7

Caribou-Targhee 2.8 3.9 1.4 3.7 2.7

Carson 3.1 3.9 2.1 3.7 3.0

Chattahoochee-Oconee 2.8 3.1 1.6 3.7 2.5

Chequamegon-Nicolet 3.4 4.0 3.3 3.7 2.8

Cherokee 2.3 3.2 2.7 3.7 2.5

Chippewa 3.7 4.4 2.8 3.7 1.6

Chugach 2.3 6.4 2.2 3.7 5.0

Cibola 2.7 5.3 2.1 3.7 4.7

Clearwater 2.8 3.4 2.1 3.7 1.7

Cleveland 1.9 4.6 1.5 3.7 1.1

Coconino 2.4 3.9 1.5 3.7 3.4

Columbia River Gorge 2.0 4.9 1.1 3.7 2.8

Colville 2.8 4.6 3.3 3.7 3.5

Coronado 2.2 7.7 1.5 3.7 5.5

Custer 2.7 5.7 1.8 3.7 1.6

Dakota Prairie 3.1 4.6 2.1 3.7 2.6

Daniel Boone 2.5 2.5 3.5 3.7 2.6

Deschutes 3.4 4.7 2.4 3.7 4.0

Dixie 3.0 3.0 2.3 3.7 2.0

Eldorado 2.4 4.1 2.0 3.7 4.1

Fishlake 2.6 3.8 2.4 3.7 1.2

Flathead 4.3 7.6 2.1 3.7 5.5

Francis Marion-Sumter 1.7 1.8 3.2 3.7 1.5

Fremont-Winema 3.7 6.6 2.5 3.7 1.8

Gallatin 3.1 6.0 2.0 3.7 4.3

George Washington-Jefferson 4.3 3.3 1.6 3.7 1.3

Gifford Pinchot 2.2 3.0 2.1 3.7 1.1

Gila 6.2 3.5 2.1 3.7 1.6

Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison 2.3 5.2 1.5 3.7 5.6

Green Mountain and Finger Lakes 7.1 4.5 5.2 3.7 1.6

Helena 2.3 5.0 1.4 3.7 0.9

Hiawatha 3.6 4.3 3.9 3.7 2.4

Hoosier 2.3 4.6 2.4 3.7 0.3

Humboldt-Toiyabe 3.0 5.4 2.1 3.7 2.0

Humboldt-Toiyabe—Spring Mountains 3.1 3.9 1.4 3.7 7.4

Huron Manistee 2.4 5.0 2.3 3.7 2.1

Idaho Panhandle 3.0 5.5 2.4 3.0 3.2

Inyo 3.6 4.2 2.1 3.7 2.3

Kaibab 2.5 2.4 2.1 3.7 2.3

Kisatchie 4.6 2.8 2.4 3.7 0.6

Klamath 2.9 7.8 2.2 3.7 3.7

Kootenai 3.4 2.7 1.3 3.7 1.9

Lake Tahoe Management Unit 4.3 5.0 2.6 3.7 4.1

Land Between the Lakes 2.9 2.6 2.3 3.7 4.4

Lassen 3.9 4.6 2.8 3.7 1.4

Lewis and Clark 3.6 3.5 2.6 3.7 3.1

Lincoln 2.8 2.7 2.1 3.7 2.8

Lolo 3.4 4.4 2.2 3.7 1.3

Los Padres 2.1 3.6 1.6 3.7 2.6

Malheur 5.8 7.1 2.4 3.7 2.9

Manti-La Sal 2.8 4.1 3.0 3.7 2.5

Mark Twain 1.6 1.5 3.4 3.7 1.3
41

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

Table 23—Average number of nights spent in the local area by segment and administrative unita

(continued)

Nonlocal Local

Administrative unit OVN-NF OVN OVN-NF OVN Nonprimary

 Number of nights 

Medicine Bow 2.8 3.5 2.7 3.7 1.7

Mendocino 2.5 4.6 2.0 3.7 1.2

Midewin Tallgrass Prairie 3.1 4.6 2.1 3.7 0.6

Modoc 3.1 4.6 2.1 3.7 3.5

Monongahela 2.9 4.0 3.0 3.7 2.2

Mount Baker-Snoqualmie 2.0 3.4 2.1 3.7 2.7

Mount Hood 2.2 3.8 1.4 3.7 1.5

National forests in Alabama 3.1 4.6 2.1 3.7 3.5

National forests in Florida 3.6 6.6 2.2 3.7 2.5

National forests in Mississippi 3.1 4.6 2.9 3.7 0.9

National forests in North Carolina 3.2 4.2 1.5 3.7 4.1

National forests in Texas 3.7 3.3 2.7 3.7 1.2

Nebraska 3.1 2.4 2.1 3.7 1.9

Nez Perce 5.0 3.1 6.7 3.7 2.4

Ochoco 3.2 4.6 1.7 3.7 4.1

Okanogan 3.2 5.0 1.1 3.7 1.8

Olympic 1.8 3.8 1.7 1.6 3.6

Ottawa 3.6 4.0 2.1 3.7 3.2

Ouachita 2.9 2.7 3.5 3.7 1.0

Ozark-St. Francis 1.8 5.9 2.5 3.7 1.4

Payette 2.7 3.0 2.1 3.7 2.3

Pike-San Isabel 3.5 3.5 1.4 3.7 4.0

Plumas 3.0 4.0 2.5 3.7 3.7

Prescott 2.2 1.8 1.5 3.7 3.3

Rio Grande 4.1 7.4 2.1 3.7 9.1

Rogue River-Siskiyou 2.9 3.4 1.7 3.7 2.5

Routt 4.2 4.9 2.1 3.7 3.4

Salmon-Challis 2.7 3.3 3.1 3.7 3.2

San Bernardino 2.2 3.0 2.0 2.9 2.9

San Juan 4.0 8.2 2.0 3.7 4.6

Santa Fe 1.9 6.3 2.0 3.7 4.7

Sawtooth 3.0 6.3 1.7 3.7 4.9

Sequoia 2.4 3.0 1.5 3.7 1.6

Shasta-Trinity 3.6 2.9 2.0 3.7 1.8

Shawnee 2.2 3.5 2.6 5.2 1.6

Shoshone 3.4 5.7 3.6 3.7 2.4

Sierra 3.6 4.0 3.0 3.7 2.0

Siuslaw 3.0 4.6 2.1 3.7 2.0

Six Rivers 2.7 4.1 3.2 3.7 1.6

Stanislaus 2.8 3.8 2.2 3.7 3.0

Superior 4.2 3.9 2.1 3.7 2.9

Tahoe 3.3 3.9 2.2 3.7 3.0

Tongass (total) 3.1 7.1 2.1 3.4 3.4

Tongass—Juneau, Admiralty 3.1 4.2 2.1 3.7 2.9

Tongass—Ketchikan, Misty, Thorne Bay 3.1 8.3 2.1 3.0 2.8

Tongass—Sitka, Hoonah 3.1 7.3 2.1 3.7 5.9

Tongass—Yakutat, Petersberg, Wrangell 3.1 8.5 2.1 3.7 4.0

Tonto 3.1 4.6 2.1 3.7 1.1

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache 2.7 4.6 1.7 3.7 4.4

Umatilla 4.5 4.6 2.2 3.7 2.6

Umpqua 2.9 3.3 2.1 3.7 1.5

Wallowa-Whitman 3.4 1.7 2.4 3.7 1.5

Wayne 2.2 3.0 1.9 3.7 3.5

Wenatchee 2.1 2.3 3.4 3.7 1.1

White Mountain 2.8 3.3 2.1 3.7 2.7

White River 2.8 6.2 2.7 3.7 6.5

Willamette 2.4 5.1 2.4 2.8 1.8

National average 3.1 4.6 2.1 3.7 3.5

a Estimated using the full dataset and the case weights. If a forest has fewer than 15 cases in a segment, the value is the national 

average for that segment. OVN = overnight, NF = national forest.
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

Appendix 3: Wildlife-Related Visit Characteristics and 

Spending Averages

This appendix presents two sets of spending profiles for national forest visitors. One 

set is for visitors whose primary activity on the forest was wildlife related; the other 

is for visitors whose primary activity was not wildlife related nor downhill skiing/

snowboarding (i.e., general recreation). The wildlife-related activity spending profiles can be used to estimate the economic activity generated from wildlife-related 

recreation on national forests. 

Wildlife-related respondents were identified by their answers to two questions 

on the National Visitor Use Monitoring survey: “What activities have you participated in while on this visit?” and “of these, which was your primary recreation 

activity?” Respondents who selected “viewing wildlife,” “hunting,” or “fishing” as 

their primary recreation activity were considered wildlife-related visitors. 

Spending Profiles by Trip Segment

Wildlife-related visitors spend more per trip than nonwildlife visitors on all trip 

types except for overnight trips off forests (table 24). Wildlife-related visitors in all 

trip types except local overnight spend more on gas and oil, groceries, and sporting 

goods than their general recreation counterparts. 

To avoid double counting of visitor spending, we developed a “general recreation” spending profile to use when handling wildlife-related visits separately. The 

general recreation spending profile is for all visits except those for downhill skiing/

snowboarding and wildlife-related activities. The spending profile for general 

recreation visitors (table 25) is very similar to the national nondownhill skier/

nonsnowboarder spending profile (table 5), because the majority of visitors fall 

into this group. The general recreation spending profile excludes wildlife-related 

visitors, so the primary difference in this spending profile compared to the basic, 

nondownhill skier/nonsnowboarder profile is lower spending for gas and oil, groceries, and sporting goods. The general recreation spending averages can be used in 

analyses that either (1) don’t involve wildlife-related or downhill skiing/snowboarding recreation or (2) develop a separate computation of total spending specifically 

for wildlife-related recreation and there is a need for a spending profile to represent 

other visitors. 
43

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

Table 24—Wildlife-related national forest visitor spending profiles by trip-type segment and spending 

category, dollars per party per tripa

Spending categories

Nonlocal Local

Nonprimary

All 

visitsb Day OVN-NF OVN Day OVN-NF OVN

Dollars

Motel 0 48.45 197.92 0 4.85 24.27 135.32 36.00

Camping 0 29.86 13.48 0 29.24 13.87 11.56 6.99

Restaurant 9.49 25.73 95.62 3.08 8.16 13.86 86.33 22.52

Groceries 11.80 66.81 84.40 6.76 76.43 58.82 51.63 28.77

Gas and oil 40.84 84.83 88.90 22.28 69.09 63.24 69.39 44.13

Other transportation 0.13 0.70 1.53 0.03 0.02 1.17 6.51 0.86

Entry fees 2.17 10.20 10.01 1.89 3.12 1.86 8.08 4.17

Recreation and entertainment 1.21 5.98 30.56 0.87 1.36 0.49 16.19 5.53

Sporting goods 9.06 20.84 23.61 9.89 25.14 23.28 17.90 13.83

Souvenirs and other expenses 2.02 7.53 20.15 0.54 2.87 7.83 23.81 5.57

 Total 76.73 300.93 566.17 45.34 220.28 208.70 426.72 168.37

Sample size (unweighted) 379 584 307 1,301 158 52 342 3,123

Standard deviation of total 76 390 686 58 208 203 623 n/a

OVN = overnight, NF = national forest, n/a = not applicable. 

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars. These averages 

estimated from visitors who claimed their primary activity was wildlife related. OVN = overnight, NF = national forest, n/a = not applicable. 

b

 The all-visit averages are computed as a weighted average of the columns using the national trip segment shares for wildlife-related recreation as 

weights.

Table 25—General recreation (not downhill skiing/snowboarding or wildlife-related recreation) national forest 

visitor spending profiles by trip-type segment and spending category, dollars per party per tripa

Spending categories

Nonlocal Local

Nonprimary

All 

visitsd Dayb OVN-NF OVN Dayc OVN-NF OVN

Dollars

Motel 0 44.00 204.80 0 6.58 58.06 140.07 54.15

Camping 0 27.36 13.71 0 28.12 25.17 12.30 7.42

Restaurant 15.94 27.84 119.73 6.09 7.58 36.81 93.87 38.52

Groceries 10.41 52.63 70.63 6.59 70.91 59.81 49.68 29.17

Gas and oil 27.82 57.53 81.44 14.30 43.72 56.82 62.09 37.24

Other transportation 0.68 1.48 5.53 0.18 0.04 1.20 3.06 1.49

Entry fees 4.56 6.48 13.30 2.83 4.69 5.88 7.54 5.49

Recreation and entertainment 3.35 7.65 33.75 1.03 2.10 4.35 22.36 9.61

Sporting goods 1.83 8.66 12.17 2.83 10.07 6.22 6.99 5.40

Souvenirs and other expenses 1.92 7.78 26.79 0.61 0.88 12.34 23.73 8.73

 Total 66.53 241.41 581.86 34.46 174.70 266.66 421.69 197.22

Sample size (unweighted) 1,733 3,016 1,982 7,924 1,230 243 3,613 19,741

Standard deviation of total 70 400 719 52 198 345 656 n/a

OVN = overnight, NF = national forest, n/a = not applicable.

a Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars. 

b

 The all-visit averages are computed as a weighted average of the columns using the national general recreation segment shares as weights.
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

High and Low Spending Averages

Table 26 provides a high spending profile similar to table 6, but for visitors who 

specified their primary activity was wildlife related. In many cases, when completing analyses for wildlife-related recreation, a forest identified as a high spending 

area (app. 2, table 18) should use the profile in table 26. Similarly, forests identified 

as low spending areas (app. 2, table 18) should use the averages in table 27 for many 

wildlife-related analyses. The high and low spending profiles also can be used for 

wildlife-related visitor economic analysis aimed at specific geographical areas with 

higher or lower than average spending opportunities or prices.

Table 26—High spending profiles by trip-type segment and spending category for wildlife-related visits, 

dollars per party per tripa

Spending categories

Nonlocal Local

Nonprimary

All 

visitsb Day OVN-NF OVN Day OVN-NF OVN

Dollars

Motel 0 40.76 381.80 0 0 26.74 266.49 63.36

Camping 0 43.47 16.43 0 33.51 15.28 17.02 9.44

Restaurant 10.62 55.94 146.19 3.62 9.85 15.27 157.25 37.28

Groceries 13.20 71.34 100.94 5.02 88.49 64.79 76.52 32.81

Gas and oil 45.67 88.52 110.33 22.54 49.25 69.66 88.43 48.15

Other transportation 0.15 0.17 0 0 0 1.29 5.30 0.54

Entry fees 2.43 4.71 10.83 1.05 0 2.05 11.14 3.37

Recreation and entertainment 1.36 8.08 40.05 0.49 0 0.54 26.92 7.34

Sporting goods 10.13 21.37 23.28 6.77 8.31 25.64 26.77 12.46

Souvenirs and other expenses 2.26 9.26 48.07 0.14 0 8.63 37.83 9.25

 Total 85.81 343.63 877.94 39.63 189.41 229.88 713.67 223.99

Sample size (unweighted) n/a 68 64 155 16 n/a 65 386

Standard deviation of total 426 800 60 182 725 n/a

OVN = overnight, NF = national forest, n/a = not applicable.

a Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars. These averages 

estimated from visitors who claimed their primary activity was wildlife-related. 

b The sample size for wildlife-related nonlocal day visitors sampled at high spending areas was insufficient and here we calculate average spending 

at high spending areas as 112 percent of wildlife-related nonlocal day spending at average spending areas. See appendix 4 for further information 

on this calculation.

c

 The sample size for wildlife-related local overnight visitors sampled at high spending areas was insufficient and here we calculate average 

spending at high spending areas as 110 percent of the wildlife-related nonlocal overnight spending at average spending areas. See appendix 4 

for further information on this calculation.

d

 The all-visit averages are computed as a weighted average of the columns using the national trip segment shares for wildlife-related recreation 

as weights.
45

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

Tables 28 and 29 also provide high and low spending profiles for the general 

recreation group that excludes visitors who stated their primary activity was 

wildlife related or downhill skiing/snowboarding. These tables can be used for 

economic analysis aimed at specific areas around a national forest with higher or 

lower than average spending opportunities or prices when it is desirable to exclude 

wildlife-related and downhill skiing/snowboarding visitation from the analysis. 

Table 27—Low spending profiles for wildlife-related recreation by trip-type segment and spending category, 

dollars per party per tripa

Spending categories

Nonlocal Local

Nonprimary

All 

visitsc Day OVN-NF OVN Day OVN-NF OVNb

Dollars

Motel 0 16.10 102.31 0 2.82 21.07 33.39 10.75

Camping 0 18.10 8.77 0 21.67 12.04 8.97 4.13

Restaurant 6.10 19.52 76.75 2.46 3.47 12.03 58.59 13.37

Groceries 10.89 52.05 49.71 5.84 57.55 51.06 37.46 19.32

Gas and oil 39.45 70.65 73.96 20.42 52.53 54.89 58.77 36.77

Other transportation 0 0.84 0 0 0 1.02 0 0.09

Entry fees 2.69 20.24 9.43 2.72 4.88 1.62 6.41 5.32

Recreation and entertainment 1.43 5.22 14.26 1.32 0.66 0.42 4.38 2.71

Sporting goods 6.11 14.29 24.47 10.10 21.38 20.21 4.89 11.15

Souvenirs and other expenses 0.35 4.51 15.92 0.32 1.30 6.80 12.53 2.63

 Total 67.03 221.52 375.57 43.18 166.27 181.15 225.38 106.24

Sample size (unweighted) 196 194 92 659 60 n/a 91 1,317

Standard deviation of total 60 281 381 48 169 324 n/a

OVN = overnight, NF = national forest, n/a = not applicable.

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars. These averages 

estimated from visitors who claimed their primary activity was wildlife-related. 

b

 The sample size for wildlife-related local overnight visitors sampled at low spending areas was insufficient and here we calculate average spending 

as 87 percent of the wildlife-related nonlocal overnight spending at average areas. See appendix 4 for further information on this calculation.

c The all-visit averages are computed as a weighted average of the columns using the national trip segment shares for wildlife-related recreation 

as weights.
46

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

Table 28—High spending profiles by trip-type segment and spending category for general recreation visits 

(not downhill skiing/snowboarding or wildlife-related recreation), dollars per party per tripa

Spending categories

Nonlocal Local

Nonprimary

All 

visitsc Day OVN-NF OVN Day OVN-NF OVNb

 Dollars 

Motel 0 88.78 285.24 0 5.64 63.96 211.56 80.28

Camping 0 37.41 13.87 0 31.98 27.72 15.73 9.05

Restaurant 24.21 61.61 179.16 5.41 6.17 40.54 138.61 56.80

Groceries 8.16 67.04 81.51 4.43 79.31 65.88 65.20 33.57

Gas and oil 29.31 82.80 97.50 10.08 39.99 62.59 80.25 42.47

Other transportation 0.68 1.67 8.57 0.17 0 1.32 5.26 2.26

Entry fees 5.63 9.43 19.79 1.57 2.31 6.48 8.56 6.09

Recreation and entertainment 3.05 18.20 53.70 1.41 1.33 4.79 29.33 14.23

Sporting goods 1.39 12.14 17.43 1.14 13.02 6.85 9.22 5.98

Souvenirs and other expenses 3.77 17.36 44.42 0.78 0.78 13.60 40.07 14.81

 Total 76.19 396.45 801.20 24.98 180.52 293.73 603.79 265.55

Sample size (unweighted) 262 449 681 1473 141 n/a 985 4,021

Standard deviation of total 81 506 816 46 187 801 n/a

OVN = overnight, NF = national forest, n/a = not applicable. 

a Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars. These averages exclude 

visitors who claimed their primary activity was not downhill skiing or wildlife-related recreation. 

b The sample size for local overnight visitors sampled at high spending areas was insufficient and here we calculate average spending as 110 percent of 

the nonlocal overnight spending at average areas. See appendix 4 for further information on this calculation.

c

 The all-visit averages are computed as a weighted average of the columns using the national general recreation segment shares as weights.

Table 29—Low spending profiles for general recreation visits (not downhill skiing/snowboarding or wildliferelated recreation) by trip-type segment and spending category, dollars per party per tripa

Spending categories

Nonlocal Local

Nonprimary

All 

visitsb Day OVN-NF OVN Day OVN-NF OVN

 Dollars 

Motel 0 20.70 112.28 0 4.70 37.99 84.17 30.85

Camping 0 21.22 17.67 0 24.91 19.98 9.38 6.70

Restaurant 13.11 18.89 68.83 6.29 7.53 30.05 65.89 26.43

Groceries 8.98 43.98 43.28 7.19 65.64 50.74 36.10 22.60

Gas and oil 24.32 45.26 58.22 15.05 40.52 39.89 48.47 30.76

Other transportation 0.13 0.73 1.98 0.07 0.07 1.39 2.26 0.77

Entry fees 4.00 5.93 4.80 3.19 5.88 4.19 6.63 4.41

Recreation and entertainment 3.17 4.37 9.02 0.62 2.31 0.26 16.89 5.15

Sporting goods 1.59 6.67 5.79 2.59 9.98 5.54 5.83 4.12

Souvenirs and other expenses 1.06 3.96 8.49 0.40 0.87 12.99 13.34 4.19

 Total 56.36 171.70 330.35 35.40 162.39 203.02 288.96 135.98

Sample size (unweighted) 770 1,097 446 3,650 594 87 986 7,630

Standard deviation of total 64 258 354 50 168 208 419 n/a

OVN = overnight, NF = national forest, n/a = not applicable. 

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars. 

These averages exclude visitors who claimed their primary activity was not downhill skiing/snowboarding or wildlife-related recreation. 

b

 The all-visit averages are computed as a weighted average of the columns using the national general recreation segment shares as weights.
47

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

Wildlife-Related Visitor Trip and Party Characteristics

Visitors whose primary activities were wildlife related typically recreate in smaller 

travel parties (table 30). For wildlife-related visitors, local overnight trips with 

stays on the national forest involved the largest travel parties. In general and at 

the national level, wildlife-related visitors staying overnight on their trip spent a 

slightly greater number of nights in the local area (table 31) than general recreation 

visitors. 

Table 30—Wildlife-related recreation average party size by trip segment and administrative unita

Nonlocal Local

Administrative unit Day OVN-NF OVN Day OVN-NF OVN Nonprimary

Allegheny 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

Angeles 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.3

Apache-Sitgreaves 2.1 1.9 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.0 2.3

Arapaho-Roosevelt 2.1 2.0 2.3 2.2 2.7 2.0 2.2

Ashley 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.6 3.3 2.0 2.3

Beaverhead-Deerlodge 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.4 2.7 2.0 2.3

Bighorn 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.0 2.9

Bitterroot 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.8 2.7 2.0 2.3

Black Hills 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.7 2.7 2.0 2.3

Boise 2.4 2.4 2.5 1.8 2.7 2.0 2.3

Bridger-Teton 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.0 2.3

Caribbean 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.7

Caribou-Targhee 2.1 2.7 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 3.2

Carson 2.1 2.0 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

Chattahoochee-Oconee 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.2 2.7 2.0 2.3

Chequamegon-Nicolet 2.1 2.3 1.6 1.5 2.7 2.0 2.3

Cherokee 2.1 2.1 2.5 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.3

Chippewa 2.9 2.0 2.5 2.1 2.7 2.0 2.3

Chugach 2.3 2.9 3.5 2.2 2.7 2.0 2.6

Cibola 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.0 2.3

Clearwater 2.1 2.5 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

Cleveland 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.6 2.7 2.0 2.3

Coconino 2.1 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.3

Columbia River Gorge 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

Colville 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.7 2.0 2.3

Coronado 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.7 2.7 2.0 2.3

Custer 3.0 2.4 2.5 2.9 2.7 2.0 2.7

Dakota Prairie 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.7 2.0 2.3

Daniel Boone 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

Deschutes 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.1

Dixie 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.2 2.7 2.0 2.3

Eldorado 1.9 2.0 2.5 1.6 2.7 2.0 2.3

Fishlake 2.1 2.9 2.5 3.0 2.7 2.0 2.3

Flathead 1.9 2.4 2.5 1.7 2.6 2.0 2.1

Francis Marion-Sumter 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.6 2.7 2.0 2.3

Fremont-Winema 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.0

Gallatin 2.1 1.9 2.8 1.7 2.7 2.0 2.3

George Washington-Jefferson 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.3

Gifford Pinchot 2.3 1.9 2.5 1.7 2.7 2.0 2.3

Gila 2.1 2.4 2.5 1.8 2.7 2.0 2.3

Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.0 2.3
48

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

Table 30—Wildlife-related recreation average party size by trip segment and administrative unita 

(continued)

Administrative unit

Nonlocal Local

Day OVN-NF OVN Day OVN-NF OVN Nonprimary

Green Mountain and Finger Lakes 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.3 2.7 2.0 2.3

Helena 1.3 2.3 2.5 1.8 2.7 2.0 2.3

Hiawatha 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

Hoosier 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.7 2.7 2.0 2.3

Humboldt-Toiyabe 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

Humboldt-Toiyabe—Spring Mountains 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

Huron-Manistee 2.4 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.7 2.0 1.9

Idaho Panhandle 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.8 2.7 2.0 2.3

Inyo 2.1 2.3 2.3 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.7

Kaibab 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.0 2.3

Kisatchie 2.1 2.8 2.5 1.7 2.7 2.0 1.7

Klamath 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.7 2.7 2.0 2.3

Kootenai 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.5 2.7 2.0 2.3

Lake Tahoe Management Unit 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.9

Land Between the Lakes 2.1 2.3 1.6 1.8 2.7 2.0 2.6

Lassen 1.8 2.2 2.5 1.7 2.7 2.0 2.3

Lewis and Clark 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.1 2.7 2.0 2.1

Lincoln 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

Lolo 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.6 2.7 2.0 2.3

Los Padres 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

Malheur 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.1 2.7 2.0 2.3

Manti-La Sal 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.4 2.0 3.0

Mark Twain 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.7 2.7 2.0 2.3

Medicine Bow 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.7 2.0 2.3

Mendocino 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.8 2.7 2.0 2.3

Midewin Tallgrass Prairie 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.4 2.7 2.0 2.3

Modoc 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

Monongahela 2.0 2.0 1.7 2.1 2.7 2.0 2.4

Mount Baker-Snoqualmie 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

Mount Hood 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

National forests in Alabama 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

National forests in Florida 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.0 2.3

National forests in Mississippi 1.6 2.3 2.5 1.4 2.7 2.0 2.3

National forests in North Carolina 2.1 3.1 2.2 1.6 2.7 2.0 2.3

National forests in Texas 1.8 2.3 2.1 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.3

Nebraska 2.1 2.3 3.8 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

Nez Perce 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

Ochoco 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.7 2.0 2.3

Okanogan 2.1 2.2 2.5 1.5 2.7 2.0 2.3

Olympic 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.7 2.7 2.0 2.3

Ottawa 2.1 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.3

Ouachita 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.6 2.7 2.0 2.3

Ozark-St Francis 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.7 2.7 2.0 2.3

Payette 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

Pike-San Isabel 2.1 1.7 2.5 1.6 2.7 2.0 2.3

Plumas 2.2 1.6 2.2 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.3

Prescott 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.6 2.7 2.0 2.3

Rio Grande 2.1 2.3 2.9 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

Rogue River-Siskiyou 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.7 2.7 2.0 2.0
49

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

Table 30—Wildlife-related recreation average party size by trip segment and administrative unita 

(continued)

Nonlocal Local

Administrative unit Day OVN-NF OVN Day OVN-NF OVN Nonprimary

Routt 2.1 2.9 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

Salmon-Challis 2.6 2.7 2.2 1.7 2.7 2.0 2.3

San Bernardino 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.7 2.0 2.3

San Juan 2.1 2.3 2.4 1.8 2.7 2.0 2.3

Santa Fe 1.5 2.3 2.5 1.6 2.7 2.0 2.3

Sawtooth 1.9 2.1 2.9 2.3 2.7 2.0 3.1

Sequoia 2.1 2.8 2.5 1.7 2.7 2.0 2.3

Shasta-Trinity 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.0 2.3

Shawnee 2.6 2.2 2.0 1.6 2.7 2.0 2.3

Shoshone 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

Sierra 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

Siuslaw 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.8 2.7 2.0 2.3

Six Rivers 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.7 2.0 2.3

Stanislaus 2.1 2.4 2.7 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

Superior 2.1 2.5 2.8 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

Tahoe 1.8 3.2 2.5 2.0 2.7 2.0 4.0

Tongass (total) 2.1 2.3 2.6 1.6 2.7 2.0 2.3

Tongass—Juneau, Admiralty 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.5 2.7 2.0 2.3

Tongass—Ketchikan, Misty, Thorne Bay 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.7 2.7 2.0 2.3

Tongass—Sitka, Hoonah 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

Tongass—Yakutat, Petersberg, Wrangell 2.1 2.3 3.2 1.6 2.7 2.0 2.3

Tonto 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.7 2.0 2.3

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache 2.3 2.3 2.5 1.9 3.6 2.0 2.3

Umatilla 2.5 2.1 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.0 2.3

Umpqua 2.4 1.9 2.5 2.1 2.7 2.0 2.3

Wallowa-Whitman 2.1 3.1 3.0 1.4 2.7 2.0 2.3

Wayne 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.0 2.3

Wenatchee 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.0 2.3

White Mountain 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

White River 2.1 2.3 3.1 2.8 2.7 2.0 2.9

Willamette 2.9 2.3 2.5 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.0

National average 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.3

OVN = overnight, NF = national forest.

a When there were fewer than 15 cases in a trip segment/forest combination, we have inserted the national average party size for that trip segment. 

Table 31—Average number of nights away from homea and in local forest areas 

for wildlife-related visitorsb

Nonlocal Local

OVN-NF OVN OVN-NF OVN Nonprimary

All visits:

Nights away from home 4.5 6.7 2.7 5.1 7.0

Nights in the local area 4.0 5.1 2.7 4.7 2.9

OVN = overnight, NF = national forest.

a

 “Nights away from home” includes both “nights in the local area” and nights outside the local area.

b

 Estimated from the full sample using case weights. 
50

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

Wildlife-Related Visits

The percentage of visits where the primary activities were wildlife related differs 

widely across forests (table 32). On the Malheur National Forest, more than 75 percent of recreation visits are wildlife related; it is 65 percent of visits to the Midewin 

Tallgrass Prairie. About half of recreation visits to the national forests in Texas 

and national forests in Mississippi are for wildlife-related recreation. In contrast, 

the shares of visits that are wildlife related are less than 5 percent on many forests. 

The percentage of visits on each forest that are for general recreation and downhill 

skiing/snowboarding are also shown in table 32. 

Table 32—Percentage of wildlife-related visits by administrative unita

Administrative unit Downhill skiing/snowboarding Wildlife related General recreation

 Percent 

Allegheny 0 29 71

Angeles 9 7 84

Apache-Sitgreaves 0 25 75

Arapaho-Roosevelt 22 13 65

Ashley 0 41 59

Beaverhead-Deerlodge 9 49 42

Bighorn 2 19 79

Bitterroot 12 12 76

Black Hills 0 19 81

Boise 35 10 55

Bridger-Teton 32 10 58

Caribbean 0 12 88

Caribou-Targhee 12 17 71

Carson 27 9 64

Chattahoochee-Oconee 0 18 82

Chequamegon-Nicolet 0 31 69

Cherokee 0 9 91

Chippewa 0 54 46

Chugach 1 38 61

Cibola 3 10 87

Clearwater 2 13 85

Cleveland 0 7 93

Coconino 5 6 89

Columbia River Gorge 0 1 99

Colville 36 9 55

Coronado 0 8 92

Custer 21 28 51

Dakota Prairie 0 24 76

Daniel Boone 0 25 75

Deschutes 25 11 64

Dixie 13 16 71

Eldorado 42 7 51
51

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

Table 32—Percentage of wildlife-related visits by administrative unita (continued)

Administrative unit Downhill skiing/snowboarding Wildlife related General recreation

 Percent 

Fishlake 0 33 67

Flathead 29 22 49

Francis Marion-Sumter 0 36 64

Fremont-Winema 0 24 76

Gallatin 9 9 82

George Washington-Jefferson 0 28 72

Gifford Pinchot 1 17 82

Gila 0 31 69

Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison 38 5 57

Green Mountain and Finger Lakes 24 10 66

Helena 1 26 73

Hiawatha 0 17 83

Hoosier 0 13 87

Humboldt-Toiyabe 1 2 97

Humboldt-Toiyabe—Spring Mountains 3 2 95

Huron-Manistee 0 20 80

Idaho Panhandle 7 17 76

Inyo 38 8 54

Kaibab 1 14 85

Kisatchie 0 46 54

Klamath 2 21 77

Kootenai 1 26 73

Lake Tahoe Managment Unit 56 2 42

Land Between the Lakes 0 41 59

Lassen 3 29 68

Lewis and Clark 14 36 50

Lincoln 11 6 83

Lolo 6 21 73

Los Padres 0 2 98

Malheur 0 76 24

Manti-La Sal 0 23 77

Mark Twain 0 26 74

Medicine Bow 10 11 79

Mendocino 0 10 90

Midewin Tallgrass Prairie 0 65 35

Modoc 0 22 78

Monongahela 0 29 71

Mount Baker-Snoqualmie 22 4 74

Mount Hood 66 1 33

National forests in Alabama 0 10 90

National forests in Florida 0 28 72

National forests in Mississippi 0 49 51

National forests in North Carolina 0 10 90

National forests in Texas 0 52 48

Nebraska 0 30 70

Nez Perce 0 15 85
52

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

Table 32—Percentage of wildlife-related visits by administrative unita (continued)

Administrative unit Downhill skiing/snowboarding Wildlife related General recreation

 Percent 

Ochoco 0 19 81

Okanogan 5 18 77

Olympic 0 16 84

Ottawa 0 22 78

Ouachita 0 19 81

Ozark-St. Francis 1 20 79

Payette 28 12 60

Pike-San Isabel 4 13 83

Plumas 0 28 72

Prescott 0 10 90

Rio Grande 27 21 52

Rogue River-Siskiyou 9 19 72

Routt 48 8 44

Salmon-Challis 2 30 68

San Bernardino 26 3 71

San Juan 12 8 80

Santa Fe 17 5 78

Sawtooth 34 7 59

Sequoia 1 42 57

Shasta-Trinity 1 19 80

Shawnee 0 15 85

Shoshone 2 18 80

Sierra 9 7 84

Siuslaw 0 8 92

Six Rivers 0 10 90

Stanislaus 8 15 77

Superior 0 14 86

Tahoe 18 10 72

Tongass (total) 0 16 84

Tongass—Juneau, Admiralty 0 11 89

Tongass—Ketchikan, Misty, Thorne Bay 0 15 85

Tongass—Sitka, Hoonah 0 12 88

Tongass—Yakutat, Petersberg, Wrangell 0 29 71

Tonto 0 23 77

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache 19 9 72

Umatilla 10 31 59

Umpqua 0 24 76

Wallowa-Whitman 7 19 74

Wayne 0 25 75

Wenatchee 17 9 74

White Mountain 14 3 83

White River 48 1 51

Willamette 6 17 77

National average 16 13 71

a

 Wildlife-related visits are those where the primary activity is hunting, fishing, or viewing wildlife. 
53

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

At the national level, wildlife-related visits are more likely to be from local 

residents, have a greater share of visits in the local overnight national forest and 

local overnight segments, and less likely to be nonprimary visits. However, this 

pattern is highly variable at the forest level (table 33). In nearly all cases, local day 

trips remain the most common type of wildlife-related visit. However, the share of 

visits that is local day trips ranges from a vast majority (e.g., more than 75 percent) 

to a few forests where local day trips are a fairly small component of visits. These 

segment shares can be used when distributing wildlife-related visits across the 

Basic 7 trip types. 

Table 33—Wildlife-related recreation segment shares by administrative unita

Administrative unit

Nonlocal Local

Day OVN-NF OVN Day OVN-NF OVN Nonprimary Total

Percent 

Allegheny 2 4 18 72 0 3 1 100

Angeles 22 0 1 69 4 1 3 100

Apache-Sitgreaves 9 32 19 22 0 0 18 100

Arapaho-Roosevelt 16 10 7 40 11 3 13 100

Ashley 8 27 8 41 9 2 5 100

Beaverhead-Deerlodge 19 6 7 56 1 0 11 100

Bighorn 9 17 1 36 7 0 30 100

Bitterroot 1 1 2 80 0 1 15 100

Black Hills 0 2 5 69 10 0 14 100

Boise 38 24 6 16 10 5 1 100

Bridger-Teton 12 17 4 57 2 0 8 100

Caribbean 0 0 45 6 0 0 49 100

Caribou-Targhee 15 6 13 47 7 4 8 100

Carson 13 31 9 12 14 0 21 100

Chattahoochee-Oconee 20 7 1 49 4 4 15 100

Chequamegon-Nicolet 5 4 30 49 0 2 10 100

Cherokee 8 3 2 83 3 0 1 100

Chippewa 10 20 20 43 3 1 3 100

Chugach 13 3 31 18 1 0 34 100

Cibola 17 15 10 43 0 0 15 100

Clearwater 14 25 1 18 4 2 36 100

Cleveland 11 11 9 54 4 2 9 100

Coconino 12 31 6 23 6 0 22 100

Columbia River Gorge 11 11 9 54 4 2 9 100

Colville 6 15 15 45 11 7 1 100

Coronado 14 12 5 50 2 6 11 100

Custer 26 33 5 22 1 1 12 100

Dakota Prairie 11 11 9 54 4 2 9 100

Daniel Boone 7 4 5 76 5 0 3 100

Deschutes 6 20 5 45 9 0 15 100

Dixie 27 11 5 41 14 0 2 100

Eldorado 25 34 2 26 4 0 9 100

Fishlake 6 31 13 29 11 0 10 100
54

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

Table 33—Wildlife-related recreation segment shares by administrative unita (continued)

Administrative unit

Nonlocal Local

Day OVN-NF OVN Day OVN-NF OVN Nonprimary Total

Percent 

Francis Marion-Sumter 21 1 1 74 0 0 3 100

Fremont-Winema 5 13 0 68 10 0 4 100

Gallatin 6 8 12 71 2 0 1 100

George Washington-Jefferson 5 3 0 83 3 5 1 100

Gifford Pinchot 19 23 8 38 6 0 6 100

Gila 3 51 6 33 6 0 1 100

Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison 1 5 9 67 6 0 12 100

Green Mountain and Finger Lakes 11 0 1 57 0 10 21 100

Helena 8 13 7 58 0 0 14 100

Hiawatha 0 11 36 26 8 0 19 100

Hoosier 3 4 1 83 3 0 6 100

Humboldt-Toiyabe 37 11 3 12 21 0 16 100

Humboldt-Toiyabe—Spring Mountains 11 11 9 54 4 2 9 100

Huron Manistee 22 3 10 50 0 1 14 100

Idaho Panhandle 12 5 4 70 4 2 3 100

Inyo 2 51 29 3 1 2 12 100

Kaibab 18 17 5 36 2 0 22 100

Kisatchie 2 7 2 67 5 8 9 100

Klamath 9 17 7 44 6 5 12 100

Kootenai 16 10 6 62 3 0 3 100

Lake Tahoe Management Unit 0 9 21 32 0 3 35 100

Land Between the Lakes 9 6 13 54 1 0 17 100

Lassen 16 41 1 26 5 2 9 100

Lewis and Clark 12 37 14 22 0 3 12 100

Lincoln 11 11 9 54 4 2 9 100

Lolo 12 2 5 75 0 0 6 100

Los Padres 20 13 0 40 5 0 22 100

Malheur 0 58 3 35 2 0 2 100

Manti-La Sal 11 17 7 34 13 2 16 100

Mark Twain 8 0 0 82 0 0 10 100

Medicine Bow 18 7 7 60 1 0 7 100

Mendocino 6 21 0 45 12 0 16 100

Midewin Tallgrass Prairie 8 0 0 89 0 0 3 100

Modoc 11 11 9 54 4 2 9 100

Monongahela 13 12 14 47 4 1 9 100

Mount Baker-Snoqualmie 11 11 9 54 4 2 9 100

Mount Hood 11 11 9 54 4 2 9 100

National forests in Alabama 11 11 9 54 4 2 9 100

National forests in Florida 1 6 12 65 4 11 1 100

National forests in Mississippi 11 0 0 89 0 0 0 100

National forests in North Carolina 5 2 10 73 4 1 5 100

National forests in Texas 10 5 3 74 2 2 4 100

Nebraska 6 11 3 55 0 1 24 100

Nez Perce 4 34 11 27 10 0 14 100

Ochoco 1 4 1 81 4 0 9 100

Okanogan 1 23 38 28 2 0 8 100

Olympic 6 0 9 81 1 1 2 100
55

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

Table 33—Wildlife-related recreation segment shares by administrative unita (continued)

Administrative unit

Nonlocal Local

Day OVN-NF OVN Day OVN-NF OVN Nonprimary Total

Percent

Ouachita 14 0 1 55 25 2 3 100

Ozark-St. Francis 6 1 0 60 27 0 6 100

Payette 22 22 15 24 7 5 5 100

Pike-San Isabel 3 13 15 61 0 1 7 100

Plumas 12 10 12 54 4 2 6 100

Prescott 9 2 6 68 1 0 14 100

Rio Grande 26 18 25 4 7 1 19 100

Rogue River-Siskiyou 11 3 9 56 1 2 18 100

Routt 17 21 15 25 5 0 17 100

Salmon-Challis 25 12 4 39 0 4 16 100

San Bernardino 6 7 7 52 13 0 15 100

San Juan 4 12 25 37 10 0 12 100

Santa Fe 19 7 1 53 13 0 7 100

Sawtooth 24 13 12 28 6 6 11 100

Sequoia 8 12 5 55 7 2 11 100

Shasta Trinity 12 11 2 65 2 0 8 100

Shawnee 3 11 11 70 0 0 5 100

Shoshone 32 6 18 30 10 0 4 100

Sierra 27 12 2 44 1 0 14 100

Siuslaw 9 9 5 61 3 0 13 100

Six Rivers 11 1 23 57 0 0 8 100

Stanislaus 15 31 19 31 1 0 3 100

Superior 6 31 29 28 1 0 5 100

Tahoe 6 14 2 65 6 0 7 100

Tongass (total) 2 2 13 63 2 1 17 100

Tongass—Juneau, Admiralty 1 1 4 72 1 0 21 100

Tongass—Ketchikan, Misty, Thorne Bay 1 1 16 64 0 3 15 100

Tongass—Sitka, Hoonah 11 11 9 54 4 2 9 100

Tongass—Yakutat, Petersberg, Wrangell 2 1 25 46 4 0 22 100

Tonto 19 4 0 63 2 2 10 100

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache 11 13 9 55 3 3 6 100

Umatilla 11 46 9 20 4 1 9 100

Umpqua 25 38 5 21 2 0 9 100

Wallowa-Whitman 14 25 10 39 2 0 10 100

Wayne 0 5 0 87 1 7 0 100

Wenatchee 7 3 19 38 20 1 12 100

White Mountain 7 14 15 31 0 1 32 100

White River 12 18 31 12 16 0 11 100

Willamette 10 8 10 63 0 1 8 100

National average 11 11 9 54 4 2 9 100

a

 Estimated using the full sample and case weights. Estimates developed using only those cases where the recreation was wildlife related. 

OVN = overnight, NF = national forest.
56

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

Appendix 4: Activity-Specific Spending Averages

The information in this appendix updates a previous report (White and Stynes 

2010b) on the average spending of National Forest System (NFS) recreation visitors engaged in a variety of recreation activities. The spending averages presented 

here complement the spending averages for visitors engaged in differing types of 

recreation trips reported elsewhere in this report. The spending averages presented 

in this appendix should be applied only to analyses focused on specific recreation 

activities; the spending averages reported elsewhere in this report should be used 

for most recreation analyses. The spending averages in this appendix should not

be used in place of the others in this report to do an analysis of all recreation at the 

national, regional, or forest level. 

Activity Groupings

When completing a National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) survey, respondents 

are presented a list of 26 recreation activities and asked to select those they participated in during the national forest visit. Respondents are also asked to identify their 

single primary recreation activity on the visit to the national forest. The activityspecific spending averages1

 presented here relate to the primary activity. Small 

sample sizes do not allow us to construct spending averages for each NVUM activity. If an activity is not depicted here, it is not because that activity is less important. 

Rather, it is because either too few visitors doing that activity volunteered to do a 

NVUM survey, or the spending patterns of visitors engaged in that recreation activity are not statistically unique from that of visitors in other activities (e.g., hiking 

vs. biking). Because of those factors, we develop spending profiles for 12 activity 

groups (table 34). Because the spending profiles for downhill skiers/snowboarders 

are presented elsewhere in this report, we do not repeat spending averages for that 

group in this appendix. 

Small Sample Size Conditions

Despite a sample of nearly 30,000 national forest visits, sample sizes become very 

small once visitors are split into activities, trip-type segments, and high and low 

spending levels. Although sample sizes for some popular activities were quite large 

(e.g., hiking), the sample sizes for other specialized activities (e.g., off-road/motorized trail) are not. In a number of instances, there were fewer than 50 observations 

for some combinations of activity, trip type, and spending level. For those instances 

1 The NVUM averages for people per vehicle are used to estimate party sizes. It is 

assumed that the group traveling in the same vehicle is the spending unit.
57

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

with small sample sizes where we could not estimate spending directly from the 

data, we construct spending averages based on the following rules. 

Rule 1—For one activity (snowmobiling) the NVUM economic sample did not 

include 50 nonlocal day trips. Therefore, the nonlocal day trip spending profile 

for snowmobiling was based on the local day trip spending profile for that activity 

($99). The nonlocal day trip spending average for all activities ($76) is two times 

the local day trip average for all activities ($38). That relationship is used to 

estimate the nonlocal day trip spending average for snowmobiling. Ultimately, 

average spending of nonlocal day trip snowmobile visitors was estimated as 

$99 × 2.0 = $198.

Rule 2—For many activities there were too few cases to independently estimate a 

low or high spending average directly from the NVUM sample. In those situations, 

the low and/or high spending averages were estimated using the ratios of low 

to average and high to average spending across all activities for the respective 

trip type. It was assumed that the deviations from the activity average for low 

and high spending areas could be represented by the same deviations for the all 

visitor averages. For example, the low spending average for nonlocal cross country 

skiers on overnight trips is $365 = 0.625 × $584 and the high average is $963 = 

1.649 × $584. This same procedure is used to fill low and high spending cells for 

other segments and activities, using the ratios at the bottom of the corresponding 

columns in table 35. This approach preserves the unique distribution of spending 

across categories for a given activity in the detailed tables that follow, as it adjusts 

spending in all categories proportionally up or down by a fixed percentage. 

Table 34—Recreation activity groupings for activity-specific spending averages

Activity Description

Downhill skiing/snowboardinga Downhill skiing or snowboarding

Cross-country skiing Cross-country skiing or snowshoeing

Snowmobiling Snowmobile travel

Hunting Hunting—all types

Fishing Fishing—all types

Nature related Viewing nature, viewing wildlife, visiting a nature center, or completing nature study

Off-road/motorized trail Motorized recreation in off-road vehicle areas or on motorized vehicle trails

Driving for pleasure Driving for pleasure on roads

Developed camping Camping in developed campsites

Primitive camping/backpacking Primitive camping, backpacking, or camping in dispersed areas

Hiking/biking Hiking or walking, bicycling (including mountain biking)

Other Any remaining activity, those visitors engaged in multiple primary activities, or those 

without a primary activity

a We do not present the downhill skiing/snowboarding spending averages in this appendix because they are presented elsewhere in this report.
58

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

Rule 42—Five activities (cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, nature-related recreation, off-road/motorized trail, and driving for pleasure) did not have enough local 

overnight trip observations to reliably estimate spending averages for that trip type. 

For those activities, the local overnight trip average was estimated at 46 percent of 

the nonlocal overnight trip average based on the overall ratio of spending averages 

of local and nonlocal overnight trips across all activities.

Spending Profiles

For all activities combined, visitor spending ranges from $29 per party per trip 

for local day trips in high spending areas to $704 per party per trip for nonlocal 

overnight trips in high spending areas (table 35, total row). Within activities and trip 

types, the greatest observed spending (i.e., not filled using rules 1 through 4) was 

for nonlocal nature-related visitors on overnight trips in high spending areas ($879). 

2 We have used the same set of analytical rules for this activity-spending analysis as in 

prior reports. “Rule 3” was not required in this analysis; however, we have maintained the 

numbering scheme for consistency with past, and potential future, analyses.

Table 35—Total visitor spending for high, average, and low spending areas by activity, dollars per party per 

trip in 2014 dollarsa

Nonlocal 

day trips

Nonlocal 

overnight tripsb

Local 

day trips

Local 

overnight tripsb

Activity Low Average High Low Average High Low Average High Low Average High

 Dollars 

Cross-country skiing 58 70 79 365 584 963 34 36 21 233 268 295 

Snowmobiling 164 198 222 526 842 1,388 99 99 76 335 386 426 

Hunting 85 103 115 326 371 611 48 53 41 202 233 257 

Fishing 66 72 81 225 368 481 43 44 40 146 203 224 

Nature-related 50 57 64 313 640 879 36 35 27 255 294 323 

Off-road/

motorized trail

74 89 100 208 333 548 63 56 43 133 153 168 

Driving 39 46 52 305 488 716 31 32 27 195 224 247 

Developed camping N/A N/A N/A 185 212 297 N/A N/A N/A 174 190 200 

Primitive camping/

backpacking

N/A N/A N/A 82 142 315 N/A N/A N/A 114 112 124 

Hiking/biking 47 57 70 256 489 718 26 24 20 173 183 201 

Other 63 74 93 250 355 552 44 44 31 183 213 235 

 Total 63 76 85 267 427 704 38 38 29 171 197 217 

Ratio to average 0.829 1.118 0.625 1.649 1.000 0.763 0.868 1.102

N/A = not applicable.

a

 Shaded cells were filled using rules 1, 2, or 4 as described in the text. Other figures are estimated directly from the National Visitor Use Monitoring 

sample.

b

 Includes visitors on overnight trips staying on or off the forest.
59

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

The lowest observed spending was for locals hiking or biking on day trips to high 

spending areas ($20). Average spending for visitors on overnight trips engaged in 

some activities in high spending areas is quite high. However, it is useful to keep in 

mind that, in many cases, the number of visits in that activity and trip type is quite 

small. For example, average trip spending for nonlocal visitors “driving for pleasure” and staying overnight away from home in high spending areas is estimated 

to be more than $716 per party per trip. But, nationally, just 5 percent of visits have 

the primary activity of driving for pleasure, and less than one-fourth of driving-forpleasure visits fall into the nonlocal overnight trip segment (see table 46). Further, 

about 15 percent of administrative units in the NFS are classified as high spending 

areas. 

Detailed spending averages for each of the activity groups included in this 

analysis are presented in tables 36a through 45b. In most cases, the spending 

averages were computed directly from NVUM survey data. We identify the rule 

we used (see above) to construct the spending average when sample sizes were 

less than 50 cases. National-level segment shares and party sizes necessary to do 

activity-specific analyses are reported in tables 46 and 47. 
60

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

Table 36b—Local visitor spending averages for cross-country skiers, dollars per party 

per tripa

Spending category

Local day trips Local overnightb trips

Low Average High Low Average High

 Dollars 

Motel 0 0 0 90.31 104.05 114.61

Camping 0 0 0 0.46 0.53 0.58

Restaurant 6.51 4.17 3.82 42.20 48.62 53.56

Groceries 2.68 1.68 3.44 21.95 25.29 27.85

Gas and oil 14.30 7.62 5.78 22.99 26.48 29.17

Other transportation 0 0 0 0 0 0

Entry fees 6.59 14.95 3.44 23.76 27.37 30.15

Recreation and entertainment 1.86 1.64 2.13 13.62 15.69 17.28

Sporting goods 2.23 5.80 1.92 14.14 16.29 17.95

Souvenirs and other expenses 0 0.31 0 3.31 3.81 4.20

 Total 34.17 36.17 20.52 232.74 268.13 295.35

Sample size (unweighted)c 127 174 66 Rule 2 Rule 4 Rule 2

Standard deviation of total 47 79 31

a Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars.

b

 Includes visitors on overnight trips staying on or off forests.

c

 See text for descriptions of rules used for filling spending averages when sample sizes were fewer than 50 cases. 

Table 36a—Nonlocal visitor spending averages for cross-country skiers, dollars per party 

per tripa

Spending category

Nonlocal day trips Nonlocal overnightb trips

Low Average High Low Average High

 Dollars 

Motel 0 0 0 141.74 226.68 373.73

Camping 0 0 0 0.72 1.15 1.90

Restaurant 13.81 16.66 18.63 66.24 105.93 174.65

Groceries 4.61 5.56 6.22 34.45 55.09 90.83

Gas and oil 16.77 20.23 22.63 36.08 57.70 95.13

Other transportation 0 0 0 0 0 0

Entry fees 8.80 10.62 11.88 37.29 59.63 98.31

Recreation and entertainment 11.13 13.43 15.02 21.37 34.18 56.35

Sporting goods 2.43 2.93 3.28 22.20 35.50 58.53

Souvenirs and other expenses 0.77 0.93 1.04 5.19 8.30 13.68

 Total 58.32 70.35 78.69 365.27 584.16 963.11

Sample size (unweighted)c Rule 2 60 Rule 2 Rule 2 104 Rule 2

Standard deviation of total 89 654

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars.

b

 Includes visitors on overnight trips staying on or off forests.

c

 See text for descriptions of rules used for filling spending averages when sample sizes were fewer than 50 cases. 
61

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

Table 37a—Nonlocal visitor spending averages for snowmobiling, dollars per party per tripa

Spending category

Nonlocal day trips Nonlocal overnightb trips

Low Average High Low Average High

 Dollars 

Motel 0 0 0 162.03 259.12 427.21

Camping 0 0 0 0.36 0.57 0.94

Restaurant 28.52 34.41 38.48 104.62 167.31 275.85

Groceries 12.49 15.07 16.86 34.27 54.81 90.37

Gas and oil 101.52 122.47 136.98 119.53 191.16 315.17

Other transportation 0 0 0 2.29 3.66 6.03

Entry fees 13.62 16.43 18.38 10.64 17.01 28.04

Recreation and entertainment 0 0 0 61.10 97.72 161.11

Sporting goods 8.16 9.85 11.02 14.78 23.64 38.98

Souvenirs and other expenses 0 0 0 16.66 26.64 43.92

 Total 164.32 198.23 221.71 526.27 841.64 1,387.62

Sample size (unweighted)c Rule 2 Rule 1 Rule 2 Rule 2 102 Rule 2

Standard deviation of total 713

a Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars.

b

 Includes visitors on overnight trips staying on or off forests.

c

 See text for descriptions of rules used for filling spending averages when sample sizes were fewer than 50 cases. 

Table 37b—Local visitor spending averages for snowmobiling, dollars per party per tripa

Spending category

Local day trips Local overnightb trips

Low Average High Low Average High

 Dollars 

Motel 0 0 0 103.24 118.94 131.01

Camping 0 0 0 0.23 0.26 0.29

Restaurant 17.20 17.20 13.13 66.66 76.80 84.59

Groceries 7.54 7.54 5.75 21.84 25.16 27.71

Gas and oil 61.24 61.24 46.73 76.16 87.74 96.65

Other transportation 0 0 0 1.46 1.68 1.85

Entry fees 8.22 8.22 6.27 6.78 7.81 8.60

Recreation and entertainment 0 0 0 38.93 44.85 49.41

Sporting goods 4.92 4.92 3.76 9.42 10.85 11.95

Souvenirs and other expenses 0 0 0 10.61 12.23 13.47

 Total 99.12 99.12 75.64 335.33 386.31 425.53

Sample size (unweighted)c Rule 2 101 Rule 2 Rule 2 Rule 4 Rule 2

Standard deviation of total 87

a Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars.

b

 Includes visitors on overnight trips staying on or off forests.

c

 See text for descriptions of rules used for filling spending averages when sample sizes were fewer than 50 cases. 
62

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

Table 38a—Nonlocal visitor spending averages for hunting, dollars per party per tripa

Spending category

Nonlocal day trips Nonlocal overnightb trips

Low Average High Low Average High

 Dollars 

Motel 0 0 0 35.72 49.05 80.87

Camping 0 0 0 11.98 14.07 23.20

Restaurant 6.53 7.88 8.81 34.76 44.78 73.83

Groceries 10.81 13.04 14.58 64.50 80.83 133.27

Gas and oil 48.45 58.45 65.37 103.71 117.38 193.53

Other transportation 0 0 0 0 0 0

Entry fees 0.46 0.56 0.63 34.64 14.69 24.22

Recreation and entertainment 0 0 0 4.91 5.67 9.35

Sporting goods 18.11 21.85 24.44 30.02 35.99 59.34

Souvenirs and other expenses 0.77 0.93 1.04 5.59 8.06 13.29

 Total 85.14 102.71 114.87 325.83 370.52 610.88

Sample size (unweighted)c Rule 2 71 Rule 2 86 204 Rule 2

Standard deviation of total 89 365 451

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars.

b

 Includes visitors on overnight trips staying on or off forests.

c

 See text for descriptions of rules used for filling spending averages when sample sizes were fewer than 50 cases. 

Table 38b—Local visitor spending averages for hunting, dollars per party per tripa

Spending category

Local day trips Local overnightb trips

Low Average High Low Average High

 Dollars 

Motel 0 0 0 0 0 0

Camping 0 0 0 0 0 0

Restaurant 2.67 3.13 2.39 9.80 11.29 12.44

Groceries 4.75 5.37 4.10 63.28 72.90 80.30

Gas and oil 23.78 26.55 20.26 71.89 82.82 91.23

Other transportation 0 0.06 0.05 0 0 0

Entry fees 0.89 0.54 0.41 2.16 2.49 2.75

Recreation and entertainment 0 0.48 0.37 0.73 0.84 0.92

Sporting goods 15.12 16.18 12.35 23.67 27.27 30.04

Souvenirs and other expenses 0.65 1.04 0.79 4.93 5.68 6.26

 Total 47.86 53.36 40.72 202.23 232.98 256.63

Sample size (unweighted)c 171 365 Rule 2 Rule 2 69 Rule 2

Standard deviation of total 53 69 187

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars.

b

 Includes visitors on overnight trips staying on or off forests.

c

 See text for descriptions of rules used for filling spending averages when sample sizes were fewer than 50 cases. 
63

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

Table 39a—Nonlocal visitor spending averages for fishing, dollars per party per tripa

Spending category

Nonlocal day trips Nonlocal overnightb trips

Low Average High Low Average High

 Dollars 

Motel 0 0 0 41.60 96.47 135.10

Camping 0 0 0 17.92 27.82 37.66

Restaurant 5.87 9.06 10.13 31.45 45.40 66.99

Groceries 12.86 12.74 14.25 43.75 69.92 71.53

Gas and oil 36.97 37.34 41.76 53.48 73.80 93.36

Other transportation 0 0.19 0.21 0 0.78 0.14

Entry fees 3.27 2.62 2.93 8.29 8.31 6.85

Recreation and entertainment 1.99 1.47 1.64 6.12 16.96 28.34

Sporting goods 4.89 6.84 7.65 13.64 19.16 23.21

Souvenirs and other expenses 0.30 2.07 2.32 8.83 9.88 17.34

 Total 66.15 72.33 80.90 225.08 368.49 480.50

Sample size (unweighted)c 140 265 Rule 2 162 589 82

Standard deviation of total 62 74 277 510 576

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars.

b

 Includes visitors on overnight trips staying on or off forests.

c

 See text for descriptions of rules used for filling spending averages when sample sizes were fewer than 50 cases. 

Table 39b—Local visitor spending averages for fishing, dollars per party per tripa

Spending category

Local day trips Local overnightb trips

Low Average High Low Average High

 Dollars 

Motel 0 0 0 17.09 9.92 10.93

Camping 0 0 0 12.81 27.92 30.75

Restaurant 2.06 2.70 2.39 5.74 9.04 9.96

Groceries 6.49 7.90 7.20 43.16 68.23 75.16

Gas and oil 19.70 21.43 23.89 44.97 58.28 64.20

Other transportation 0 0.03 0 0 0.57 0.62

Entry fees 3.59 2.62 1.65 4.22 2.63 2.89

Recreation and entertainment 1.51 0.87 0.38 0.55 1.39 1.53

Sporting goods 9.26 8.49 4.76 15.62 21.76 23.97

Souvenirs and other expenses 0.23 0.22 0 1.76 3.76 4.14

 Total 42.85 44.27 40.26 145.93 203.48 224.14

Sample size (unweighted)c 427 793 90 55 130 Rule 2

Standard deviation of total 44 52 58 153 213

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars.

b

 Includes visitors on overnight trips staying on or off forests.

c

 See text for descriptions of rules used for filling spending averages when sample sizes were fewer than 50 cases. 
64

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

Table 40a—Nonlocal visitor spending averages for nature-related activities, dollars per party 

per tripa

Spending category

Nonlocal day trips Nonlocal overnightb trips

Low Average High Low Average High

 Dollars 

Motel 0 0 0 101.69 267.22 400.74

Camping 0 0 0 7.18 14.31 11.12

Restaurant 12.55 17.07 19.09 86.16 128.10 179.13

Groceries 5.02 4.54 5.08 37.27 57.10 68.58

Gas and oil 25.20 25.84 28.90 50.60 77.88 78.62

Other transportation 0.40 0.18 0.20 1.59 10.26 20.13

Entry fees 1.80 2.30 2.57 3.29 12.16 17.71

Recreation and entertainment 2.99 2.81 3.14 10.42 27.66 29.89

Sporting goods 0.73 0.46 0.51 3.61 6.51 8.55

Souvenirs and other expenses 1.65 4.22 4.72 11.00 38.48 64.13

 Total 50.34 57.42 64.22 312.80 639.67 878.60

Sample size (unweighted)c 112 239 Rule 2 119 417 154

Standard deviation of total 53 57 370 677 827

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars.

b

 Includes visitors on overnight trips staying on or off forests.

c

 See text for descriptions of rules used for filling spending averages when sample sizes were fewer than 50 cases. 

Table 40b—Local visitor spending averages for nature-related activities, dollars per party 

per tripa

Spending category

Local day trips Local overnightb trips

Low Average High Low Average High

 Dollars 

Motel 0 0 0 106.47 122.65 135.11

Camping 0 0 0 5.70 6.57 7.24

Restaurant 9.52 8.43 8.37 51.04 58.80 64.77

Groceries 5.86 4.06 1.68 22.75 26.21 28.87

Gas and oil 16.97 15.03 10.08 31.03 35.75 39.38

Other transportation 0.08 0.54 0.10 4.09 4.71 5.19

Entry fees 1.23 1.60 1.02 4.84 5.58 6.15

Recreation and entertainment 1.10 2.66 3.04 11.02 12.70 13.98

Sporting goods 0.58 0.97 1.53 2.59 2.99 3.29

Souvenirs and other expenses 0.72 1.45 0.97 15.33 17.66 19.46

 Total 36.05 34.75 26.80 254.86 293.61 323.42

Sample size (unweighted)c 222 566 149 Rule 2 Rule 4 Rule 2

Standard deviation of total 45 51 53

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars.

b

 Includes visitors on overnight trips staying on or off forests.

c

 See text for descriptions of rules used for filling spending averages when sample sizes were fewer than 50 cases. 
65

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

Table 41a—Nonlocal visitor spending averages for off-road/motorized trail use, dollars 

per party per tripa

Spending category

Nonlocal day trips Nonlocal overnightb trips

Low Average High Low Average High

 Dollars 

Motel 0 0 0 38.77 62.01 102.24

Camping 0 0 0 25.19 40.28 66.41

Restaurant 10.50 12.67 14.17 29.38 46.99 77.47

Groceries 12.13 14.63 16.36 37.79 60.44 99.65

Gas and oil 40.34 48.67 54.43 55.94 89.47 147.51

Other transportation 0 0 0 0 0 0

Entry fees 7.59 9.16 10.24 3.96 6.33 10.44

Recreation and entertainment 0 0 0 4.09 6.54 10.78

Sporting goods 1.99 2.40 2.68 7.12 11.39 18.78

Souvenirs and other expenses 1.47 1.77 1.98 5.73 9.16 15.10

 Total 74.03 89.30 99.88 207.98 332.62 548.38

Sample size (unweighted)c Rule 2 62 Rule 2 Rule 2 153 Rule 2

Standard deviation of total 72 454

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars.

b

 Includes visitors on overnight trips staying on or off forests.

c

 See text for descriptions of rules used for filling spending averages when sample sizes were fewer than 50 cases. 

Table 41b—Local visitor spending averages for off-road/motorized trail use, dollars per 

party per tripa

Spending category

Local day trips Local overnightb trips

Low Average High Low Average High

 Dollars 

Motel 0 0 0 24.71 28.46 31.35

Camping 0 0 0 16.05 18.49 20.37

Restaurant 10.22 6.65 5.07 18.72 21.57 23.76

Groceries 9.11 9.37 7.15 24.08 27.74 30.56

Gas and oil 30.27 30.25 23.08 35.65 41.07 45.24

Other transportation 0 0.46 0.35 0 0 0

Entry fees 4.40 3.31 2.53 2.52 2.91 3.20

Recreation and entertainment 5.12 3.01 2.30 2.61 3.00 3.31

Sporting goods 2.99 2.69 2.05 4.54 5.23 5.76

Souvenirs and other expenses 0.44 0.38 0.29 3.65 4.20 4.63

 Total 62.56 56.12 42.83 132.52 152.67 168.17

Sample size (unweighted)c 99 247 Rule 2 Rule 2 Rule 4 Rule 2

Standard deviation of total 63 58

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars.

b

 Includes visitors on overnight trips staying on or off forests.

c

 See text for descriptions of rules used for filling spending averages when sample sizes were fewer than 50 cases. 
66

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

Table 42a—Nonlocal visitor spending averages for driving for pleasure, dollars per party 

per tripa

Spending category

Nonlocal day trips Nonlocal overnightb trips

Low Average High Low Average High

 Dollars 

Motel 0 0 0 97.50 155.93 243.41

Camping 0 0 0 9.54 15.25 25.63

Restaurant 14.22 15.94 17.83 68.56 109.64 182.25

Groceries 2.73 4.25 4.75 28.95 46.30 62.82

Gas and oil 19.01 22.58 25.25 64.24 102.73 122.49

Other transportation 0 0.11 0.12 0.31 0.49 0.06

Entry fees 1.26 1.04 1.16 5.20 8.32 9.53

Recreation and entertainment 0 0 0 11.71 18.72 25.70

Sporting goods 0 0 0 3.77 6.03 5.95

Souvenirs and other expenses 1.86 2.26 2.53 15.58 24.91 38.35

 Total 39.08 46.19 51.65 305.34 488.32 716.20

Sample size (unweighted)c 66 128 Rule 2 Rule 2 137 52

Standard deviation of total 38 52 563 709

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars.

b

 Includes visitors on overnight trips staying on or off forests.

c

 See text for descriptions of rules used for filling spending averages when sample sizes were fewer than 50 cases. 

Table 42b—Local visitor spending averages for driving for pleasure, dollars per party 

per tripa

Spending category

Local day trips Local overnightb trips

Low Average High Low Average High

 Dollars 

Motel 0 0 0 62.13 71.57 78.84

Camping 0 0 0 6.08 7.00 7.71

Restaurant 8.42 7.15 7.05 43.68 50.32 55.43

Groceries 2.88 3.69 5.57 18.45 21.25 23.41

Gas and oil 18.06 19.47 12.91 40.93 47.15 51.94

Other transportation 0 0 0 0.20 0.22 0.25

Entry fees 1.33 0.67 0.27 3.31 3.82 4.21

Recreation and entertainment 0.18 0.08 0 7.46 8.59 9.46

Sporting goods 0.32 0.37 0.12 2.40 2.77 3.05

Souvenirs and other expenses 0 0.38 1.38 9.92 11.43 12.59

 Total 31.18 31.82 27.30 194.56 224.14 246.89

Sample size (unweighted)c 183 384 59 Rule 2 Rule 4 Rule 2

Standard deviation of total 43 45 42

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars.

b

 Includes visitors on overnight trips staying on or off forests.

c

 See text for descriptions of rules used for filling spending averages when sample sizes were fewer than 50 cases. 
67

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

Table 43a—Nonlocal visitor spending averages for camping, dollars per party per tripa

Spending category

Primitive camping/backpacking Developed camping

Low Average High Low Average High

 Dollars 

Motel 2.20 17.49 90.26 1.99 4.69 10.14

Camping 3.47 7.45 12.20 38.61 44.25 58.14

Restaurant 14.32 23.50 57.77 14.45 16.78 37.14

Groceries 21.53 31.41 41.58 58.45 62.63 71.75

Gas and oil 26.71 40.39 56.79 50.28 57.63 78.10

Other transportation 2.23 1.57 2.19 0.05 0.28 2.20

Entry fees 3.33 4.23 8.10 7.62 7.28 7.95

Recreation and entertainment 1.05 2.37 8.06 2.08 3.77 8.77

Sporting goods 6.75 10.88 27.06 8.42 9.12 11.01

Souvenirs and other expenses 0.65 2.88 10.61 3.21 5.75 12.17

 Total 82.23 142.16 314.64 185.16 212.18 297.36

Sample size (unweighted) 180 364 54 299 740 84

Standard deviation of total 160 284 448 175 225 321

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars. 

Table 43b—Local visitor spending averages for camping, dollars per party per tripa

Spending category

Primitive camping/backpacking Developed camping

Low Average High Low Average High

 Dollars 

Motel 1.61 1.24 1.36 0.81 0.63 0.24

Camping 6.51 6.06 6.68 36.57 41.89 50.02

Restaurant 8.91 6.26 6.90 7.01 7.55 9.02

Groceries 45.99 49.09 54.07 69.78 75.86 79.45

Gas and oil 36.83 33.98 37.43 39.55 45.44 42.76

Other transportation 0.17 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.05 0

Entry fees 3.73 3.73 4.11 6.82 5.44 3.30

Recreation and entertainment 0.66 0.61 0.67 2.45 1.83 0.47

Sporting goods 8.96 10.71 11.80 10.56 10.11 14.15

Souvenirs and other expenses 0.61 0.38 0.42 0.64 0.82 0.49

 Total 113.98 112.16 123.54 174.30 189.62 199.90

Sample size (unweighted)b 247 479 Rule 2 247 479 55

Standard deviation of total 190 197 190 197 179

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars. 

b

 See text for descriptions of rules used for filling spending averages when sample sizes were fewer than 50 cases. 
68

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

Table 44a—Nonlocal visitor spending averages for hiking/biking, dollars per party per tripa

Spending category

Nonlocal day trips Nonlocal overnightb trips

Low Average High Low Average High

 Dollars 

Motel 0 0 0 88.52 178.79 256.59

Camping 0 0 0 11.81 12.34 14.29

Restaurant 14.15 16.76 24.77 55.30 102.68 159.54

Groceries 6.38 7.46 9.00 34.85 62.29 84.28

Gas and oil 19.74 23.58 28.65 43.40 63.79 83.64

Other transportation 0.11 1.43 1.27 1.09 4.04 8.61

Entry fees 3.94 3.56 1.88 5.90 7.54 12.14

Recreation and entertainment 0.23 1.23 1.87 3.70 23.84 45.98

Sporting goods 1.23 1.02 0.11 5.42 9.23 13.70

Souvenirs and other expenses 0.90 1.66 2.15 6.27 24.20 39.00

 Total 46.68 56.69 69.71 256.24 488.73 717.77

Sample size (unweighted)c 339 682 112 350 1,346 441

Standard deviation of total 53 63 89 318 669 817

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars.

b

 Includes visitors on overnight trips staying on or off forests.

c

 See text for descriptions of rules used for filling spending averages when sample sizes were fewer than 50 cases. 

Table 44b—Local visitor spending averages for hiking/biking, dollars per party per tripa

Spending category

Local day trips Local overnightb trips

Low Average High Low Average High

 Dollars 

Motel 0 0 0 37.15 42.90 47.26

Camping 0 0 0 14.90 14.94 16.45

Restaurant 6.53 6.08 5.22 19.40 21.49 23.67

Groceries 4.35 4.06 3.65 48.52 52.02 57.30

Gas and oil 11.04 9.87 7.49 22.42 29.77 32.79

Other transportation 0.09 0.21 0.25 0.90 1.23 1.36

Entry fees 1.94 1.46 0.77 7.58 4.41 4.86

Recreation and entertainment 0.28 0.48 1.24 3.84 2.05 2.26

Sporting goods 1.30 1.64 1.11 7.74 8.06 8.87

Souvenirs and other expenses 0.50 0.55 0.66 10.56 5.80 6.39

 Total 26.01 24.35 20.39 173.01 182.68 201.22

Sample size (unweighted)c 1,778 3,748 874 93 218 Rule 2

Standard deviation of total 40 42 43 227 252

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars.

b

 Includes visitors on overnight trips staying on or off forests.

c

 See text for descriptions of rules used for filling spending averages when sample sizes were fewer than 50 cases. 
69

Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests

Table 45a—Nonlocal visitor spending averages for other activities, dollars per party per tripa

Spending category

Nonlocal day trips Nonlocal overnightb trips

Low Average High Low Average High

 Dollars 

Motel 0 0 0 54.91 91.15 145.89

Camping 0 0 0 25.28 25.38 29.96

Restaurant 10.66 14.53 27.24 31.06 50.73 108.82

Groceries 14.58 13.87 12.29 53.77 69.05 86.00

Gas and oil 28.87 29.38 31.23 56.38 66.71 93.21

Other transportation 0.11 0.27 0.80 1.73 3.63 0.31

Entry fees 4.65 5.74 9.68 5.39 8.38 12.14

Recreation and entertainment 6.39 5.79 4.28 10.04 18.03 34.11

Sporting goods 2.47 3.04 2.96 5.52 8.89 9.75

Souvenirs and other expenses 0.61 1.59 4.14 6.17 13.33 32.25

 Total 68.35 74.21 92.61 250.25 355.27 552.44

Sample size (unweighted) 219 549 50 531 1,733 255

Standard deviation of total 70 72 74 324 560 627

a Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars.

b Includes visitors on overnight trips staying on or off forests.

Table 45b—Local visitor spending averages for other activities, dollars per party per tripa

Spending category

Local day trips Local overnightb trips

Low Average High Low Average High

 Dollars 

Motel 0 0 0 10.39 19.93 21.96

Camping 0 0 0 23.82 27.80 30.63

Restaurant 4.37 5.14 3.68 11.21 14.92 16.44

Groceries 11.97 11.11 7.71 69.48 75.62 83.29

Gas and oil 17.11 16.96 13.22 48.06 54.79 60.35

Other transportation 0.06 0.07 0.04 0 0.03 0.04

Entry fees 4.71 3.89 3.50 5.02 4.93 5.43

Recreation and entertainment 0.76 1.39 0.76 1.73 3.21 3.53

Sporting goods 4.78 4.92 1.29 9.97 9.72 10.71

Souvenirs and other expenses 0.30 0.70 1.20 2.91 2.45 2.70

 Total 44.06 44.18 31.40 182.59 213.41 235.08

Sample size (unweighted)c 1,263 2,638 295 212 513 Rule 2

Standard deviation of total 58 57 47 153 262

a Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures expressed in 2014 dollars.

b

 Includes visitors on overnight trips staying on or off forests.

c

 See text for descriptions of rules used for filling spending averages when sample sizes were fewer than 50 cases. 
70

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-961

Table 46—Percentage of trip-type segment shares by activity

Primary activity

Nonlocal 

day 

Nonlocal 

overnighta Local day

Local 

overnighta Nonprimary Total

Percent

Cross-country skiing 10 19 63 2 6 100

Snowmobiling 20 38 31 2 9 100

Hunting 9 21 60 7 3 100

Fishing 12 20 52 7 9 100

Nature related 12 16 30 1 41 100

OHV use 16 18 54 5 7 100

Driving for pleasure 9 21 44 1 25 100

Developed camping 0 48 0 41 11 100

Primitive camping/backpacking 0 48 0 40 12 100

Hiking/biking 8 15 57 2 18 100

Other 10 20 48 6 16 100

a

 Includes visitors on overnight trips staying on or off forests. OHV = off-highway vehicle.

Table 47—Average party size by activity and trip type

Primary activity

Nonlocal 

day 

Nonlocal 

overnighta Local day

Local 

overnighta Nonprimary

Cross-country skiing 2.7 2.8 1.9 2.6 2.1

Snowmobiling 2.8 2.8 2.4 1.8 2.5

Hunting 2.0 2.1 1.7 2.1 1.8

Fishing 2.2 2.6 2.1 2.9 2.4

Nature related 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.7

OHV use 2.1 2.6 2.0 2.1 2.8

Driving for pleasure 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.7 2.4

Developed camping 3.3 2.9 2.4 2.9 2.6

Primitive camping/backpacking 2.2 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.4

Hiking/biking 2.4 2.6 2.0 2.4 2.6

Other 3.0 3.0 2.6 2.7 2.8

a

 Includes visitors on overnight trips staying on or off forests. OHV = off-highway vehicle.
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Website http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/

Telephone (503) 808–2592

Publication requests (503) 808–2138

FAX (503) 808–2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

1220 SW Third Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300