PREPARED BY:

ECONorthwest

)'3231-'7*-2%2')40%22-2+

April 2015

OUTDOOR RECREATION SCARCITY AND ABUNDANCE 

IN WESTERN OREGON: A SPATIAL ANALYSIS
This page left intentionally blank
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Executive Summary

3 Introduction

4 Demand for Outdoor Recreation

18 Intersection of Outdoor Recreation Supply and Demand

29	 Investment Potential and Identified Needs

30 References

31 Appendix
This page left intentionally blank
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ECONorthwest prepared this report for the Bureau of Land 

Management. 

For over 40 years ECONorthwest has helped its clients make 

sound decisions based on rigorous economic, planning, and 

financial analysis. For more information about ECONorthwest:

www.econw.com. The primary ECONorthwest contributors 

to this report were Mark Buckley and Austin Rempel. . 

ECONorthwest received valuable input and guidance from 

Zachary Jarrett of the BLM. ECONorthwest also gratefully 

acknowledges the data and assistance provided by 

Terry Bergerson and Brady Callahan of the Oregon Parks 

Recreation Department.

This assistance notwithstanding, ECONorthwest is 

responsible for the content of this report. The staff at 

ECONorthwest prepared this report based on their general 

knowledge of microeconomics, economic conditions in 

western Oregon, outdoor recreation, and on information 

derived from government agencies, private statistical 

services, the reports of others, interviews of individuals, or 

other sources believed to be reliable. ECONorthwest has not 

independently verified the accuracy of all such information,

and makes no representation regarding its accuracy or 

completeness. Any statements nonfactual in nature constitute 

the authors’ current opinions, which may change as more 

information becomes available.

Cover and report photos: Bureau of Land Management 

Oregon and Washington, uploaded via Flickr, Creative 

Commons Attribution.

For more information about this report:

Mark Buckley

buckley@econw.com

KOIN Center

222 SW Columbia Street

Suite 1600

Portland, OR 97201

503.222.6060
This page left intentionally blank
OUTDOOR RECREATION SCARCITY AND ABUNDANCE IN WESTERN OREGON: A SPATIAL ANALYSIS | 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Outdoor recreation is a fundamental amenity in 

western Oregon. This report details an analysis 

into the current supply of and demand for 

outdoor recreation opportunities on public lands 

in western Oregon. 

Some of the specific highlights of this analysis

for outdoor recreation scarcity and abundance 

in western Oregon are:

▪ Public land overall is most scarce within 

proximity of communities in the northern 

Willamette Valley.

▪ Trails of all types and camping opportunities 

are most scarce within the Willamette Valley 

for the region as a whole.

▪ Mountain-biking trails are particularly scarce 

within 30-minute drive times of communities 

in the northern Willamette Valley in particular.

▪ OHV trails are most scarce in the central to 

southern Willamette Valley, from Salem to 

Eugene.

▪ Camping opportunities are scarce throughout 

the Willamette Valley, particularly in the 

northern portion.
2 | ECONorthwest

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 

Medford 

Grant's Pass 

Roseburg 

Coos Bay 

Eugene 

Corvallis 

Salem 

McMinnville 

Newburg 

Sandy 

Tillamook 

Portland 

Trail&Miles&per&User&

Hiking-30 

Hiking-60 

MTB-30 

MTB-60 

OHV-30 

OHV-60 

Community Category Trail Miles Per User Community Category Trail Miles Per User Community Category Trail Miles Per User

MTB$30 0.00525 OHV$30 0.00433 Hiking$60 0.01164

OHV$60 0.00510 Hiking$60 0.00084 MTB$30 0.00812

Hiking$60 0.00481 OHV$60 0.00069 OHV$60 0.00694

MTB$60 0.00480 Hiking$30 0.00053 MTB$60 0.00468

Hiking$30 0.00237 MTB$60 0.00040 OHV$30 0.00283

OHV$30 0.00000 MTB$30 0.00000 Hiking$30 0.00170

Hiking$30 0.00277 OHV$60 0.00925 Hiking$30 0.00153

OHV$30 0.00108 Hiking$30 0.00514 Hiking$60 0.00099

Hiking$60 0.00089 OHV$30 0.00479 OHV$60 0.00060

MTB$30 0.00029 MTB$60 0.00435 MTB$60 0.00014

OHV$60 0.00025 Hiking$60 0.00372 OHV$30 0.00004

MTB$60 0.00021 MTB$30 0.00278 MTB$30 0.00000

MTB$60 0.00304 OHV$30 0.00105 Hiking$30 0.00862

Hiking$60 0.00277 Hiking$60 0.00094 Hiking$60 0.00397

MTB$30 0.00108 Hiking$30 0.00079 OHV$30 0.00232

Hiking$30 0.00046 OHV$60 0.00066 OHV$60 0.00118

OHV$60 0.00003 MTB$60 0.00034 MTB$60 0.00087

OHV$30 0.00000 MTB$30 0.00028 MTB$30 0.00077

OHV$60 0.01945 OHV$60 0.00545 OHV$30 0.01459

OHV$30 0.01434 Hiking$60 0.00189 Hiking$30 0.01326

Hiking$60 0.00770 MTB$60 0.00062 Hiking$60 0.01000

Hiking$30 0.00620 Hiking$30 0.00039 MTB$60 0.00835

MTB$60 0.00324 MTB$30 0.00008 MTB$30 0.00766

MTB$30 0.00174 OHV$30 0.00000 OHV$60 0.00609

Coos$Bay McMinnville Roseburg

Corvallis Medford Salem

Eugene Newburg Sandy

Grant's$Pass Portland Tillamook

Relative Ranking of Trail Miles, by Type and Distance, Within Each Community

Trail Miles per User, by Type, Distance, and Community

This figure shows the availability of trails open to hiking, mountain

biking (‘MTB’) and off-highway vehicle (OHV) use within 30 and 60 

minute driving distances of each community, relative to the size of 

the local user population.

This table shows the availability of trails open to hiking, mountain 

biking (‘MTB’) and off-highway vehicle use within 30 and 60 minute 

driving distances, relative to the size of the local user population, and 

ranked from highest (in blue) to lowest (in red) for each community.
OUTDOOR RECREATION SCARCITY AND ABUNDANCE IN WESTERN OREGON: A SPATIAL ANALYSIS | 3

INTRODUCTION

Outdoor recreation is a defining characteristic

of western Oregon. This report details an 

analysis into the current supply of and demand 

for outdoor recreation opportunities on public 

lands in western Oregon. Specifically it

answers the questions:

▪ What are the current outdoor recreation 

opportunities in western Oregon? 

▪ What are the current demands for outdoor 

recreation opportunities in western Oregon, 

spatially?

▪ What are the scarcities in outdoor recreation 

opportunities in western Oregon?

By identifying the supply and demand for 

outdoor recreation in western Oregon, we 

can deduce the areas of greatest scarcity, and 

the types of outdoor recreation experiencing 

the greatest scarcity, by geography. With this 

information, future investments in outdoor 

recreation resources can be targeted to 

generate the greatest potential value by 

satisfying the greatest needs. With high value 

opportunities, other secondary opportunities 

for economic development grow as well. 

This analysis includes outdoor recreation 

opportunities across all land ownership and 

administration categories, but does focus on 

opportunities offered by lands administered by 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

INTRODUCTION

Photo courtesy of the International Mountain Bicycling Association
4 | ECONorthwest

DEMAND FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

DEMAND FOR OUTDOOR 

RECREATION

Outdoor recreation plays an important role in 

the health and quality of life of Oregonians. 

People decide to visit, take jobs, start or expand 

businesses, and raise families in western 

Oregon in part of the high quality amenities 

and lifestyle the area provides. Some welleducated and productive workers will choose to 

live in places with valuable outdoor recreation 

amenities, and possibly pass up higher-paying 

jobs in places where the quality of life would not 

be as great.1 Outdoor recreation opportunities 

not only influence where in the country people

choose to live and work, but also where within 

a state, and even where within a particular 

city. Travel and tourism decisions are even 

more sensitive than residence decisions to the 

location, quality, and concentration of outdoor 

recreation opportunities. 

In these ways and others, Oregon’s outdoor 

recreation provides a diverse suite of benefits

and outcomes to residents and visitors, and 

these directly and indirect spur economic 

opportunities for businesses, workers and 

investors. Responding to these sources of 

demand for outdoor recreation can thus provide 

benefits and economic development.

Demand for outdoor recreation has played a 

central role in analysis of natural resources by 

economists for decades. The factors of demand 

for outdoor recreation vary across individual 

preferences, and include a number of complex 

components. In one of the earliest texts on the 

subject, Economics of Outdoor Recreation, first

published in 1966, the authors identify that the 

“whole recreation experience” provides value 

and includes “anticipation, travel to, experience 

on the site, travel back, and recollection” 

(Clawson and Knetsch 1966 p. 49). While the 

benefit derived from an experience can vary

from person to person, there are costs that 

constrain the frequency, duration, and options. 

There are opportunity costs of the participant’s 

time, travel costs, equipment and material costs, 

potentially access fees, and other indirect costs 

for food, lodging and complementary services. 

Benefits must outweigh costs to the individual to

justify a trip, and in particular to decide to repeat 

a particular trip. 

Given the preferences and costs facing an 

individual, the primary drivers of the quality 

of a recreation trip are the quality of the site, 

the proximity of the site, and congestion levels 

of the site. Variety in terms of options can be 

an important driver for the overall number of 

trips during a year. This value, or consumer 

surplus, is the real force behind the numerous 

gains to participants and communities from 

outdoor recreation opportunities.2 Therefore, 

investments to provide quality opportunities are 

most valuable when they are close to potential 

users. In this study we investigate proximity as 

a leading factor for outdoor recreation value. 

In particular, recognizing that time and related 

travel costs are primary constraints on individual 

trips, we focus on identifying the availability (and 

scarcity) of outdoor recreation near population 

centers.3 In particular, we analyze the availability 

within half-hour and hour driving distances from 

major population centers in western Oregon. 

By considering per capita availability, we also 

incorporate congestion.

Demand for outdoor recreation sites varies 

across the landscape. Preferences for outdoor 

recreation types and amounts are not uniform 

across the population. Previous research has 

explored the societal, lifestyle, and demographic 

factors that determine demand for outdoor 

recreation (e.g. Cordell 2012, Bowker et al. 

2012). These factors include:

▪ Population size

▪ Gender

▪ Age

▪ Race

▪ Ethnicity

▪ Education

▪ Income

▪ Supply of recreation opportunities

▪ Location, place of residence and proximity to 

recreation opportunities

1

See for example Deller, S., et al. 2001 and Lorah, P., & Southwick, R. 2003.

2

For greater detail see discussion of the recreation demand curve, Ch. 5 in Loomis and Walsh 1997. 

3

Tradeoffs between financial travel costs and travel time vary by individual as a function of relative scarcities for the individual. For example, someone facing greater scarcity of time than money would prioritize 

proximity, while someone facing greater scarcity of money than time would prioritize low travel costs. People with less available time also tend to have higher opportunity costs for time spent traveling. All else equal, 

distance provides a proxy for overall travel cost (time and expenditures).
OUTDOOR RECREATION SCARCITY AND ABUNDANCE IN WESTERN OREGON: A SPATIAL ANALYSIS | 5

DEMAND FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

Examples of trends that are currently affecting 

demand for recreation across the nation include 

the aging of the baby boomer generation, 

income changes, time constraints, changes in 

family structure, migration to urban areas, and 

immigration. 

NATIONAL TRENDS

To shed light on the overall demand for outdoor 

recreation in western Oregon, it is useful to 

consider broader, national trends as well as 

statewide trends. The following summary of 

national trends is taken from the Outdoor 

Recreation Trends and Futures: A Technical 

Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 

RPA Assessment (Cordell 2012):

▪ Preferences for outdoor recreation 

activities have been changing over time.

Participation in “traditional” outdoor activities 

such as fishing and hunting has generally

been declining, in favor of other activities, 

such as wildlife and bird watching.

▪ Overall outdoor recreation participation is 

growing, oftentimes faster than background 

population growth. 

▪ Over the past few decades, particularly 

strong growth in participation has been 

observed for the overall group of naturebased activities termed “viewing and 

photographing nature.” Substantial growth 

has occurred in both participation and annual 

days for nature-based viewing activities like 

viewing birds, wildlife, fish, wildflowers/trees,

and natural scenery.

▪ Different segments of society prefer 

different types and levels of participation 

in different mixes of outdoor activities.

The following examples further illustrate the 

influence that demographic, societal, and

lifestyle characteristics have on outdoor 

recreation preferences and participation:

▪ Visiting recreation or historic sites was 

significantly higher among non-Hispanic

Whites, late teenagers, middle-aged 

people, people with some college to 

completion of advanced degrees, higher 

income people, and the foreign born. 

▪ Viewing and photographing nature 

was higher among people with higher 

education, higher incomes, non-Hispanic 

Whites, people ages 35 to 54, those 

having some college to post graduate 

education, and those earning more than 

$50,000 per year.

▪ For backcountry activities, participation 

was highest among males, Whites, 

Native Americans, people less than 55 

years, well-educated people with higher 

incomes, and rural residents. 

▪ Participation in hunting, fishing, and

motorized outdoor activities was higher 

among rural, non-Hispanic White males 

with middle-to-high incomes. 

▪ Outdoor recreation opportunities that 

require less developed settings (that 

is, excluding more urban recreational 

activities, like field sports and jogging) 

take place primarily on public lands. 

▪ The percentage of population that 

recreates on public land is substantial 

in both the eastern United States (60 

percent) and the western United States 

(69 percent). 

▪ In the West, slightly more than 60 percent of 

viewing and photographing nature activity 

occurs on public land.

▪ In both the East and West, around threefourths of backcountry activity occurs on 

public lands. 

▪ In the West, 57 percent of hunting occurs on 

public forestlands. 

▪ The majority of cross-country skiing (67 

percent in the West) is estimated to occur on 

public lands.

▪ Visitation trends vary among public land 

management agencies:

▪ Visits to various units of the National Park 

System have been relatively stable, while 

visitation at National Wildlife Refuges and 

other areas managed by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service has shown fairly steady 

growth. 

▪ Visitation at Bureau of Land Management 

areas has been relatively stable over the 

years, while visitation to national forests 

has been declining. 

▪ State park visitation grew steadily from 

1992 through 2000 then declined until 

2005. Since 2005, state park visitation 

increased through 2008 before dipping 

again in 2009.

▪ Most popular motivations associated 

with outdoor recreation include being 

outdoors, experiencing nature, getting 

away from the demands of everyday life, 

being with family, and contributing to 

health, physical exercise, and/or training. 
6 | ECONorthwest

DEMAND FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

▪ Participation rates will continue to change 

over the coming decades:

▪ The five activities projected to grow fastest

in per capita participation over the next 

50 years are developed skiing (20 percent 

to 50 percent increase), undeveloped 

skiing (9 percent to 31 percent), challenge 

activities (6 percent to 18 percent), 

equestrian activities (3 percent to 19 

percent), and motorized water activities (-3 

percent to 15 percent). 

▪ The activities projected to see the 

strongest declines to low growth in per 

capita adult participation rates include 

visiting primitive areas (-5 percent to 0 

percent decrease), motorized off-road 

activities (off highway vehicles - OHV) (-18 

percent to 0 percent), hunting (-31 percent 

to -22 percent), and fishing (-10 percent to

-3 percent).

▪ Growth of per capita participation rates 

for other activities will either hover around 

zero or grow minimally.

▪ While activities currently experiencing 

high participation levels may not show 

large percentage increases in participant 

numbers, even small percentage 

increases in popular activities can mean 

quite large increases in participants.

STATE TRENDS

Oregon’s 2013-2017 Statewide Comprehensive 

Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) (OPRD 2013) 

summarizes outdoor recreation trends occurring 

in the state, citing many of the same issues and 

topics:

▪ Patterns in outdoor recreation 

participation by Oregon’s residents are 

very similar to those of the nation. 

▪ Certain differences in outdoor recreation 

preferences can be identified between

Oregon’s residents and those of the nation: 

▪ Activities where Oregon participation 

is five percent or more over U.S.

participation include:

▪ Developed camping (+27 percent greater 

in Oregon than the U.S. on average)

▪ Attending outdoor concerts (+14 percent)

▪ Snowshoeing (+7 percent)

▪ Activities where Oregon participation 

is five percent or more under U.S.

participation include:

▪ Swimming in an outdoor pool (-23 percent)

▪ Fishing (-10 percent)

▪ Motor boating (-8 percent)

▪ Other identified trends and issues affecting

outdoor recreation demand in the state, 

include:

▪ Population growth 

▪ A rapidly aging population

▪ A growing minority population

▪ Fewer youth learning outdoor skills

▪ Increasing levels of physical inactivity

See Table 15, Figure 18.
OUTDOOR RECREATION SCARCITY AND ABUNDANCE IN WESTERN OREGON: A SPATIAL ANALYSIS | 7

DEMAND FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

OUTDOOR RECREATION IN WESTERN 

OREGON

An assessment of the demand for outdoor 

recreation opportunities that the BLM provides 

in western Oregon requires consideration of the 

BLM’s recreation resources, the overall supply 

of recreation resources in the planning area, the 

user population, and how changes in supply 

could address scarcities that would increase 

usage and benefit.

Western Oregon is nationally and globally 

recognized for providing world-class outdoor 

recreation opportunities, with extensive forests, 

rivers and mountains, including access, 

facilities and trails throughout. A variety of 

public agencies - including the BLM, Forest 

Service (FS), National Park Service (NPS), 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Oregon Parks 

and Recreation Department (OPRD), Oregon 

Department of Forestry (ODF), and a variety of 

local agencies and private entities - manage 

these lands and the associated recreation 

opportunities (Figure 1). While there is a large 

amount of overlap in the recreation opportunities 

provided by public land agencies, they also 

have dominant niches (White et. al. 2014). 

For example, the BLM and FS tend to provide 

opportunities on less developed, backcountry 

areas, FWS lands emphasize wildlife, fish, and

birds, and the NPS is known for managing 

unique, iconic areas, like Crater Lake.

Recreation opportunities within proximity 

to population centers experience the most 

demand, and consequently have the potential to 

provide the most value, if they provide the right 

types of outdoor recreation (Figure 1). 

Figure 1. Land Ownership and Population Centers in Western Oregon

Sources: PSU Population Center 2012, U.S Census 2014

Note: The ‘Other Publically Owned Land’ includes lands owned by the Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, 

and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which tend to focus on water resources.
8 | ECONorthwest

DEMAND FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

As indicated by population centers, demand 

for outdoor recreation is unevenly distributed in 

western Oregon. The northern Willamette Valley 

is the most heavily populated portion of the 

region, dominated by the Portland metro area. 

The Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management are the major public landowners in 

western Oregon (Figure 1). The BLM manages 

2,550,939 acres of land in western Oregon 

(equating to approximately 11 percent of the 

region’s land base) and, relative to other public 

landowners, has a higher proportion of its land 

in close proximity to population centers. 

Population centers and public lands do not tend 

to occur in close proximity to each other. While 

population is generally concentrated in the 

northern half of the region, the majority of public 

lands are found in the south, and in the more 

rugged areas (i.e. the Cascades and the Coast 

Range) outside of the heavily developed and 

populated Willamette Valley. 

Researchers consider site attributes and travel 

costs, including time, to be the primary factors 

for variation in demand from one site to another, 

and for decisions between recreation and other 

forms of leisure (Loomis and Walsh, 1997, White 

et al. 2014). For most federally owned lands, 

studies have shown that at least half of all visits 

come from people who live within 50 miles 

(USDA Forest Service 2013). Data collected 

for visitors to National Forests in western 

Oregon, specifically, 41 percent of a given

area’s recreational visitors come from within 50 

miles (Figure 2). This indicates that, while the 

characteristics of communities living within those 

proximate zones are especially important 

Figure 2. Distance Travelled, Recreational Visitors to USFS Lands in Western Oregon, 2012

Source: USFS National Visitor Use Monitoring Program, 2012

Figure 3. Number of Visitors and Distance Travelled, Western Oregon Forests, 2012

43% 

40% 35% 20% 63% 

57% 

60% 65% 

80% 

38% 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

Mt Hood NF Siuslaw NF Willamette NF Umpqua NF Rogue-River 

Siskiyou NF 

Annual Number of Visitors (thousands)

Miles&travelled&from&home:& 0-50 miles Over 50 miles 

Source: USFS National Visitor Use Monitoring Program, 2012

0%#

5%#

10%#

15%#

20%#

25%#

0#'#25# 26#'#50## 51#'#75## 76#'#100## 101#'#200## 201#'#500## Over#500#

% of visitors

Miles Travelled from Home 
OUTDOOR RECREATION SCARCITY AND ABUNDANCE IN WESTERN OREGON: A SPATIAL ANALYSIS | 9

DEMAND FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

to consider, lands in western Oregon also have 

significant regional, national, and/or international

markets. 

The number of visitors, and the distances 

they travel to recreate, also appear to vary 

systematically by forest, with proximity to 

population centers (Figure 3).

OUTDOOR RECREATION ON BLM LANDS

The BLM—through the location and 

characteristics of the lands it manages, as 

well as its management and policies regarding 

recreation—plays a unique role in in the 

provisions of recreation opportunities in the 

region. The 2013-2017 Oregon SCORP provides 

the following summary of BLM’s lands and 

provider role:

“The BLM often manages public lands within 

an hour of urban areas and larger rural 

communities in Oregon. BLM-administered 

lands in these areas are often intermixed with 

private lands. 

The demand for undeveloped recreation 

(target shooting, hunting, off-highway vehicle 

use, camping, etc.) on BLM-administered 

lands in these areas is growing. The supply 

for these recreation activities is often static 

or declining as private forest and rangelands 

are increasingly closed to public motorized 

access due to problems with dumping, 

vandalism, drugs and long-term occupancy.

The demand for motorized recreation 

activities continues to grow, while 

environmental concerns and conflict with 

other recreational groups makes providing 

for these activities more difficult on 

BLM-administered lands. This is especially 

true for off-highway motorized use.”

In line with the overall distribution of population 

in the region, BLM’s lands in northern Oregon 

and the Willamette Valley have the greatest 

number of people living nearby, therefore, the 

largest potential user population (Figure 4). 

It should be noted that, while BLM’s lands in 

southwestern Oregon are generally closer to 

population centers, such as Medford, the nearby 

populations are still smaller.

Figure 4. Population Density and BLM-Owned Land Weighted by Total Population Living Within 

50 miles

Sources: ODF 2011, U.S Census 2014
10 | ECONorthwest

DEMAND FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

Recreational use is measured and recorded 

using a variety of metrics. The BLM uses its 

Recreation Management Information System 

(RMIS), which provides estimates of total visits, 

visitor days and numbers of participants (Table 1, 

on the next page):

▪ A visit is defined as the entry of one person

onto BLM lands, and use for any amount 

of time. The BLM only records visits at the 

District level, and these are not broken out by 

recreation type.4

▪ A visitor day represents an aggregate of 

12 visitor hours at a site or area (Bureau of 

Land Management. 2014). One visitor day 

in the data set might be the compilation of 

several individual visits that sum to a total of 

12 hours.

▪ Participants are people that participate in an 

activity. It is useful to note that a visitor that 

both camps and hunts would be counted as 

two participants. 

Estimates for total outdoor recreation activity in 

western Oregon, developed using survey data, 

are also provided in the Oregon SCORP. The 

SCORP measures recreation in terms of user 

occasions (the number of times people engage 

in an activity) and percent of the population 

that participates in an activity (estimated at 

the state and county scales). Due to the differing 

metrics used by the BLM and the Oregon 

SCORP, it is difficult to accurately or definitively

estimate how much of total recreation activity in 

western Oregon occurs on BLM lands.5 

Table 1 shows the number of participants and 

visitor days, by activity type, that took place 

on BLM lands in western Oregon in 2013. 

Mirroring national and state trends, ‘wildlife 

viewing, interpretation and nature study’ had 

the highest number of participants (roughly a 

quarter of people who recreated on BLM lands 

in western Oregon participated in this activity). 

“Driving for pleasure” (18 percent), “camping 

and picnicking” (12 percent) and non-motorized 

travel (11 percent) were other categories with 

large numbers of participants. 

“Camping and picnicking” was the most popular 

activity on BLM lands, in terms of hours spent 

(or visitor days), which is reflective of the fact

that, along with high numbers of participants, 

camping is often a long duration activity. 

Hunting was the second most popular activity 

(mainly driven by the long hours required for 

big game hunting), followed by “wildlife viewing, 

interpretation and nature study,” and “driving for 

pleasure.”

4

The BLM’s management units include state or regional offices, at the top, below which there are Districts, followed by Field Offices or Resource Areas.

5

Intersecting BLM RMIS data (reported in visitor days, visits, and participant) with Oregon’s SCORP data (reported in user occasions) does not yield a useful comparison. Even when controlling for the recreation types 

that the BLM does not provide (more urban uses, such as recreation that occurs on paved trails and tennis courts, for example), recreation on BLM lands in western Oregon only amounts to 0.56 percent of the total 

user occasions reported in the SCORP, western Oregon. This figure seems unrealistic, and may be indicative of some fundamental misalignment in metrics or categories.
OUTDOOR RECREATION SCARCITY AND ABUNDANCE IN WESTERN OREGON: A SPATIAL ANALYSIS | 11

DEMAND FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

Activity Participants % of Total Visitor Days % of Total Activity Participants % of Total Visitor Days % of Total

Camping and Picknicking 1,273,349 11.8% 938,290 29.0% Nonmotorized Winter Activities 50,444 0.5% 14,723 0.5%

Camping 671,172 6.2% 854,366 26.4% Skiing - Cross Country 1,282 > 0.0% 296 > 0.0%

Picnicking 602,177 5.6% 83,924 2.6% Snow Play - General 48,837 0.5% 14,354 0.4%

Driving for Pleasure (Along Designated BLM Roadways) 1,959,729 18.2% 376,562 11.6% Snowshoeing 325 > 0.0% 73 > 0.0%

Driving For Pleasure 1,368,048 12.7% 369,933 11.4% Snowmobile and other Motorized Winter Activities 6,903 0.1% 1,896 0.1%

Staging/Comfort Stop 591,681 5.5% 6,629 0.2% Snowmobiling 6,903 0.1% 1,896 0.1%

Fishing 598,420 5.6% 181,746 5.6% Specialized Nonmotorized Activities and Events 458,870 4.3% 111,012 3.4%

Boat Launching 17,397 0.2% 593 > 0.0% Archery 28,878 0.3% 11,808 0.4%

Fishing - Freshwater 569,023 5.3% 180,153 5.6% Climbing - Mountain/Rock 1,550 > 0.0% 258 > 0.0%

Fishing - Salt Water 12,000 0.1% 1,000 > 0.0% Geocaching 39,901 0.4% 9,255 0.3%

Hunting (Big Game, Upland Game, and Migratory Game Birds) 1,063,709 9.9% 485,911 15.0% Hang-Gliding/Parasailing 28,369 0.3% 10,978 0.3%

Hunting - Big Game 661,538 6.1% 364,010 11.3% Model Airplane/Rocket 14,797 0.1% 3,699 0.1%

Hunting - Other 300 > 0.0% 75 > 0.0% Orienteering 54 > 0.0% 7 > 0.0%

Hunting - Small Game 144,981 1.3% 43,284 1.3% Skating - Roller/Inline 680 > 0.0% 113 > 0.0%

Hunting - Upland Bird 244,929 2.3% 74,752 2.3% Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 33,056 0.3% 18,338 > 0.0%

Hunting - Waterfowl 8,262 0.1% 1,940 0.1% Specialized Sport/Event (Non-Motor) 5,836 0.1% 711 > 0.0%

Trapping 3,699 > 0.0% 1,850 0.1% Spectator Sport 286 > 0.0% 48 > 0.0%

Motorized Boating 97,622 0.9% 41,843 1.3% Target Practice 305,463 2.8% 55,797 1.7%

Power Boating 90,341 0.8% 38,809 1.2% Swimming and Other Water-Based Activities 424,376 3.9% 106,537 3.3%

Water Skiing 7,281 0.1% 3,034 0.1% Swimming/Water Play 414,464 3.9% 104,159 3.2%

Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Travel 826,256 7.7% 272,792 8.4% Wind Surfing 9,912 0.1% 2,378 0.1%

OHV - ATV 287,035 2.7% 102,198 3.2% Wildlife Viewing, Interpretation, and Nature Study 2,564,574 23.8% 385,596 11.9%

OHV - Cars/Trucks/SUVs 243,823 2.3% 73,317 2.3% Environmental Education 87,153 0.8% 15,168 0.5%

OHV - Dunebuggy 1,105 > 0.0% 92 > 0.0% Gather Non-Commercial Products 241,383 2.2% 76,312 2.4%

OHV - Motorcycle 283,195 2.6% 93,486 2.9% Interpretive Programs 17,301 0.2% 1,053 > 0.0%

Rock Crawling-4WD 11,098 0.1% 3,699 0.1% Nature Study 42,246 0.4% 7,210 0.2%

Nonmotorized Boating 224,876 2.1% 74,580 2.3% Photography 194,224 1.8% 23,865 0.7%

Canoe/Kayaking 4,248 > 0.0% 396 > 0.0% Recreation Inquiry 4,266 > 0.0% 36 > 0.0%

Personal Watercraft 1,820 > 0.0% 152 > 0.0% Rockhounding/Mineral Collection 85,742 0.8% 20,479 0.6%

Row/Float/Raft 218,808 2.0% 74,032 2.3% Viewing - Cultural Sites 36,842 0.3% 715 > 0.0%

Nonmotorized Travel (Hiking, Biking, and Horseback Riding) 1,211,201 11.3% 243,325 7.5% Viewing - Other 190,183 1.8% 96,628 3.0%

Backpacking 22,614 0.2% 7,767 0.2% Viewing - Scenery/Landscapes 482,095 4.5% 62,436 1.9%

Bicycling - Mountain 195,728 1.8% 56,607 1.7% Viewing - Wildflowers 60,665 0.6% 5,959 0.2%

Bicycling - Road 160,194 1.5% 32,624 1.0% Viewing - Wildlife 787,368 7.3% 69,561 2.2%

Hiking/Walking/Running 733,443 6.8% 117,923 3.6% Viewing -Interpretive Exhibit 335,106 3.1% 6,174 0.2%

Horseback Riding 97,899 0.9% 28,257 0.9%

Racing - Bicycle 1,323 > 0.0% 147 > 0.0%

Total: All Activities 10,760,329 100.0% 3,234,813 100.0%

Source: ECONorthwest, based on data from the BLM RMIS.

Table 1. Total 2013 Visitor Days and Participants, by Activity, to all Western Oregon BLM Field Offices
12 | ECONorthwest

DEMAND FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

The BLM also collected information regarding 

recreation participation and needs from website 

visitors in 2014 (Table 2). The results for the 

selected study communities are presented 

below, and particularly notable results, relevant 

to the present analysis, are highlighted in green. 

Perhaps reflecting BLM’s unique provider role,

and the interest groups and users that frequent 

its lands, mountain biking and OHV had the 

highest numbers of respondents across the 

region, and certain communities had particularly 

high levels of interest. Non-motorized trail 

uses, grouped together, had a very high rate 

of participation among respondents. Roseburg 

and Coos Bay indicated greater interest in OHV 

use than non-motorized trail use.

Salem is the largest district office in western

Oregon, by area, and BLM lands within this 

district see the highest number of visits. Across 

the western Oregon field offices, the number of

visits generally tracks with the population living 

within 50-miles (See Figure 5).

Community Interpretation/Education

/Nature Viewing

NonMotorized 

Trails

Water 

Trail Hiking MountainBiking Equestrian

NonMotorized

Trail Uses

Combined

Motorized

Trails OHV

Hunting -

Fishing

CampingpicnickingOther Rec 

Types*

TOTAL 

RESPONSES

Coos Bay 6 10 0 3 24 2 39 67 6 4 22 144

 Percentage 4% 7% 0% 2% 17% 1% 27% 47% 4% 3% 15% 100%

Corvallis 6 9 1 10 51 6 77 30 10 3 27 153

 Percentage 4% 6% 1% 7% 33% 4% 50% 20% 7% 2% 18% 100%

Eugene 12 12 0 12 59 11 94 52 18 6 24 206

 Percentage 6% 6% 0% 6% 29% 5% 46% 25% 9% 3% 12% 100%

Grants Pass 6 29 0 23 43 16 111 76 7 7 51 258

 Percentage 2% 11% 0% 9% 17% 6% 43% 29% 3% 3% 20% 100%

McMinnville 7 4 0 8 21 5 38 31 6 8 23 113

 Percentage 6% 4% 0% 7% 19% 4% 34% 27% 5% 7% 20% 100%

Medford 11 44 0 31 61 13 149 116 6 7 80 369

 Percentage 3% 12% 0% 8% 17% 4% 40% 31% 2% 2% 22% 100%

Newberg 5 4 0 2 22 4 32 29 5 4 28 103

 Percentage 5% 4% 0% 2% 21% 4% 31% 28% 5% 4% 27% 100%

Portland 6 15 1 4 101 7 128 57 11 6 65 273

 Percentage 2% 5% 0% 1% 37% 3% 47% 21% 4% 2% 24% 100%

Roseburg 5 9 0 11 25 10 55 75 5 3 33 176

 Percentage 3% 5% 0% 6% 14% 6% 31% 43% 3% 2% 19% 100%

Salem 5 12 0 7 33 10 62 36 10 6 25 144

 Percentage 3% 8% 0% 5% 23% 7% 43% 25% 7% 4% 17% 100%

Sandy 3 9 1 8 38 7 63 43 6 4 24 143

 Percentage 2% 6% 1% 6% 27% 5% 44% 30% 4% 3% 17% 100%

Tillamook 6 9 1 8 34 6 58 47 12 3 54 180

 Percentage 3% 5% 1% 4% 19% 3% 32% 26% 7% 2% 30% 100%

All Study 

Communities 78 166 4 127 512 97 906 659 102 61 456 2262

 Percentage 3% 7% 0% 6% 23% 4% 40% 29% 5% 3% 20% 100%

Table 2. Summarized Survey Results from the BLM Western Oregon Interactive Recreation Website, 2014 

Note: The ‘Other Rec Types’ category includes the BLM categories of ‘Hang Gliding-Paragliding’, ‘Shooting’, ‘Gold Panning-Dredging’, ‘River 

Recreation’, ‘Rock Hounding’, ‘Climbing’ and ‘Winter Recreation’.
OUTDOOR RECREATION SCARCITY AND ABUNDANCE IN WESTERN OREGON: A SPATIAL ANALYSIS | 13

DEMAND FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

Figure 5. Total Visits in 2012, by BLM District 

Source: BLM RMIS
14 | ECONorthwest

DEMAND FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

The numbers of visitor days, at the District and 

Field Office level, are also correlated with the

size of nearby populations (Figure 6).

Based on the positive relationship between 

visitor days and local population size, we can 

identify offices that currently have higher or

lower numbers of visitor days than we might 

expect (Figure 7). Given the size of the local 

user population, we might expect higher use 

levels in the Klamath Falls, Butte Falls and 

Cascades Field offices, for example, which may

be indicative of latent, or untapped, demand. 

On the other hand, the Upper Willamette 

Field Office and the Tillamook Field Office,

in particular, have higher use intensities than 

we would expect, given the size of the local 

population, which may indicate some special 

draw or trip quality experienced by users in 

those areas.

ACTIVITY SPECIFIC RECREATION DATA

Outdoor recreation use is not distributed 

evenly across the landscape, and instead 

follows patterns arising from availability of 

natural features, access and development, 

and demand. Below, we present use data for 

motorized trail use, non-motorized trail use, and 

camping and picnicking in western Oregon.6 An 

understanding of current regional patterns of use is 

useful to describe demand and potential scarcities. 

Note that, in the following maps, boundaries 

and units of measurement do not align perfectly; 

SCORP results are reported in user occasions, 

at county level, while BLM’s measurements 

are reported in visitor days, and correspond to 

individual Field Offices.

 - 

 500 

 1,000 

 1,500 

 2,000 

 2,500 

 3,000 

 3,500 

Myrtlewood 

Field Office 

Umpqua Field 

Office 

Siuslaw Field 

Office 

Upper 

Willamette 

Field Office 

Klamath Falls 

Field Office 

Ashland Field 

Office 

Butte Falls 

Field Office 

Grants Pass 

Field Office 

South River 

Field Office 

Swiftwater 

Field Office 

Cascades 

Field Office 

Marys Peak 

Field Office 

Tillamook 

Field Office 

Coos Bay District Eugene District Lakeview 

District 

Medford District Roseburg District Salem District 

Participants/Visitor Days/Population (thousands) 

Participants Visitor Days Population living within 50 miles of BLM lands 

Figure 6. Participants, Visitor Days, and Local Population, by BLM District and Field Office, 2013

Source: BLM RMIS, U.S Census 2014a

Figure 7. Actual 2013 visitor days and predicted visitor days based only on local population size

 Source: BLM RMIS, U.S Census 2014

6

These activity groupings, shown in Table 1, correspond to BLM recreation reporting conventions.
OUTDOOR RECREATION SCARCITY AND ABUNDANCE IN WESTERN OREGON: A SPATIAL ANALYSIS | 15

DEMAND FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

SCORP data show a concentration of motorized 

trail uses in the Mount Hood/Clackamas county

area, and in west-central Oregon (Lane, 

Douglas and Coos counties).

On BLM lands, motorized trail use is 

concentrated in the northern half of the region, 

particularly in the Eugene Upper Willamette 

Field Office, which primarily comprises the

eastern half of Lane County. High use levels also 

occur on lands within the Salem Tillamook Field 

Office, Salem Mary’s Peak Field Office, Eugene

Siuslaw Field Office, and the Medford Ashland

Field Office.

Figure 8. Motorized Trail Use in Western Oregon: All Lands (Left), BLM-Owned Lands (Right) 

Source: OPRD 2013-2018 SCORP Survey, BLM RMIS 2013
16 | ECONorthwest

DEMAND FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

Non-motorized trail use is concentrated in the 

northern half of the region (Lane County and 

upwards). The patterns are broadly similar for 

BLM lands, with elevated use levels on the BLM 

offices east of the Willamette Valley. Additionally,

there are relatively high levels of use in Jackson 

and Josephine counties (around Medford, 

Ashland and Grant’s Pass).

It is also useful to note however, that, as 

indicated by user occasions for recreation on all 

western Oregon lands, non-motorized trail uses 

outweigh motorized trail uses by an order of 

magnitude (roughly, 263 million users occasion, 

versus 15 million). On BLM lands, however, 

visitor days are roughly similar (and higher for 

motorized uses), with 272 thousand spent on 

motorized trail use versus 243 thousand spent 

on non-motorized trail uses (Table 1). This 

difference is further indication of the special 

role that BLM plays in providing motorized trail 

recreation opportunities in western Oregon.

Figure 9. Non-Motorized Trail Use in Western Oregon: All Lands (Left), BLM-Owned Lands (Right) 

Source: OPRD 2013-2018 SCORP Survey, BLM RMIS 2013
OUTDOOR RECREATION SCARCITY AND ABUNDANCE IN WESTERN OREGON: A SPATIAL ANALYSIS | 17

DEMAND FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

Camping and picnicking is similarly 

concentrated in the northern half of the region, 

with particularly high levels of use in Lane and 

Multnomah counties, and the other counties 

bordering the Cascades. 

On BLM lands (where this is the single most 

popular activity, in terms of total time spent 

- Table 1), use is more broadly and evenly 

distributed, with a concentration of use in the 

northern half of the region (including the regions 

on the western side, away from the Cascades) 

as well as relatively high levels around Jackson 

and Josephine counties. 

Figure 10. Camping and Picnicking in Western Oregon: All Lands (Left), BLM-Owned Lands (Right) 

Source: OPRD 2013-2018 SCORP Survey, BLM RMIS 2013
18 | ECONorthwest

INTERSECTION OF OUTDOOR RECREATION SUPPLY AND DEMAND

INTERSECTION OF 

OUTDOOR RECREATION 

SUPPLY AND DEMAND 

In this section, we assess existing levels of 

recreation opportunity relative to the user 

population living within 30- and 60-minute 

proximities. The BLM has decided to focus on 

twelve population centers in western Oregon, 

achieving a wide spatial coverage and capturing 

the majority of the region’s population (Figure 11).

The map depicts the 30-minute and 60-minute 

‘travelsheds’, or service areas, surrounding 

each study community, and the size of the 

city’s population (PSU 2012). These are visual 

representations of the area accessible within 

a 30-minute and 60-minute drive, using 

actual road networks, from the center of each 

community. We identified travelsheds using

ESRI’s Network Analyst extension, which makes 

use of actual road networks and travel times. 

Note that many of the travelsheds overlap with 

one another. 

45 percent of western Oregon is accessible 

within an hour of driving time from one of these 

population centers, and 56 percent of all of 

BLM lands within this region also fall within 

the one-hour travel proximity. Land ownership 

surrounding the study communities is shown in 

Table 3. State land agencies (ODF and OPRD, 

primarily), BLM, and FS tend to be the largest 

public landowners within a one-hour drive, but 

the exact ranking varies by community.

Figure 11. Study Communities and Travelsheds

Sources: PSU Population Center 2012
OUTDOOR RECREATION SCARCITY AND ABUNDANCE IN WESTERN OREGON: A SPATIAL ANALYSIS | 19

INTERSECTION OF OUTDOOR RECREATION SUPPLY AND DEMAND

Table 3. Public Land Ownership Within a 60-Minute Drive Time of the Study Communities (Acres)

Community Local Government State of Oregon US Bureau of Land Management US Fish and Wildlife Service US Forest Service Other Total

Coos Bay 603 52,463 61,967 1,021 16,308 3,521 135,883

Percentage 0% 39% 46% 1% 12% 3% 100%

Corvallis 10,223 58,001 135,512 11,206 33,433 26,683 275,058

Percentage 4% 21% 49% 4% 12% 10% 100%

Eugene 5,861 30,016 250,370 8,668 417,184 12,983 725,082

Percentage 1% 4% 35% 1% 58% 2% 100%

Grant's Pass 1,233 17,324 599,175 - 135,590 227 753,549

Percentage 0% 2% 80% 0% 18% 0% 100%

McMinnville 16,552 116,814 59,011 8,540 94,304 14,383 309,604

Percentage 5% 38% 19% 3% 30% 5% 100%

Medford 3,488 7,974 574,410 - 651,489 2,682 1,240,043

Percentage 0% 1% 46% 0% 53% 0% 100%

Newburg 17,360 126,211 63,141 8,539 1,790 1,480 218,521

Percentage 8% 58% 29% 4% 1% 1% 100%

Portland 21,066 205,326 36,677 9,829 422,050 41 694,989

Percentage 3% 30% 5% 1% 61% 0% 100%

Roseburg 1,698 10,712 373,321 360 415,228 176 801,495

Percentage 0% 1% 47% 0% 52% 0% 100%

Salem 14,658 45,217 76,415 14,228 486,929 4,416 641,863

Percentage 2% 7% 12% 2% 76% 1% 100%

Sandy 17,020 11,632 31,065 9,952 429,926 5,680 505,275

Percentage 3% 2% 6% 2% 85% 1% 100%

Tillamook 19,004 233,046 54,036 137 119,446 14,299 439,968

Percentage 4% 53% 12% 0% 27% 3% 100%

METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES

Though they would be the most convenient tool 

for this analysis, GIS data regarding trails are 

not as of this writing detailed enough, in terms 

of spatial coverage or information regarding 

usage, to be relied upon exclusively. This 

limitation has been noted previously, following 

the 2004 Oregon statewide trails inventory, 

a comprehensive effort to inventory all of the 

state’s trails (Wing 2004). Addressing this 

limitation is an identified priority for future data

efforts.

Currently, certain entities, such as the USFS 

and BLM, have a large proportion of their trails 

mapped to some degree while other entities, 

such as county and state agencies, do not 

always make GIS data available, and those 

data often have low resolution or provide little 

information about existing trail uses. 

Online databases, with user-generated content 

and precise spatial coordinates, exist as a more 

complete and detailed source of information. 

A notable limitation of online user databases is 

that they typically do not identify the managing 

entity, so ownership information is unavailable 

in some cases, to describe the supply 

measurements. 

Public Land. To assess local availability of 

public land, where most outdoor recreation 

takes place, we used GIS data provided by ODF 

(ODF 2011).

Hiking Trails. For hiking trails, we used AllTrails 

(http://alltrails.com/), an online recreation

database, to search for hiking opportunities 

within 30 and 60 miles of the study communities 

(roughly equivalent to the 30-minute and 

one-hour drive times), and tallied the difficulty

levels and mileages reported. Where necessary, 

we compared the online trail maps to the 

travelsheds visually to identify trails within 

distance of the study communities. Given 

BLM’s role in providing trail-based recreation, 

this analysis focused on unsurfaced trails in 

less developed areas. Unsurfaced trails are 

best captured under those trails that AllTrails 

classifies as ‘moderate’ and ‘hard’ in difficulty.

Those trails classified as ‘easy’ are not included

in this analysis because they do not accurately 

reflect the typical type of trail-based experience

(e.g. unpaved) that the BLM provides. We based 

this decision on expert opinion, and the fact that 

most local hiking opportunities were listed with 

the moderate/hard rating, while the ‘easy’ rating

typically apply to surfaced, urban trails that do 

not provide the same kind of recreational value.

Mountain Biking Trails. For mountain bike 

trails, we made use of two online, spatially 

explicit mountain biking-specific databases:

Singletracks (http://www.singletracks.com/) and

the MTB Project (http://www.mtbproject.com/).

These data sources are similar in that they both 

provide trail miles, difficulty ratings, and easily

accessible spatial information on web map 

interfaces. While the two sites typically have a 

great deal of redundancy in terms of trail listings, 

they also contain individual, user-generated 

listings that do not always appear on other sites. 

Where necessary, we compared the online 

trail maps to the travelsheds visually to identify 

trails within distance of the study communities. 

In keeping with BLM’s provider role, the trails 

considered in this analysis were almost entirely 

singletrack, natural surface mountain bike trails.
20 | ECONorthwest

INTERSECTION OF OUTDOOR RECREATION SUPPLY AND DEMAND

OHV Trails. We also used AllTrails as the primary 

source of information regarding OHV trails. We 

cross-checked the accuracy and coverage 

of the data with state and federal GIS data on 

OHV permitted areas, as well as the online 

user database RiderPlanet USA (http://www.

riderplanet-usa.com/). These data sources were

not detailed enough to distinguish between 

various OHV types, such as 4x4, ATV and 

off-road motorcycles. We included all difficulty

levels for OHV. Note that we did not include 

other general forest, backcountry, and/or dirt

roads, which are often used for OHV riding, 

unless they were listed in the online databases.

Camping. The most complete information source 

available regarding camping opportunities 

is the website UScampgrounds.info (http://

www.uscampgrounds.info/). The site provides

spatial coordinates for all campgrounds and 

camping opportunities, so we could complete 

the camping analysis entirely in GIS. Camping 

opportunities are classified with information

regarding both tent and RV uses, and we 

counted both kinds of opportunities. While some 

information is provided regarding capacity, this 

information was not complete enough across all 

study areas to be used. 

Local User Populations. For each activity, we 

estimated the size of the population living within 

the community’s 30-minute and 60-minute 

driving distances (Census Tract-level data, 

2010). Based on county-level participation rates 

for each activity, reported in the 2012-2018 

SCORP, we were able to estimate the proportion 

of the local population that might participate in 

a given activity. These figures were the basis for

the per capita scarcity analyses.

In accordance with the information presented 

previously, actual user populations for a given 

recreation type would be most accurately 

described and modeled as some function 

of proximity in combination with a range of 

demographic factors such as age, income, 

gender, and ethnicity. An assessment of this 

level of detail was beyond the scope of the 

current study, however, and we elected to use 

a proximity model combined with activity- and 

county-specific participation rates, reported

in SCORP and calculated based on extensive 

survey data, to easily encompass these other 

factors in a single measurement.

Limitations and Gaps. It should be noted that, 

using these methods and data sources, and 

given the goals of the study, we did not explicitly 

account for:

▪ The quality of various recreation opportunities

▪ The capacity of individual recreation sites

▪ Dispersed recreation opportunities

▪ The natural availability and distribution of 

certain features that draw recreation (such as 

mountains and forests) 

▪ How amenities (like bathrooms and parking 

lots), users fees, and marketing affect use 

and demand

▪ Variation in access for long-distance visitors.

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

This analysis focuses on two measures of 

scarcity: 

1) Scarcity of supply (e.g., trail miles/

acres/sites), with calculated averages and

quartiles, relative to conditions in other study 

communities

2) Scarcity in relation to size of the potential 

local user population (demand and need), 

with calculated averages and quartiles, 

relative to conditions in other study 

communities. This is a separate a measure of 

scarcity, weighted by population.

We include these separate measures to 

distinguish between raw availability and 

relative availability. For example, Portland has 

reasonably high levels of supply of certain 

kinds of opportunities, but also a great deal of 

demand.

We estimated user populations using the size of 

the population living within certain proximities, 

and county-level, activity specific participation

rates data provided in the 2013-2018 Oregon 

SCORP. Average participation rates for 

each of the focus activities (across the study 

communities) were:

▪ 46 percent for hiking

▪ 11 percent for mountain biking

▪ 10 percent for off-road vehicle use

▪ 35 percent for camping

Using the information presented here, 

investments in additional facilities or recreational 

development can be targeted to benefit

communities and regions with: 
OUTDOOR RECREATION SCARCITY AND ABUNDANCE IN WESTERN OREGON: A SPATIAL ANALYSIS | 21

INTERSECTION OF OUTDOOR RECREATION SUPPLY AND DEMAND

▪ The largest user population 

▪ The lowest existing supply

▪ The lowest existing supply, relative to the 

user population (highest number of users, 

per unit of supply)

Notes on interpreting the results:

▪ The units of supply per user figures,

presented in the summary tables, are only 

meaningful in a relative sense. They are 

meant primarily for comparison, and the 

numbers themselves have little importance. 

Interpreted literally, they might correspond 

to millimeters of trail per user, for example. 

For a realistic interpretation, it is more useful 

to consider the reverse, which is users per 

unit of supply (e.g., number of users per trail 

mile), for which the relative measurements 

and rankings are the same.

▪ To facilitate comparisons among the twelve 

study communities, we included quartile 

rankings for each of our metrics. The first

quartile is defined as the middle number

between the smallest number and the 

median of the data set. The third quartile 

is the middle value between the median 

and the highest value of the data set. 

Measurements below the first quartile fall in

the bottom 25 percent of the range (equating 

to the three communities with the lowest 

measurement for a given metric), while 

measurements that pass the third quartile 

make up the top 25 percent of measurements 

(representing the top three communities).

▪ In this study ‘low’ and ‘high’ are used in a 

relative sense, as defined by the subset of

study communities in western Oregon. In 

areas with large user population and small 

supply, demand likely exceeds supply, which 

might manifest itself as crowding, lower 

participation rates, or longer travel times and 

substitution. Note that this may still occur 

in areas with high supply, if the demand is 

higher than the supply can satisfy. In areas 

with small user population and low supply, 

demand is likely satisfied by supply.

Table 4 presents the top four communities, by 

user population, scarcity of supply, and per 

capita scarcities. These are the communities 

with the largest user populations, the lowest 

nearby accessible supply of certain recreation 

opportunities, or the fewest nearby units of 

supply, per user.

Important patterns in these results include:

▪ Total miles of hiking trails greatly outnumber 

those open to recreation activities like 

mountain biking and off-road vehicle use, 

where the visitor experience is highly 

dependent upon activity specific trail

planning, design and management. 

▪ Non-motorized trail availability generally 

seems to coincide with the size of user 

population levels and demand. A part of this 

pattern could be due to limitations in the 

online data sources used in this study; larger 

online user populations could lead to better 

and more complete mapping.

▪ Relative to the baseline supply of public 

land, trail miles and number of campgrounds 

Rank Community Rank Community Rank Community Rank Community Rank Community Rank Community

1 Portland 1 Newburg 1 Portland 1 Newburg 1 Coos Bay 1 Newburg

2 Newburg 2 McMinnville 2 Newburg 2 Portland 2 Newburg 2 McMinnville

3 Salem 3 Portland 3 Salem 3 Salem 3 Corvallis 3 Corvallis

4 Sandy 4 Salem 4 Sandy 4 McMinnville 4 McMinnville 4 Sandy

1 Portland 1 McMinnville 1 Portland 1 Portland 1 Coos Bay 1 McMinnville

2 Newburg 2 Coos Bay 2 Eugene 2 Newburg 2 Tillamook 2 Corvallis

3 Salem 3 Roseburg 3 McMinnville 3 Salem 3 Corvallis 3 Newburg

4 Sandy 4 Eugene 4 Newburg 4 McMinnville 4 Medford 4 Salem

1 Portland 1 Salem 1 Salem 1 Portland 1 Salem 1 Salem

2 Salem 2 McMinnville 2 McMinnville 2 Salem 2 Corvallis 2 Corvallis

3 Newburg 3 Corvallis 3 Portland 3 Newburg 3 Coos Bay 3 Newburg

4 Eugene 4 Portland 4 Newburg 4 Corvallis 4 McMinnville 4 McMinnville

1 Newburg 1 Coos Bay 1 Coos Bay 1 Newburg 1 Eugene 1 Eugene

2 Salem 1 Eugene 1 Eugene 2 Salem 2 Corvallis 2 Corvallis

3 Sandy 1 Portland 1 Portland 3 McMinnville 3 Tillamook 3 Salem

4 Portland 2 Salem 2 Salem 4 Sandy 4 Coos Bay 4 Newburg

1 Portland 1 McMinnville 1 McMinnville 1 Portland 1 McMinnville 1 McMinnville

2 Newburg 2 Newburg 2 Newburg 2 Newburg 2 Newburg 2 Newburg

3 Salem 3 Salem 3 Salem 3 Salem 3 Salem 3 Salem

4 McMinnville 4 Corvallis 4 Portland 4 McMinnville 4 Corvallis 4 Portland

Public Land

Hiking

Mountain Biking

OHV 

Camping 

Resource/Activity

30-Minute Drive Time 60-Minute Drive Time

Size of Potential Local 

User Population Scarcity of Supply

Scarcity of Supply, Relative 

to Size of Potential Local 

User Population

Size of Potential Local 

User Population Scarcity of Supply

Scarcity of Supply, Relative 

to Size of Potential Local 

User Population

Table 4. Results Summary – Top Four Communities by User Population, Scarcity of Supply, 

and per Capita Scarcities 
22 | ECONorthwest

INTERSECTION OF OUTDOOR RECREATION SUPPLY AND DEMAND

tend to vary substantially. Intuitively, 

different areas might have differing supplies 

of natural features suitable to various 

recreation types, and it is likely that the 

proportion of public land owned by various 

management agencies (as well as their 

associated investment levels and recreation 

management policies) influences local

availability.

▪ The geographic division between population 

centers and undeveloped land is evident. 

The majority of western Oregon’s population 

lives in the northern part of the region, in 

the Willamette Valley, while the majority of 

public lands and recreation opportunities are 

found in the rugged, mountainous areas in 

the Cascade and Coast Ranges, and in the 

southern part of the region.

These results are examined in greater depth below.

Public Land

We included public land as a proxy for general 

outdoor recreation opportunity, and as a basis 

for comparison regarding the influence of

varying levels of recreation development (e.g. 

trail miles) and regional participation rates.7 It is 

important to remember that not all public lands 

are open or accessible to the public, and that 

not all provide any, much less similar kinds of, 

recreation opportunities. The supply of public 

land is more or less fixed, so scarcity is likely to

increase across the study area, state and nation 

as the population continues to grow over the 

next 50 years. 

Community

Coos Bay 53,921 36,631 0.68

Corvallis 201,622 18,011 0.09

Eugene 337,718 25,079 0.07

Grant's Pass 121,116 91,193 0.75

McMinnville 124,442 7,252 0.06

Medford 180,471 33,499 0.19

Newburg 515,492 6,321 0.01

Portland 1,396,478 11,879 0.01

Roseburg 96,117 20,775 0.22

Salem 423,093 12,424 0.03

Sandy 394,012 27,862 0.07

Tillamook 24,321 41,630 1.71

1st Quartile 114,866 12,288 0.05

Median 191,047 22,927 0.08

3rd Quartile 401,282 34,282 0.33

Population Public Land Within Travelshed (acres) Acres of Public Land Per Person

Table 5. Demand/Supply – Public Land, 30-Minute Drive Time

7

In contrast to the other recreation categories presented, we applied no specific recreation type or corresponding participation rate for this measurement. We analyzed the whole population (rather than a specific 

user population) living within the travelsheds. We compiled public land ownership data by federal and state entities, and may underestimate public lands managed by local governments, such as small, urban parks.

Community

Coos Bay 82,511 135,883 1.65

Corvallis 927,432 275,058 0.30

Eugene 645,281 725,082 1.12

Grant's Pass 328,960 753,549 2.29

McMinnville 1,661,439 309,604 0.19

Medford 291,658 1,240,043 4.25

Newburg 2,104,270 218,521 0.10

Portland 2,051,307 694,991 0.34

Roseburg 181,317 801,495 4.42

Salem 1,860,538 641,863 0.34

Sandy 1,566,414 505,275 0.32

Tillamook 78,264 439,999 5.62

1st Quartile 264,073 300,968 0.32

Median 786,357 573,569 0.73

3rd Quartile 1,711,214 732,199 2.78

Population Public Land Within Travelshed (acres) Acres of Public Land Per Person

Table 6. Demand/Supply – Public Land, 60-Minute Drive Time
OUTDOOR RECREATION SCARCITY AND ABUNDANCE IN WESTERN OREGON: A SPATIAL ANALYSIS | 23

INTERSECTION OF OUTDOOR RECREATION SUPPLY AND DEMAND 

Within 30 minute’s drive, Newburg, McMinnville, 

and Portland have the lowest supplies of public 

land. Public lands with proximity to Portland, 

Newburg, and Salem, meanwhile, have the 

highest potential for crowding, based on existing 

acreages and the size of nearby populations. 

Within 60 minute’s drive, Coos Bay, Newburg, 

and Corvallis have the lowest supplies of 

public land available. Relative to nearby user 

populations, however, Newburg, McMinnville, 

and Corvallis have the lowest levels of public 

land per user, and therefore potentially face 

crowded recreation conditions. These results are 

shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12. Acres of Public Land and Supply Per Capita Within 60-Minute Drive Time, Western 

Oregon, 2014

Source: OPRD SCORP 2013, ODF 2011
24 | ECONorthwest

INTERSECTION OF OUTDOOR RECREATION SUPPLY AND DEMAND

Within 30 minute’s drive, McMinnville, Coos 

Bay, and Roseburg have the fewest miles of 

hiking trails accessible. Portland, Eugene, and 

McMinnville have the highest number of users, 

per trail mile.

Within an expanded geographic scope, 60 

minute’s drive, Coos Bay still has among the 

fewest miles of trail available, while Tillamook, 

and Corvallis are added to the list. Trails in 

the Willamette Valley tend to have the highest 

number of users per mile, with McMinnville, 

Corvallis, and Newburg among the lowest. 

These results are shown in Figure 13.

Based on county-level data provided in the 

2013-2018 Oregon SCORP, hiking participation 

rates in the study communities ranged from 

34 percent of the population (Tillamook), to 55 

percent (Portland).

Community County Participation Rate

Coos Bay 40% &&&&&&&21,353 51 0.0024

Corvallis 54% &&&&108,473 300 0.0028

Eugene 47% &&&&160,078 73 0.0005

Grant's Pass 46% &&&&&&&55,592 345 0.0062

McMinnville 46% &&&&&&&56,994 30 0.0005

Medford 47% &&&&&&&85,002 437 0.0051

Newburg 46% &&&&236,095 187 0.0008

Portland 55% &&&&773,649 298 0.0004

Roseburg 41% &&&&&&&39,120 66 0.0017

Salem 50% &&&&213,239 326 0.0015

Sandy 45% &&&&177,305 1,528 0.0086

Tillamook 34% &&&&&&&&&8,366 111 0.0133

1st Quartile 44% 51,474 72 0.0007

Median 46% 96,737 242 0.0020

3rd Quartile 48% 186,289 330 0.0054

Local User Population Trail Miles Trail Miles Per User Community County Participation Rate

Coos Bay 40% '''''''32,674 157 0.0048

Corvallis 54% ''''498,958 443 0.0009

Eugene 47% ''''305,863 846 0.0028

Grant's Pass 46% ''''150,993 1,162 0.0077

McMinnville 46% ''''760,939 641 0.0008

Medford 47% ''''137,371 512 0.0037

Newburg 46% ''''963,756 901 0.0009

Portland 55% 1,136,424 2,142 0.0019

Roseburg 41% '''''''73,796 859 0.0116

Salem 50% ''''937,711 928 0.0010

Sandy 45% ''''704,886 2,800 0.0040

Tillamook 34% '''''''26,923 269 0.0100

1st Quartile 44% 121,477 495 0.0010

Median 46% 402,411 853 0.0032

3rd Quartile 48% 805,132 986 0.0055

Local User Population Trail Miles Trail Miles Per User

Table 7. Demand/Supply – Hiking Trails, 30-Minute Drive Time Table 8. Demand/Supply – Hiking Trails, 60-Minute Drive Time

Source: OPRD SCORP 2013, AllTrails (www.alltrails.com)

Figure 13. Miles Of Hiking and Supply Per Capita Within 60-Minute Drive Time, Western Oregon, 2014
OUTDOOR RECREATION SCARCITY AND ABUNDANCE IN WESTERN OREGON: A SPATIAL ANALYSIS | 25

INTERSECTION OF OUTDOOR RECREATION SUPPLY AND DEMAND 

Mountain Biking Trails

Within 30 minute’s drive, McMinnville, Salem, 

and Corvallis have the fewest miles of mountain 

biking trails accessible. Portland, Corvallis, and 

Newburg have the highest number of users, 

per existing trail mile (or, alternatively, the 

lowest number of trail miles per user).Within an 

expanded geographic scope, 60 minute’s drive, 

Salem, Corvallis, and Coos Bay have the fewest 

mountain bike trail miles accessible. Mountain 

bike trails in the Willamette Valley tend to have 

the highest number of users per mile, particularly 

the areas around Salem, Corvallis, and Newburg. 

These results are shown in Figure 14.

Based on county-level data provided in the 

2013-2018 Oregon SCORP, mountain biking 

participation rates in the study communities 

ranged from 7 percent of the population (Sandy), 

to 17 percent (Corvallis).

Table 10. Demand/Supply – Mountain Biking Trails, 60-Minute Drive Time

Community County Participation Rate

Coos Bay 11% &&&&&&&&5,716 30 0.005

Corvallis 17% &&&&&&34,276 10 0.000

Eugene 11% &&&&&&36,811 40 0.001

Grant's Pass 10% &&&&&&11,990 21 0.002

McMinnville 9% &&&&&&11,698 - -

Medford 14% &&&&&&25,988 72 0.003

Newburg 9% &&&&&&48,456 14 0.000

Portland 11% &&&159,198 13 0.000

Roseburg 9% &&&&&&&&8,554 70 0.008

Salem 12% &&&&&&50,348 - -

Sandy 7% &&&&&&26,005 20 0.001

Tillamook 11% &&&&&&&&2,651 20 0.008

1st Quartile 9% 10,912 12 0.0002

Median 11% 25,996 20 0.0009

3rd Quartile 12% 39,723 32 0.0034

Local User Population Trail Miles Trail Miles Per User

Table 9. Demand/Supply – Mountain Biking Trails, 30-Minute Drive Time

Community County Participation Rate

Coos Bay 11% &&&&&&&&8,746 42 0.0048

Corvallis 17% &&&157,663 34 0.0002

Eugene 11% &&&&&&70,336 214 0.0030

Grant's Pass 10% &&&&&&32,567 106 0.0032

McMinnville 9% &&&156,175 63 0.0004

Medford 14% &&&&&&41,999 183 0.0044

Newburg 9% &&&197,801 66 0.0003

Portland 11% &&&233,849 146 0.0006

Roseburg 9% &&&&&&16,137 76 0.0047

Salem 12% &&&221,404 32 0.0001

Sandy 7% &&&103,383 90 0.0009

Tillamook 11% &&&&&&&&8,531 71 0.0083

1st Quartile 9% 28,460 58 0.0004

Median 11% 86,859 73 0.0020

3rd Quartile 12% 167,698 116 0.0044

Local User Population Trail Miles Trail Miles Per User

Sandy

Salem

Eugene

Newberg

Medford

Portland

Roseburg

Coos Bay

Tillamook

Corvallis

McMinnville

Grants Pass

Sandy

Salem

Eugene

Newberg

Medford

Portland

Roseburg

Coos Bay

Tillamook

Corvallis

McMinnville

Grants Pass

10

50

100

0.0001

0.001

0.01

< 30 min

< 60 min

Drive Time

BLM Land

Mountain Biking

Trail Miles

Mountain Biking Trail Miles

per User

Figure 14. Miles of Mountain Biking and Supply Per Capita Within 60-Minute Drive Time, 

Western Oregon, 2014

Source: OPRD SCORP 2013,, Singletracks (www.singletracks.com), MTB Project (www.mtbproject.com)
26 | ECONorthwest

INTERSECTION OF OUTDOOR RECREATION SUPPLY AND DEMAND

OHV Trails

Within 30 minute’s drive, Coos Bay, Eugene, 

and Portland have the fewest miles of OHV trails 

accessible. These same communities, in the 

same order, also have the highest number of 

users, per trail mile.

Within the 60-minute travelsheds, Eugene, 

Corvallis and Tillamook have the fewest miles 

accessible. OHV trails in the lower parts of 

the Willamette Valley, mainly as a result of few 

existing trails, tend to have the highest number 

of users per mile, particularly the areas around 

Eugene, Corvallis, and Salem. These results are 

shown in Figure 15.

Based on county-level data provided in the 

2013-2018 Oregon SCORP, OHV participation 

rates in the study communities ranged from 

2 percent of the population (Portland), to 29 

percent (Coos Bay).

Figure 15. Miles of OHV Trails and Supply Per Capita Within 60-Minute Drive Time, Western 

Oregon, 2014

Source: OPRD SCORP 2013, AllTrails (www.alltrails.com), RiderPlanet USA (www.riderplanet-usa.com/)

Community County Participation Rate

Coos Bay 29% &&&&&15,853 - -

Corvallis 10% &&&&&19,356 21 0.00108

Eugene 6% &&&&&19,925 - -

Grant's Pass 10% &&&&&12,354 177 0.01434

McMinnville 11% &&&&&13,440 58 0.00433

Medford 10% &&&&&18,589 89 0.00479

Newburg 11% &&&&&55,673 58 0.00105

Portland 2% &&&&&20,947 - -

Roseburg 19% &&&&&18,551 53 0.00283

Salem 11% &&&&&44,848 2 0.00004

Sandy 9% &&&&&34,673 80 0.00232

Tillamook 16% &&&&&&& 3,989 58 0.01459

1st Quartile 9% 15,250 2 0.00003

Median 10% 18,972 55 0.00170

3rd Quartile 12% 24,379 64 0.00444

Local User Population Trail Miles Trail Miles Per User

Table 11. Demand/Supply – OHV Trails, 30-Minute Drive Time Table 12. Demand/Supply – OHV Trails, 60-Minute Drive Time

Community County Participation Rate

Coos Bay 29% &&&&&24,258 124 0.0051

Corvallis 10% &&&&&89,033 22 0.0002

Eugene 6% &&&&&38,072 1 0.0000

Grant's Pass 10% &&&&&33,554 653 0.0194

McMinnville 11% &&&179,435 124 0.0007

Medford 10% &&&&&30,041 278 0.0093

Newburg 11% &&&227,261 150 0.0007

Portland 2% &&&&&30,770 168 0.0054

Roseburg 19% &&&&&34,994 243 0.0069

Salem 11% &&&197,217 119 0.0006

Sandy 9% &&&137,844 162 0.0012

Tillamook 16% &&&&&12,835 78 0.0061

1st Quartile 9% 30,587 109 0.0006

Median 10% 36,533 137 0.0031

3rd Quartile 12% 148,242 186 0.0063

Local User Population Trail Miles Trail Miles Per User
OUTDOOR RECREATION SCARCITY AND ABUNDANCE IN WESTERN OREGON: A SPATIAL ANALYSIS | 27

INTERSECTION OF OUTDOOR RECREATION SUPPLY AND DEMAND

More detail on the comparisons in per-user and 

total trail miles by community are available in 

Appendix Figures A1 and A2, and Tables A1 

and A2.

An additional dimension to consider regarding 

the supply and demand for trail-based 

recreation activities is the frequency with which 

users participate. The average numbers of 

trips per user, per year, for trail-based activities 

in Oregon are shown in Figure 16. Mountain 

bikers participate most frequently, followed 

closely by various classes of off-road vehicle 

users. Thus, even though mountain biking and 

off-road vehicle use are less popular across the 

total population than less equipment-intensive 

trail activities like hiking, in terms of per capita 

participation rates, use levels on mountain biking 

and OHV trails may in fact be slightly higher 

than the numbers above suggest, due to more 

frequent participation. Given that the availability 

of mountain biking and OHV trails is also more 

limited, the actual number of users per hour, per 

day, and per mile could potentially be higher on 

these trails than on some hiking trails.

21 

26 25 

17 

24 

25 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

Hiking Mountain biking Class I 

(ATV riding) 

Class II 

(Off-road 4-wheel 

driving) 

Class III 

(Off-road 

motorcycling) 

Class IV 

(Riding UTVs or sideby-side ATVs) 

Number'of'trips'per'year'

Average number of trips per year 

Figure 16. Participation Frequency for Trail-Based Recreation Activities

Source: OPRD 2013-2018 SCORP Survey, Table 2.2
28 | ECONorthwest

INTERSECTION OF OUTDOOR RECREATION SUPPLY AND DEMAND

Campgrounds

Within 30 minute’s drive, McMinnville, Salem, 

Newburg and Portland have the fewest number 

of campgrounds available. These communities 

also have the highest number of users, per 

existing campground.

The relative rankings do not change with an 

expanded geographic view. McMinnville, 

Newburg, and Salem still have the lowest 

number of campgrounds within proximity, as well 

as the highest number of users per campground. 

These results are shown in Figure 17.

Based on county-level data provided in 

the 2013-2018 Oregon SCORP, camping 

participation rates in the study communities 

ranged from 26 percent of the population 

(Tillamook), to 41 percent (Corvallis).

Table 13. Demand/Supply – Campgrounds, 30-Minute Drive Time Table 14. Demand/Supply – Campgrounds, 60-Minute Drive Time

Figure 17. Number of Camping Opportunities and Supply Per Capita Within 60-Minute Drive 

Time, Western Oregon, 2014

Source: OPRD SCORP 2013, ‘USA Campgrounds Info’ (www.uscampgrounds.info/)

Community County Participation Rate

Coos Bay 32% 17,470 3 0.000172

Corvallis 41% 82,463 11 0.000133

Eugene 35% 116,850 2 0.000017

Grant's Pass 39% 47,477 6 0.000126

McMinnville 35% 43,181 0 0.000000

Medford 37% 66,052 3 0.000045

Newburg 35% 178,876 1 0.000006

Portland 39% 539,041 1 0.000002

Roseburg 31% 29,892 6 0.000201

Salem 32% 137,082 0 0.000000

Sandy 31% 122,932 9 0.000073

Tillamook 26% 6,250 11 0.001760

1st Quartile 32% 39,859 1 0.000005

Median 35% 74,258 3 0.000059

3rd Quartile 37% 126,469 7 0.000143

Local User Population Number of Camping Opportunities Camping Opportunities Per User Community County Participation Rate

Coos Bay 32% 26,734 27 0.00101

Corvallis 41% 379,320 13 0.00003

Eugene 35% 223,267 23 0.00010

Grant's Pass 39% 128,952 24 0.00019

McMinnville 35% 576,519 2 0.00000

Medford 37% 106,747 38 0.00036

Newburg 35% 730,182 8 0.00001

Portland 39% 791,805 25 0.00003

Roseburg 31% 56,390 20 0.00035

Salem 32% 602,814 11 0.00002

Sandy 31% 488,721 35 0.00007

Tillamook 26% 20,114 23 0.00114

1st Quartile 32% 94,158 13 0.00003

Median 35% 301,293 23 0.00009

3rd Quartile 37% 583,093 26 0.00036

Local User Population Number of Camping Opportunities Camping Opportunities Per User
OUTDOOR RECREATION SCARCITY AND ABUNDANCE IN WESTERN OREGON: A SPATIAL ANALYSIS | 29

INVESTMENT POTENTIAL AND IDENTIFIED NEEDS

INVESTMENT POTENTIAL 

AND IDENTIFIED NEEDS

If the total area of public lands and waters in 

western Oregon remains stable over the coming 

decades, per capita availability can only decline 

over time as population increases (White et. al. 

2014).8 The ability of public lands and resources 

to meet future recreation demand will depend 

primarily on development and management 

patterns of recreation opportunities on current 

public lands, future recreation participation 

rates, the distribution of users in relation to 

recreation resources, and the availability of 

substitutes for these opportunities. Maintenance 

and development of transportation systems 

and infrastructure will continue to be vital for 

providing access to recreation opportunities 

While the public land base is essentially fixed,

legislative and executive designations as well 

as the agencies’ various regulations and rules 

can alter the supply of recreation opportunities 

available. The BLM is currently weighing various 

management alternatives and approaches in 

western Oregon, and these alternatives will 

affect the mix of specific recreation activities

permitted (for example, changes from motorized 

to non-motorized uses) and the balance 

between recreation and other uses (for example, 

recreation versus forest management and 

mineral extraction). These sorts of decisions and 

changes can effectively increase or decrease 

the acreages available for recreation. 

In this study we have identified areas with needs

and capacities related to specific recreation

types. The BLM, based on the amount and 

type of lands it owns within proximity to 

individual communities, as well as the various 

management approaches it is considering, has 

differing levels of ability to address these needs, 

and perhaps relieve conditions of scarcity. The 

BLM generally has greater opportunity to relieve 

scarcity in areas where it has more land nearby 

that is available for recreation management 

(Table 3), but this also depends on other 

factors, such as the natural characteristics of 

the land (and how well they are suited to various 

recreation types), whether recreation activities 

are permitted, whether the lands are open to 

timber, mineral and/or energy extraction, and

whether there is adequate access (e.g. some 

lands are ‘locked up’ by adjacent patchworks 

of private lands, or do not have nearby 

transportation infrastructure in place).

Some of the specific highlights of this analysis

for outdoor recreation scarcity and abundance 

in western Oregon are:

▪ Public land overall is most scarce within 

proximity of communities in the northern 

Willamette Valley.

▪ Trails of all types and camping opportunities 

are most scarce within the Willamette Valley 

for the region as whole.

▪ Outside of the Willamette Valley, Coos Bay 

faces the greatest scarcity of trail resources.

▪ The communities facing the greatest scarcity 

of trails relative to the other communities 

changes when expanding out from 30-minute 

drive times to 60-minute drive times.

▪ Mountain-biking trails are particularly scarce 

within 30-minute drive times of communities, 

in the northern Willamette Valley in particular.

▪ OHV trails are most scarce in the central to 

southern Willamette Valley, from Salem to 

Eugene.

▪ Camping opportunities are scarce throughout 

the Willamette Valley, particularly in the 

northern portion.

More detail on the comparisons in per-user and 

total trail miles by community are available in 

Appendix Figures A1 and A2, and Tables A1 

and A2.

Overall, these findings suggest that new trails

and camping opportunities developed near the 

Willamette Valley and the northern portion in 

particular will provide the greatest value. These 

regional scarcities for more specialized trail 

types of mountain-biking and OHV are likely 

exacerbated by the relatively high frequency of 

trips for participants in these forms of recreation. 

8See Table A3 and Figure A3 in the Appendix for more detail on projected growth in demand.
30 | ECONorthwest

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Bowker et al. 2012. Outdoor recreation 

participation in the United States: projections 

to 2060: a technical document supporting the 

Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. SRS-GTR-160. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2014. Public 

Land Statistics 2013, Vol. 198, BLM/OC/

ST-14/004+1165.

Cordell, H.K. 2012. Outdoor recreation trends 

and futures: a technical document supporting 

the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-150. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station. 

Clawson, M., & Knetsch, J. L. 1966. Economics 

of Outdoor Recreation. Johns Hopkins Press.

Deller, Steven C., et al. 2001. The role of 

amenities and quality of life in rural economic 

growth. American Journal of Agricultural 

Economics 83.2 : 352-365. 

Loomis, John B., and Richard G. Walsh 1997. 

Recreation Economic Decisions; Comparing 

Benefits and Costs. 2nd Ed. Venture Publishing. 

Lorah, P., & Southwick, R. 2003. Environmental 

protection, population change, and economic 

development in the rural western United States. 

Population and Environment, 24(3), 255-272.

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. 

2013. 2013-2017 Oregon Statewide 

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Visitor Use 

Monitoring Version: 2.1.2.37. 

USDA Forest Service. 2013. National Visitor Use 

Monitoring Results National Summary Report. 

Wing, Michael. 2004. Oregon Statewide Trails 

Inventory Project. Prepared for Oregon Parks 

and Recreation Department. Oregon State 

University.

White et al. 2014. Federal Outdoor Recreation 

Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities. 

National Center for Natural Resources Economic 

Research (NCNRER). NCNRER Working Paper 

Number 1.
OUTDOOR RECREATION SCARCITY AND ABUNDANCE IN WESTERN OREGON: A SPATIAL ANALYSIS | 31

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

Figure A1. Trail Miles, by Type, Distance, and Community

Table A1. Relative Ranking of Trail Miles, by Type and Distance, 

Within Each Community

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 

Medford 

Grant's Pass 

Roseburg 

Coos Bay 

Eugene 

Corvallis 

Salem 

McMinnville 

Newburg 

Sandy 

Tillamook 

Portland 

Trail&Miles&

Hiking-30 

Hiking-60 

MTB-30 

MTB-60 

OHV-30 

OHV-60 

Community Category Trail Miles Community Category Trail Miles Community Category Trail Miles

Hiking&60 157 Hiking&60 641 Hiking&60 859

OHV&60 124 OHV&60 124 OHV&60 243

Hiking&30 51 MTB&60 63 MTB&60 76

MTB&60 42 OHV&30 58 MTB&30 70

MTB&30 30 Hiking&30 30 Hiking&30 66

OHV&30 0 MTB&30 0 OHV&30 53

Hiking&60 443 Hiking&60 512 Hiking&60 928

Hiking&30 300 Hiking&30 437 Hiking&30 326

MTB&60 34 OHV&60 278 OHV&60 119

OHV&60 22 MTB&60 183 MTB&60 32

OHV&30 21 OHV&30 89 OHV&30 2

MTB&30 10 MTB&30 72 MTB&30 0

Hiking&60 846 Hiking&60 901 Hiking&60 2800

MTB&60 214 Hiking&30 187 Hiking&30 1528

Hiking&30 73 OHV&60 150 OHV&60 162

MTB&30 40 MTB&60 66 MTB&60 90

OHV&60 1 OHV&30 58 OHV&30 80

OHV&30 0 MTB&30 14 MTB&30 20

Hiking&60 1162 Hiking&60 2142 Hiking&60 269

OHV&60 653 Hiking&30 298 Hiking&30 111

Hiking&30 345 OHV&60 168 OHV&60 78

OHV&30 177 MTB&60 146 MTB&60 71

MTB&60 106 MTB&30 13 OHV&30 58

MTB&30 21 OHV&30 0 MTB&30 20

Grant's&Pass Portland Tillamook

Coos&Bay McMinnville Roseburg

Corvallis Medford Salem

Eugene Newburg Sandy

Figure A1 shows the availability of trails open to hiking, mountain biking (‘MTB’) 

and off-highway vehicle (OHV) use within 30 and 60 minute driving distances 

of each community, relative to the size of the local user population.

Table A1 shows the availability of trails open to hiking, mountain biking (‘MTB’) 

and off-highway vehicle use within 30 and 60 minute driving distances, relative 

to the size of the local user population, and ranked from highest (in blue) to 

lowest (in red) for each community.
32 | ECONorthwest

APPENDIX

Figure A2. Relative Trail Miles per User, by Type, Distance, and Community

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 

Medford 

Grant's Pass 

Roseburg 

Coos Bay 

Eugene 

Corvallis 

Salem 

McMinnville 

Newburg 

Sandy 

Tillamook 

Portland 

Trail&Miles&per&User&

Hiking-30 

Hiking-60 

MTB-30 

MTB-60 

OHV-30 

OHV-60 

Table A2. Relative Ranking of Trail Miles per User, by Type and Distance, 

Within Each Community

Community Category Trail Miles Per User Community Category Trail Miles Per User Community Category Trail Miles Per User

MTB$30 0.00525 OHV$30 0.00433 Hiking$60 0.01164

OHV$60 0.00510 Hiking$60 0.00084 MTB$30 0.00812

Hiking$60 0.00481 OHV$60 0.00069 OHV$60 0.00694

MTB$60 0.00480 Hiking$30 0.00053 MTB$60 0.00468

Hiking$30 0.00237 MTB$60 0.00040 OHV$30 0.00283

OHV$30 0.00000 MTB$30 0.00000 Hiking$30 0.00170

Hiking$30 0.00277 OHV$60 0.00925 Hiking$30 0.00153

OHV$30 0.00108 Hiking$30 0.00514 Hiking$60 0.00099

Hiking$60 0.00089 OHV$30 0.00479 OHV$60 0.00060

MTB$30 0.00029 MTB$60 0.00435 MTB$60 0.00014

OHV$60 0.00025 Hiking$60 0.00372 OHV$30 0.00004

MTB$60 0.00021 MTB$30 0.00278 MTB$30 0.00000

MTB$60 0.00304 OHV$30 0.00105 Hiking$30 0.00862

Hiking$60 0.00277 Hiking$60 0.00094 Hiking$60 0.00397

MTB$30 0.00108 Hiking$30 0.00079 OHV$30 0.00232

Hiking$30 0.00046 OHV$60 0.00066 OHV$60 0.00118

OHV$60 0.00003 MTB$60 0.00034 MTB$60 0.00087

OHV$30 0.00000 MTB$30 0.00028 MTB$30 0.00077

OHV$60 0.01945 OHV$60 0.00545 OHV$30 0.01459

OHV$30 0.01434 Hiking$60 0.00189 Hiking$30 0.01326

Hiking$60 0.00770 MTB$60 0.00062 Hiking$60 0.01000

Hiking$30 0.00620 Hiking$30 0.00039 MTB$60 0.00835

MTB$60 0.00324 MTB$30 0.00008 MTB$30 0.00766

MTB$30 0.00174 OHV$30 0.00000 OHV$60 0.00609

Coos$Bay McMinnville Roseburg

Corvallis Medford Salem

Eugene Newburg Sandy

Grant's$Pass Portland Tillamook

Table A2 shows the availability of trails (in terms of the 

total mileage) open to hiking, mountain biking (‘MTB’) and 

off-highway vehicle use within 30 and 60 minute driving 

distances, and ranked from highest (in blue) to lowest (in 

red) for each community.

Figure A2 shows the availability of trails (in terms of the total mileage) 

open to hiking, mountain biking (‘MTB’) and off-highway vehicle (OHV) 

use within 30 and 60 minute driving distances of each community.
OUTDOOR RECREATION SCARCITY AND ABUNDANCE IN WESTERN OREGON: A SPATIAL ANALYSIS | 33

Current'Number'of'Participants

FY'2012 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Wildlife'Viewing,'Interpretation,'and'Nature'Study '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 2,564,574 '''2,810,926 ''''''3,149,289 '''3,456,865 '''3,751,811 '''4,056,276 1.0% 58%

Driving'for'Pleasure'(Along'Designated'BLM'Roadways) '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 1,959,729 '''2,140,696 ''''''2,388,704 '''2,610,605 '''2,819,454 '''3,033,896 0.9% 55%

Camping'and'Picknicking '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 1,273,349 '''1,389,106 ''''''1,548,035 '''1,689,978 '''1,822,216 '''1,956,881 0.9% 54%

Nonmotorized'Travel'(Hiking,'Biking,'and'Horseback'Riding) '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 1,211,201 '''1,334,041 ''''''1,499,867 '''1,666,874 '''1,841,117 '''2,031,541 1.1% 68%

Hunting'(Big'Game,'Upland'Game,'and'Migratory'Game'Birds) '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 1,063,709 '''1,111,142 ''''''1,159,767 '''1,197,012 '''1,232,188 '''1,270,468 0.4% 19%

Motorized'Off[Highway'Vehicle'Travel ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 826,256 ''''''887,031 ''''''''''955,996 '''1,035,266 '''1,128,804 '''1,238,989 0.8% 50%

Fishing ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 598,420 ''''''645,558 ''''''''''706,223 ''''''760,591 ''''''814,388 ''''''872,763 0.8% 46%

Specialized'Nonmotorized'Activities'and'Events ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 458,870 ''''''501,333 ''''''''''559,264 ''''''612,440 ''''''663,431 ''''''716,455 0.9% 56%

Swimming'and'Other'Water[Based'Activities ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 424,376 ''''''467,997 ''''''''''526,296 ''''''583,388 ''''''640,883 ''''''701,192 1.1% 65%

Nonmotorized'Boating ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 224,876 ''''''242,296 ''''''''''262,362 ''''''286,958 ''''''315,870 ''''''349,744 0.9% 56%

Motorized'Boating ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 97,622 ''''''107,563 ''''''''''119,936 ''''''133,508 ''''''149,019 ''''''167,485 1.1% 72%

Nonmotorized'Winter'Activities ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 50,444 ''''''''56,687 ''''''''''''64,711 ''''''''73,679 ''''''''84,205 ''''''''97,138 1.4% 93%

Snowmobile'and'other'Motorized'Winter'Activities ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 6,903 '''''''''' 7,428 ''''''''''''''7,998 '''''''''' 8,734 '''''''''' 9,629 ''''''''10,697 0.9% 55%

Total'(all'activities) '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 10,760,329 11,701,805 ''''12,948,446 14,115,899 15,273,015 16,503,525 0.9% 53%

Projected'Number'of'Participants BLM'Recreation'Categories Annual'Growth'Rate %'Change'2012[2060

Table A3. Projected Recreation Demand, Participants by Activity, Western Oregon BLM Lands, 2012-2060

Figure A3. Projected Recreation Demand, Participants by Activity, Western Oregon BLM Lands, 2012-2060

+1.0% 

+0.9% 

+0.9% 

+1.1% 

+0.4% 

+0.8% 

+0.8% 

+0.9% 

+1.1% 

+0.9% 

+1.1% 

+1.4% 

+0.9% 

 - 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 

Wildlife Viewing, Interpretation, and Nature Study 

Driving for Pleasure (Along Designated BLM Roadways) 

Camping and Picknicking 

Nonmotorized Travel (Hiking, Biking, and Horseback Riding) 

Hunting (Big Game, Upland Game, and Migratory Game Birds) 

Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Travel 

Fishing 

Specialized Nonmotorized Activities and Events 

Swimming and Other Water-Based Activities 

Nonmotorized Boating 

Motorized Boating 

Nonmotorized Winter Activities 

Snowmobile and other Motorized Winter Activities 

2012 2060 +% Average Annual Rate of Change, 2012-2060 

Source, ECONorthwest with data from BLM RMIS and Cordell, H.K. 2012.

APPENDIX