## National Visitor Use Monitoring Results

USDA Forest Service 

## National Summary Report

Data collected FY 2008 through FY 2012 Last updated 2 0 May 201 3

## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program provides science

- based estimates of the volume and characteristics of recreation visitation to the National Forest System, as well as the benefits recreation brings to the American public. Completed in 5

- year cycles, the NVUM program helps the Forest Service to manage its recr eation resources in such a way that best meets the needs of visitors while maintaining the quality of the natural resource base. It is important to note that the NVUM process is still relatively new. An initial application occurred nationwide from 2000 t o 2003. Signi f icant refinements and improvements to the process were instituted in 2004, and implementation of the revised process began in

2005

. Trend information regarding recreation visitation is thus not yet available; rather, these data provide a ‘s napshot’ of annual National Forest visitation. Results in this report are compiled from the

most recent field data on each N ational F orest

, which includes the period from FY2008 to FY2012

.

Results from t he field data yield an estimate of just over 160 million recreation visits to N ational Forests

. That is slightly higher than the visitation estimates for 2005

- 2009 (1 55.8 million)

, and 2006

- 2010 (15 7.1 million), and 2007

- 2011 (15 9.0 million)

. As well, we estimate the re were an additional 300 million

o ccasions of people traveling on scenic byways and similar routes near National Forest lands, in which

visitors appreciated the beauty of the National Forests from their vehicles.

Those who recreate on National Forest lands do so to improve their physical , psychological and/or spiritual sense of wellbeing. Their chosen activities vary widely, both in character and location. Some relax as they view natural features or wildlife from the roadside, whereas others pursue solitude as they

hike in the remote ba ckcountry. Some engage in off highway vehicle use. Others enjoy water

- based recreation, hunt, or camp. The two most common primary recreational activities are hiking/walking and downhill skiing. Fifty

- five percent of visitors engage in a primary activi ty that is physically active, which contributes significantly to the American public’s efforts to stay healthy.

The characteristics of recreation visitors are as diverse as their chosen activities. Over one

- third of

visitors to National Forest sites and Wilderness areas are females. Children under the age of 16 account for about one out of every six visits

. All income classes are represented in the recreating public. Just

over h alf of National Forest visitors live within 5 0 miles of the forest they vis ited , while slightly more

than twenty percent travel more than 200 miles to recreate. Many visits (f ifty

- eight percent ) are from people who visit fewer than 10 times per year. However, there are a large number of regular users:

fif teen percent of visits are by people who visit over 50 times annually.

Custom er satisfaction with recreation experiences on National Forest s and Grasslands is very high: ninety

- five percent of visitors are satisfied with their overall experiences, including nearly seventy

- nin e percent who report being very satisfied. Visitors also give very high ratings to their perception of safety

– over ninety

- four percent are satisfied with this aspect of their experience. Further, more than eighty percent of those who visit sites where fees are required are satisf ied with the value they receive for fees paid; only seven percent report being at all dissatisfied with fees.

Visits to National Forest lands are an important contribution to the economic vitality of rural

communities . Spendi ng by recreation visitors in areas surrounding Natio n al Forests amounted to nearly $1 1 billion . Visitors who live more than 50 miles from the forest account for the b ulk of these

contributions ; they spend about $5 billion annually. As visitor spending rip ples through the US economy,

it contributes a little more than $13 billion to GDP, and sustains about 190 ,000 full and part time jobs.

The NVUM data highlight the contribution of forest

- based recreation in connecting the American people

to their natural a nd cultural heritage, an important element of the Forest Service Recreation Strategy.Such connections are critical to the cultivation of a conservation ethic and sense of resource stewardship among Americans. Recreation also directly facilitates the im provement of American health, a priority in both the Recreation Strategy and among Forest Service leadership. This report emphasizes t he importance of recreation in the creation of rural wealth, which USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack has championed as one of hi s central causes. Finally, the management of public lands for recreation is wholly consistent with USDA and Forest Service goals to restore American forests, maintain clean water supplies, and provide ecosystem services.

## INTRODUCTION

The National Visito r Use Monitoring (NVUM) program provides science

- based estimates of the volume

and characteristics of recreation visitation to the National Forest S ystem. Information about the quantity and quality of recreation visits is required for National Forest plan s, Executive Order 12862 (Setting Customer Service Standards), and implementation of the National Recreation Agenda. The agency’s Strategic and Annual Performance Plans require the measurement of user satisfaction and use level.

NVUM ensures that all visitor statistics for National Forest s and grasslands produced by the Forest Service use a standardized measure. These standards were established by the Forest Service in the
1970’s; however their application is now stricter than in the past. For example , visitors must be physically recreating on Forest Service managed lands for a visit to count. They cannot be passing through, viewing from a non

- Forest Service managed road, or just using restroom facilities.

Background and Methods Results in this rep ort are derived by summing the results from the most recent NVUM fieldwork for each

National Forest and Grassland. T he results are from NVUM field work completed from FY200 8 through

FY201 2

. Any single forest gets sampled one time in 5 years, so in a give n year about two dozen forests are engaged in NVUM field data collection. Those forests that c ompleted their N VUM work in 2012 were updating visitation estimates from about 5 years earlier

. Thus, this report does not yet provide any

true ‘trend’ measures ; it is not a final report . Rather, it represents an iteration of the NVUM process, a ‘snapshot’ of the most current visitation patterns and activities on National Forest land.

The basic NVUM methodology is explained in detail in : Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring Process: Research Method Documentation; English, Kocis, Zarnoch, and Arnold; Southern Research Station; May 2002 ( http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum ). I n essence, visitation is estimated through a combination of traffic counts and surveys of exiting visitors. Both are obtained from a random sample of locations and days distributed over an entire forest for a year.

All of the surveyed recreation visito rs a re asked about their visit duration, activities, demographics, travel distance, and annual usage. About one

- third were also asked a series of questions about satisfaction.

Another one

- third were asked to provide information about their income, spendi ng while on their trip,

and the next best substitute for the visit.

Satisfaction measures: Survey participants were asked to provide an overall rating of their recreation experiences on a 5

- point Likert scale. (A Likert scale is a numerical measurement o f a respondent’s level of agreement with a statement.) About one

- third of visitors were asked to rate their satisfaction with and the importance of fourteen items related to the recreation facilities and services at the site or area at which they recreate d. The Likert scale for importance ranges from not important to very important. The Likert scale for performance (satisfaction) ranges from very dissatisfied to very satisfied. Results are summarized by site type: day use developed (DUDS), overnight use developed (OUDS), undeveloped general forest areas (GFAs), and Wilderness

.

The satisfaction responses are analyzed and reported in several ways. First, a graph of overall

satisfaction is presented in Figure 5 . Next, two aggregate measures (detailed b elow) were calculated

from the set of 14 separate satisfaction items. The satisfaction elements most readily controlled by managers were aggregated into four categories: developed facilities, access, services, and visitor safety. The site types sampled were aggregated into three groups: developed sites (includes both day use and overnight developed sites), undeveloped areas, and Wilderness.The first aggregate measure is called “Percent Satisfied Index (PSI)”. The PSI is the proportion of all ratings for the 14 items in each category in which the satisfaction was denoted as either ‘Somewhat satisfied’ or ‘Very Satisfied’

. Conceptually, the PSI indicator shows the percent of all recreation customers who are satisfied with agency performance . The agenc y’s national target for this measure is 85%. It is usually difficult to consistently have a satisfaction score higher than 85% due to tradeoffs among user groups and other factors . Table 11 displays the aggregate PSI scores

.

The second aggregate measure is called “Percent Meet Expectations (PME)”. The PME aggregate

measures the proportion of satisfaction ratings that are equal to or greater than the importance rating for a given item . This indicator tracks the congruence between the agency’s performanc e and customer evaluations of importance. The purpose of the PME measure is to highlight whether those items with higher importance levels also have higher performance levels . Lower PME scores can be interpreted to show ‘gaps’ between desired and actual performance . Figure 6 d isplay s the PME scores

.

Finally, a n Importance

- Performance Analysis (IPA) ( following Hudson, et al, Feb

. 2004) was calculated

for the mean values of the importance and satisfaction scores. A target level of importance and performa nce divides the possible set of score pairs into four quadrants . In the IPA literature, these quadrants are typically called, “Keep up the good work”, “Concentrate here”, “Possible overkill”, and “Low priority”. For those unfamiliar with this literature, the “Concentrate here” and “Possible overkill” quadrants might be interpreted as meaning “Explore how performance can be improved” and “Evaluate for possible savings”, respectively.

In the context of the NVUM survey

, the target level for each of the 14 satisfaction items was a numerical average score of 4.0. The quadrant titles help to interpret each score, and can provide general guidance for management. The quadrants definitions are:

1. Importance at or above 4.0, Satisfaction at or above 4.0: Keep up the good work . These are

functions that are important to visitors and which the agency is performing quite well;

2. Importance at or above 4.0, Satisfaction under 4.0: Concentrate here . These are functions that are highly important to the public, but perf ormance is not at a satisfactory level . Increasing effort here is likely to have the greatest payoff in overall customer satisfaction;

3. Importance below 4.0, Satisfaction above 4.0: Possible overkill

. These are functions that are not of the highest import ance to visitors , but performance is quite good. It may be possible to reduce effort here without greatly harming overall customer satisfaction;

4. Importance below 4.0; Satisfaction below 4.0: Low p riority . These are functions wh ere performance is not at high levels , but neither are the importance ratings . Focusing effort here is unlikely to have a s great an impact on overall satisfaction as in other areas

.

The numerical scores for visitor satisfaction and importance for each of the satisfaction items by site type are presented in Appendix A (Tables A1

– A4). Special attention should be paid to the numeric scores in the Appendix in reviewing and evaluating the IPA results for each item; particular emphasis should be placed on those ratings that are clo se to but slightly below the 4.0 value, which separates the four quadrants. For these, the distribution of responses as well as the average rating should be reviewed, as the average value could be affected by a relatively small set of very low ratings.

Visitors rated their perception of how crowded the ir recreation site or area felt to them. Perceptions take

into account t he type of site and visitor s’ expectations. Ratings ranged from 1 (Hardly anyone there) to 10 (Overcrowded).

Spending and Econom ics: Spending by visitors has important effects to the health of forest

- depended

economies. T o estimate total spending associated with recreation visits, one needs: an overall visitationestimate, the proportion of visits in each of a series of visitor types, and the average spending total for each of the respective visitor types. Multiplying these three variables gives the total amount of spending by each type of visitor. Summing over all visitor types gives total spending associated with recreation on National Forest System lands

.

One

- third of the NVUM surveys included questions about trip

- related spending made within 50 miles of

the site visited. D r. Daniel Stynes (Michigan State University) and Dr. Eric White (Oregon State University) developed a typology of visitor types and average spending amounts for each . The spending that occurs on a recreation trip is greatly influenced by the type of trip taken. V isitors on overnight trips away from home pay for some form of lodging (e.g., hotel rooms or campground fees) ; those on day trips

do not. V isitors on overnight trips also generally purchase more food during their trip in restaurants or

grocery stores than visitors on day trips. V isitors who are close to ho me usually spend less than visitors

trave ling longer distances, especially on items such as fuel and food. Analysis of spending patterns has shown that segments of the visitor market with consistent spending patterns are : 1. local visitors on day trips, 2. local visitors on overnight trips st aying on the National Forest

, 3. local visitors on overnight trips staying off the National Forest , and

4. non

- local visitors on day trips,

5. non

- local visitors on overnight trips staying on the National Forest

, 6. non

- local visitors on overnight t rips staying off the National Forest

, 7. non

- primary visitors.

In addition, these surveys included questions about household income and what the individual considered to be the most likely substitute for their visit to the forest.

Terms U sed in this R eport

The basic measurements of visitation for the NVUM process are National Forest visits and site visits

. A National Forest visit is “o ne person participating in one or more recreation activities on a National

Forest or grassland for an unspecified pe riod of time. A National Forest visit can be composed of multiple site visits. ” A S ite visit is “ o ne person participating in one or more recreation activities at a particular National Forest or G rassland site or area for an unspecified period of time. ”

A confidence interval is a range of values that is likely to include an unknown population value, where the range is calculated from a given set of sample data. Confidence intervals are always accompanied by

a confidence level , which tells the degree of c ertainty that the value lies in the interval. Used together these two terms define the reliability of the estimate, by defining the range of values that are needed to reach the given confidence level. For example, the current nat ional visitation estimate is 161 million visits, with a 90% confidence interval of 3.2 %. In other words, given the NVUM data, our best estimate

is 161 million visits, and we are 90% certain tha t the true number is between 1 5 5. 8 million and 1 66.1

million.

Local visitors travel l ess than 50 road miles from home to the recreation site ; non
- local visitors travel greater than 50 road miles. Non

- primary visitors have a primary trip purpose that is somethi ng other than recreating on the National Forest

– it could be to some other recre ation destination, or for some reason

other than recreation

.

Average values for visit characteristics are calculated by expanding the sample of recreation contacts to the population of National Forest visits. On some tables median values (the value of the 50 th percentile) are also provided, because the averages can be greatly influenced by a few large values.Using this Report While NVUM does provide a national standard for measuring recreation visitor use, it currently cannot

be used to identify t rends or make assumptions about changing use pa tterns :

• Trend analysis is typically based on four or more ‘data points’ from the same location. No forest or grassland has yet gone thro ugh the NVUM process that many times

.

• Results presented here reflect forest

- level data co llected during the period FY2008 through

FY2012 . T he national results summarize the data for all reporting units

.

The results do provide a good ‘snapshot’ representation of the characteristics of visitors, their visitation

patterns, activities, satisfactions, expectations , and the benefits they bring to communities surrounding

National Forest s

.

This report has been written and formatted for a diverse audience. Readers who are interested in accessing the NVUM data utilized here c an double click the figures throughout the report (in MS Word)

to view a table of the data. More results from the NVUM program are available at http://apps.fs.usda.gov/nrm/nvum/results

Forest Service Use of NVUM Data Results from the NVUM program are used for a number of purposes. First, the results are used to report
the best current estimate of visitation to National F orests and Wilderness areas , including the proportion

of visits that come from ta rgeted demographic groups, includ ing children and minorities. Second, combined with household surveys of recreation participation, the activity patterns provide a sense of the

recreation niche for individual N ational F orests; that is, to identify their u nique contribution to the set of outdoor recreation opportunities available to the public. Third, activity and duration patterns are used to

measure the contribution the Forest Service makes to the health of American public through participation

in active outdoor pursuits. Fourth, customer satisfaction , importance, and crowding ratings are used to provide guidance for how to maintain and improve the set of recreation opportunities the agency provides. Finally, visitor s pending profiles and visitation pat terns are us ed to document the contribution

that Forest Service recreation visitation makes to the economic well

- being of both forest

- dependent

communities , and to the nation.



## VISITATION ESTIMATES

T able 1 a displays the number of annual National Fores t visits and National Forest s ite visits for the entire

National Forest System estimated for FY2012

. T he site visit estimate includes visits to W ilderness areas

. Table 1b shows the estimates for visitation since FY2009. Table 2 shows the number of Nation al Forest

and Wilderness v isits in each Forest Service region , along with the proportion of National Forest visits that take place in Wilderness

. The current annual visitation estima te is about 161 million National Forest

visits. The 90% confidence i nter val f or that estimate ranges from 1 56 million to 1 66 million. Wilderness

on the National Forest S ystem accommodates just over 8 million annual recreational visits. Visitation estimates over the last several years shows that the number of National Forest v isits has been

stable to slightly increasing . The number of site visits appears to be generally on the rise, especially in the two dispersed settings

.

Most people (86 %) who recreate on a particular National Forest describe that forest as their primar y recreation destination (Figure 1). That is, the recreation opportunities provided on NFS lands were the main reason these visitors decided to make a trip away from home. For about eight percent of visits, the visit to the forest was a secondary recreat ion destination, meaning that the trip was focused on recreatingsomeplace other than the National Forest, but they decided to make a side

- trip to the forest. For about six percent it was a side trip during a non

- recreation trip away from home.

Table 1 a

. Nation al annual visitation estimate for the National Forest System , for FY201 2

.

Visit Type National Forest Visits

Visits (thousands) 90%

confidence

interval width (%) 90% Confidence Interval range (thousands of visits)

Total Estimated Site Visi ts 200

, 798 3. 0 194,77 3

– 2 06

, 821

Designated Wilderness

Visits a 8,070 6.6 7,537

– 8, 603

Total Estimated National Forest

Visits 160

, 97 3 3. 2 155

, 821

– 1 66

, 1 24

a Designated Wilderness visits are included in the Site Visits estimate.

Table 1b. Natio n al visitation estimate for the National Forest System for the last several years

.

Visit Type Visits (thousands)

FY2005

- FY2009 FY2006

- FY2010 FY2007

- FY2011 FY2008

- FY2012 Day Use Developed Sites 70, 238 69, 665 70, 726 70,965

Overnight Use Developed Sites 1 4,630 15,943 18, 056 17,338

General Forest

Areas 100,057 101,369 102,470 104,424

Wilderness 6,5 19 6,826 7,733 8,070

Total Site Visits 191

, 444 193

, 803 198,986 200,798

National Forest

Visits 155

, 772 157

, 129 1 59,007 160,973Table 2. Region al annu al visitation estimate s for the National Forest System, for FY200 8

- FY2012

.

Region National

Forest

Visits (1000s) 90%

Confidence interval, as

% of visits Wilderness

visits (1000s) 90%

Confide nce interval, as

% of visits

01: Northern 8,401 8.0 433 1 4.4

02: Rocky Mountain 30,737 8.0 1,415 1 2.9

03: Southwestern 1 7,808 8.2 1,726 22.2

04: Intermountain 20,818 10.3 882 22.3

05: Pacific Southwest 2 4,601 8.4 1,028 1 2.2

06: Pacific Northwest 1 4,7 02 5.2 1,104 8. 2

08: Southern 28,402 9 .7 847 19.8

09: Eastern 1 3,062 8.7 594 1 5.2

10: Alaska 2,440 10.1 42 37.3

TOTAL 160

, 973 3. 2 8,070 6.6

Figure 1. Purpose of trip in which National Forest visit was made, for FY2008

- FY2012

.

8% 6%

86% Recreation at this Forest

Recreation at some other

destination

Non-Recreation trip

## DESCRIPTION OF THE RECREATION VISIT

Demographics

Demographic characteristics provide a n overall picture of the customer base for National Forest

recreation

. Recrea tion on National F orests provides opportunities for a wide array of peopl e to connect
with nature. About thirty

- six percent of the visits to National Forest s and are made by females ; the percentage for visits to Wilderness areas is slightly higher, at forty percent (Table 3)

. Among racial and ethnic groups, Hispanics are the most frequent visitors, accounting for slightly more than five percent of

all visits to National Forests (Table 4) . About seven t een percent of National Forest visits are children under the age of 16 (Table 5)

. A bout a quarter of all visits are made in g rou ps that include children.

A large proportion of National Forest visits come from people who live nearby (Figure 3)

. About thirty

five percent of National Forest visits and a lmos t thirty percent of Wilderness visits are made by people

who live within 2 5 miles of the place that they visited. Another 1 6 to 19 percent are from people living between 25 and 50 miles away. A little more than h alf of all visits to National Forest s come from people

who live within about 5 0 miles of the forest. A somewhat hi gher percentage of Wilderness user s come from larger distances; about one

- quarter of Wilderness visits are from people who have traveled more than 200 miles, compared to about twenty

- two percent of National Forest visits. Foreign visitors are relatively u ncommon: they make up only about two percent of all visits (Table 6)

. Europeans account

for almos t half of all foreign visits, and Canadians about one

- third of foreign visits.

Table 3

. Percent of National Forest and Wilderness v isits by gender

, for FY2008

- FY2012

.

Gender National Forest Visits (%) Wilderness Visits (%)

Female 3 6.1 40.0

Male 6 3.9 6 0.0

Total 100.0 100.0- 8

-

Table 4

. Percent of National Forest and Wilderness v isits by race and ethnicity

, for FY2008

- FY2012

.

Race/Ethnicity a National Forest

v isits (%) Wilderness

v isits (%)

American

Indian/Alaska

Native 2. 4 1. 8

Asian 2. 1 3. 1

Black/African

American 1. 1 0.6

Native Hawaiian

or other Pacific

Islander 1.1 0. 6

White 95

. 3 95. 7

Spanish, Hispanic,

or Latino 5. 4 5. 5

a “Spanish, Hispanic or Latino” i s presented in a separate question because it is an ethnicity

, not a race. R espondents first stated whether they were of this ethnicity, then a separate question asked which of the racial categories applied t o them. Respondents could choose more than one racial group.

Table 5

. Percent of National Forest and Wilderness v isits by age class, for FY2008

- FY2012

.

Age National Forest

visits (%) Wilderness visits (%)

Under 16 1 6.8 13.3

16

- 19 3. 5 3. 0

20

- 29 13. 2 15. 9

30

- 39 15. 0 16. 1

40

- 49 1 8. 2 1 6.6

50

- 59 17. 6 19. 6

60

- 69 1 1.6 1 2.0

70 and over 4.0 3. 5

Total 100.0 100.0- 9

-

Figure 2

. Distribution of National Forest and Wilderness visits by age group.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

% of Visits

Under

16 16-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 Over

70

Age group National Forest Visits

Wilderness Visits

Figure 3

. Distr ibution of National Forest visits by travel dista nce categories, for FY2008

- FY2012

.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

% of Visits

Under 25

mi. 25-49 mi. 50-74 mi. 75-99 mi. 100-199

mi. 200-499

mi. Over 500

mi.

Distance travelled % NF visits

% Wilderness visits- 10

-

Table 6

. Percent of National Forest Visits by origin for foreign visitors

, for FY2008

- FY2012

.



### Visit Descriptions

Characteristics of the recreation visit such as length of visit, types of sites v isited, activity participation

and visitor satisfaction with forest facilities are of interest to a variety of stakeholders

. Short visits to

National Forests and Wilderness area s are typical (Table 7)

. Although the average National Forest visit

lasts nea rly 16 hours, about half of them last less than 4. 2 5 hours. Roughly two

- thirds of all National

Forest visits last 6 hours or less. In Wilderness areas, the average visit is just over 15 hours. H owever, nearly 45 percent of the Wilderness visits last 3 hou rs or less , and o nly about ten percent of Wilderness

visits last more than 36 hours.

The great majority of visitors to National Forest s only go to one location on the forest during their visit (Table 8 ). However, s ome visitors do go t o more than one re creation site or area . Often, these are the people who stay for a relatively long time, and visit a large number of different locations . Also displayed

is the average number of people per vehicle for those on a recreation visit

.

Visitors were asked how often they visit a given National Forest for all recreational activities, and how

often for their primary activity ( Table 9 ). Most visits are made by people who visit the forest on which they were surveyed only a few times per year. For ty

- seven percent of visits are made by persons who

visit ed that forest at most 5 times per year. However, people who visit very frequent ly are not
uncommon. Abou t 15 percent of visits are made by people who visit this forest more than 50 times per

year. As could be exp ected, most of the frequent visitors are people wh o live close to the forests they

visit

. Origin Percent of

NF visits

Asia 0.1

Canada 0. 6

Europe 0.8

Mexico <0.1

South America < 0.1

Some other origin 0.3- 11

-

Table 7

. Visit duration for National Forest visits, for FY2008

- FY2012

.

Visit Type Average

Duration

(hours) Median

Duration

(hours)

Site Visit 1 0.2 3.0

Day Use Developed 2.6 2.2

Overnight Use Developed 43. 4 40.3

Undeveloped

Areas 9 .5 3.0

Designated

Wilderness 11. 4 3. 3

National Forest Visit 1 5.6 4. 2

Figure 4

. Distribution of National Forest and Wilderness visits by durat ion categories, for F Y2008

- FY2012

.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

% of Visits

Under 3

hrs 3-6 hrs 6-12 hrs 12-36 hrs 36-72 hrs Over 72

hrs

Duration category NF Visits

Wilderness- 12

-

Table 8

. Other visit characteristics for National Forest rec reation visits, for FY2008

- FY201 2

.

Characteristic

Percent of recreational visitors who visit just one National

Forest site du ring their entire National Forest visit 87.4 %

Average number of National Forest sites visited during each

National Forest visit 1. 2

Average group size 2. 6

Table 9. P ercent of National Forest Visits by annual visit frequency

, for FY 2008

- FY2012

.

N umber of Reported Annual

Forest Visits Percent of National Forest Visits

All Activities Primary Activity

1

– 5 times per year 4 6.5 5 5

. 3

6

– 10 times per year 1 1.7 12. 5

11

– 15 times per year 6. 5 6. 2

16

– 20 times per year 5.1 4. 6

21

– 25 times per year 3.2 3.0

26

– 30 times per year 3. 9 3. 3

31

– 35 times per year 0.6 0. 6

36

– 40 times per year 2. 4 1.8

41

– 50 times per year 4. 4 3.4

51

– 100 times per year 7.4 5.3

101

– 200 times per year 5.0 2.7

201

– 300 times per year 1.9 0 .8

Over 300 time s per year 1.4 0.5- 13

-



### Activities

M ost National Forest visitors participate in several recreati on activities during each visit. Nearly all identify a single primary activity for the visit

. Visitors were asked how many hours they spent doing

their primar y activity

. Viewing natural features is part of the National Forest experience for a lmost half

of all visits (Table 10) , and about 32 percent include viewing wildlife . About 42 percent of visits include participation in hiking /walking, a nd 37 percent ind icate that relaxation is part of their experience

. The primary activity most commonly indicated is hiking/walking (1 9 percent), f ollowed by downhill skiing (14 % ), vi ewing natural features (13%), fishing (7%), and hunting (6 %). Activities of the greatest

duration are camping, backpacking, and resort use.

Recreation on National Forests also contributes to the overall health of th os e who visit

. Over 90 million

visitors (over 55 percent) come primarily to engage in a physically active pursuit. On average, these people spend a bout 7 hours per visit pa rticipating in their primary activity.- 14

-

Table 10

. Activity par ticipation for National Forest rec reation visits, for FY2008

- FY2012

.

Activity % of visitors who participated in this activity a % indicatin g as their primary activity b Average hours spent in primary activity c

Developed Camping 8. 4 3. 1 38.2

Primitive Camping 3. 0 0. 6 3 3.1

Resort Use 2. 4 0. 2 3 5.2

Nature Center Activities 6. 5 0.3 2. 5

Nature Study 6. 9 0. 3 3. 7

Viewing Wildlife 3 1

. 8 1.9 4. 1

V iewing Natural Features 4 7. 3 13. 4 3. 3

Visiting Historic Sites 6. 8 0. 3 2. 8

Relaxing 36. 7 5.7 1 6.2

Picnicking 10.5 1. 5 5. 0

OHV Use 3. 6 1. 4 4. 8

Motorized Trail Activity 4. 1 1.6 5. 0

Snowmobiling 2. 7 2. 2 4. 8

Driving for Pleasure 2 3. 6 4. 7 3. 2

Motorized W ater Activities 3. 1 1. 0 8.3

Other Motorized Activity 0.5 0.1 4

. 1

Fishing * 1 1.9 7. 0 6. 1

Hunting * 6.5 5.8 1 1.7

Gathering Forest Products * 4. 2 1.0 5.1

Hiking / Walking * 4 2.0 1 9.3 3. 5

Backpacking * 2. 1 0. 7 3 2.7

Hor se back Riding * 1.2 0. 7 6.0

Bicycling * 4

. 7 2. 6 3.1

Downhill Skiing * 1 5.1 1 4.2 5.5

Cross

- country Skiing * 5.3 4 .1 2. 7

Non

- motorized Water * 2.9 1. 2 6.4

Other Non

- motorized 6. 0 2. 2 3. 3

Some Other Activity 5. 8 3. 8 3. 5

No Activity Reported 0.4 0.7

.

a Survey respondents could select multiple a ctivities so this column may t otal more than 100%.- 15

-

b R espondents were asked to select one activity as their main one . Some selected more than one, so this column may total more than 100%.

c C omputed only for those who indicated the activity was the main a ctivity on their visit

.

* Indicates that this activity is considered to be physically active.- 16

-



## CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

A critical element of outdoor recreation program delivery is the evaluati on of customer satisfaction with the recreation setting, fac ilities, and services provided. Overall satisfaction levels for National Forest

visits are quite high. In the overall satisfaction rating, only about 3 percent of visitors indicated that they

were at all dissatisfied (Figure 5)

. Seventy

- nine percent ind icated being very satisfied.

The P ercent S atisfied I ndex shows very high satisfaction levels for visitors’ perceptions of safety , over 90 percent in each type of site (Table 11) . Satisfaction levels pertaining to access we re above the national target f or developed sites and Wilderness, but slightly below the target of 85% satisfied for undeveloped

areas. Across all types of sites, satisfaction levels with services (signage, information, and employee helpfulness) were between 74 and 84 percent

. Compari ng these results to the overall satisfaction results indicates that safety and access are likely to be among the most important elements of customer

satisfaction

.

Most places on National Forests do not have any fees associated with recreation use. Howeve r for thos e that do have fees, the majority of visitors are satisfied with the value they receive for the fees they paid. In Day Use Develope d Sites, including ski areas, 81 percent are satisfied; in o vernight s ites, 87 percent

a re satisfied.

The P ercen t M eets E xpectations (PME) measure shows that the congruence between performance and expectations is quite high for the feeling of safety

– greater than 85% in each of the three types of sites (Figure 6) . Access elements are above 80% for each of the site types. The PME levels for developed facility items are slightly below the 80% goal for dispersed areas

. Suc h a gap may indicate that focusing

additional attention on the condition of developed facilities could have a positive impact on customer

satisfac tion

.

National importance

- performance results show that there are no elements that fall into th e ‘Concentrate

h ere’ quadrant (Table 12)

. Nearly all were in the ‘Keep up the g ood w ork’ quadrant. Parking lot

conditions and interpretive displays appear to be of somewhat lesser importance to visitors to Wilderness

. The overall ratings of road conditions and adequacy of signage were quite good: for over half of all visits both the importance and satisfaction for these items w ere rated as high as possible (F igures 7a and 7b)

.

Feeling that an area is very crowded can diminish recreation satisfaction. O ther than in overnight developed sites, very few visitors to National Forests felt that the places they visited were very crowded (Table 13, and Figure 8). Fo r the overnight sites, roughly 15 p ercent of people felt there were high levels (8 or higher) of crowding. However, in dispersed settings, a lmos t half of the visitors felt that the areas

were not crowded , giving a rating of 1

- 3

.- 17

-

Figure 5 . Percent of National Forest visits by overall satisfaction rating , for FY2008

- FY2012

.

80% 1% 3%

15% 1%

Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied

Neither

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

Table 11

. National Forest visitation Percent Satisfaction Index a scores for aggregate categories

, for

FY2008

- FY2012

.

Satisfied Survey Respondents (%)

Items Rated Developed Sites b General Forest

Areas Designated

Wilderness

Developed Facilities (includes restroom cleanliness and facility condition) 8 8.5 80.0 8 3

. 7

Access (includes parking availability, parking lot condition, road condition and trail condition) 8 8.3 84.0 8 7.9

Services (includes availability of information, signage and employee helpfulness) 8 4.2 73.5 7 8.8

Perception of Safety 9 6.2 92. 4 95. 2

Value received for any Fee Paid at the site 8 4.1 83

. 3 9 1.5

a Co mposite rating s of the proportion of satisfaction ratings scored by visitors as sat i sfied or very satisfied. The values are computed as the

percentage s of all ratings for the elements within the grouping s t hat are at or above the target level, and indicate the percent of all visits where the person was satisfied with agency performance.

b This category includes both Day Use and Overnight Use Developed Sites.- 18

-

Figure 6 . Percent Meets Expectations results fo r National Forest visits by type of site, for FY2008

- FY2012

.

0 20 40 60 80 100

% of Visits

Developed

Facilities Access Services Perception of
Safety Developed Sites

Undeveloped Areas

Designated Wilderness- 19

-

Table 12

. Importance

- Performance ratings for satisfaction items

, by type of site

.

ITEM Day Use Developed Sites Overnight Use Developed Sites Undeveloped Are as Designated

Wilderness

Restroom cleanliness Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work

Developed facility condition Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work

Co ndition of environment Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work

Employee helpfulness Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work

Interpretive display Keep up the G ood

Work Keep up the Good

Work Possible Overkill Possible Overkill

Parking availability Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work

Parking lot condition Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Possible Overkill

Rec. info. available Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work

Road condition Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work

Feeling of sa fety Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work

Scenery Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work

Signage adequacy Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work

Trail condition Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work

Value for fee paid Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work Keep up the Good

Work- 20

-

Figure 7 a. Overall Satisfaction with Forest

- wide Road Condition and Signage Adequacy , for FY2008

- FY2012

.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Roads Signage% of Visits Very Dissatisfied

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Neither

Somewhat Satisfied

Very Satisfied

Figure 7 b. Overall I mportance ratings for Road Condition and Signage Adequacy, for FY200 8

- FY201 2

.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Roads Signage% of Visits 1 (Low)

2

3

4
5 (High)- 21

-

Table 13

. National Forest visitor perceptions of crowding by site type , for FY2008

- FY2012

.

Perception of Crowding by Site Types (Percent site visits %)

Crowding Rating Day Use Developed

Sites c Overnight Use Developed Sites General Forest

Areas Designated

Wilderness

Areas

10 Overcrowded 0.8 1.7 0. 7 0.7

9 3. 7 5.5 3. 0 2. 5

8 5.8 7.4 4. 2 4.3

7 6. 3 6.6 5. 7 4. 1

6 19.2 2 6.3 1 8.1 17.8

5 12. 9 9 .1 8. 1 12 .8

4 1 8.2 1 4.5 1 3.9 17 .1

3 1 5.1 1 1.6 16. 9 1 7.0

2 1 6.8 1 5.4 28 .0 22. 2

1 Hardly anyone there 1.1 1. 9 1.5 1.5

Figure 8

. Distribution of National Forest visits into general crowding categories.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Day Use Overnight

Use GFAs Wilderness

Site Type% of Visits High ( 8 - 10)

Moderate (4 - 7)

Low (1 - 3)- 22

-



### Disabilities

The Forest Service is committed to integrating accessibility considerati ons into its sustainable recreation planning so all people, including those with disabilities, can recreate. The accessibility of recreation facilities is an important part of this policy. Around seven percent of National Forest visits are made by people in groups where one or more group members have a disability (Table 14). For more than 80

percent of these parties, the facilities they used were rated as accessible.

Table 14. Accessibility for National Forest visits by persons with disabilities , f or FY200 8

- FY2012

.

Item Percent

Percent of visitors interviewed with group member having a disability 7

. 1

Of this group, percent who said facilities at site visited were

accessible 81.2- 23

-



## VISITOR SPENDING AND E CONOMIC S

Visitor Spending

Visitors to National Forest s often spend money in nearby communities during the time they are on their recreation trip s

. These communities ben efit directly from that spending

. About 47 percent of visits to

National Forests are from residents of the local area who a re on day trips . Few local residents stay overnight o n or near the forests. About 10 percent of non

- local residents make visits while on day trips away from home. More non

- locals on overnight trips spend the night in facilities off the forest than on

th e for est. For 1 out of about every 8 visits, a National Forest was not the primary destination for the trip.

Visitors spend mon ey in towns that are near National Forests for things like gasoline, food, lodging, and souvenirs. The spending segments diffe r markedly in the amount of money per party. In general, visit or s who come from outside the local area spend more than do th ose who are from the local area. T hose parties staying overnight off of National Forest lands spend more than those who spend the n ight on the

National Forest. Those coming for the primary purpose of downhill skiing typically spend more per visit than for other types of recreation.

Overall, recreating visi tors spent about $11 billion in areas around National Forest System lands (T able 15). Many downhill skiers are from outside the local area and are staying in off

- forest lodging. As a result, downhill skiers acc ount for slightly more than $3 billion in local spending. Visitors for wildlife

related recreation spend least as a gro up, largely because roughly two

- thirds of these visits are made by people on day trips away from home. As visitor spending ripples through the economy, further economic activity is created. In total, spending by visitors to National Forests and Grassland s contributes over $13 billion to the US economy and sustain s nearly 194,000 full

- and part

- time jobs.- 24

-

Table 15

. Visitor s pending and associated economic effects of recreation visits to National Forest land,

for FY200 8

- FY2012

.

Downhill Skiing

Visits Wildlife

- Related

Visits Other Recreation

Visi t s TOTAL, ALL

VISITS
Millions of

National Forest

Visits 22

. 9 23

. 4 114.7 161

. 0

D irect spending in local economies, (millions of $2012 ) $3, 217.6 $1,357

. 7 $ 6,392

. 7 $10

, 968

. 0

Total GDP

contributions (millions o f $2012 ) $ 4,082.5 $1, 3 82.8 $ 7

, 209.0 $1 2

, 674.3

Full

- and part

- time jobs sustained, (thousands) 64

. 6 20 .0 109

. 1 193

. 7- 25

-

About 37 percent of visits to National Forests are made by people who are spending at least one night away from home (Table 16). For m ost of them, it includes a t least one night spent within 50 miles of the forest they visited. Those spending the night within 50 miles of the forest stay an average of about 5 nights. For those spending one or more nights on or near the forest, about 3 5 percent stay in hotels or lodges off the forest. A bout 21 percent camp at developed campgrounds on t he National Forest, and

about 11 percent camp in undeveloped areas of the forest.

Table 16

. Visitor Tr ip Information, for FY2008

- FY2012

.



### Household Income

The income distribution of visitors to National Forests is varied (F igure 9 )

. About thirteen percent of visits are made by individuals whose household income is over $150,000 per year. A slightly smaller percentage (11%) comes from people in households earning less than $25,000 per year

. Forty

- five

percent of all visits come from people in households ea rning between $25,000 and $75,000 per year

. 

## Item

Perc ent of visit s that occur on trips with an overnight stay away from home 37. 1

Percent of visits that occur on trips with an overnight stay

within 50 miles of the visited forest 34. 5

For overnight visits, average number of nights wi thin 50

miles of the forest 5. 4

For those staying overnight within 50 miles of the forest,

p ercent indicating each type of l odging

NF campgrounds ON the National Forest 20.9

Camping i n undeveloped areas of the National Forest 11.2

Cabins , lodges, hotels or huts ON the National Forest 8.0

Other public campgrounds (Park Service, BLM, State Park

,

other) 2.7

Private campgrounds NOT on the National Forest 2.3

Rented home, condo, c abin, lodge or hotel NOT on the NF 34.7

Private home of friend or relative 13.9

Home, cabin, or condo owned by visitor 8.7

Other 1.1- 26

-

Figure 9. Household income of Nati onal Forest recreation visits, for FY2008

- FY2012

.

23% 13% 11%

17% 15%

21% Under $25,000

$25,000 - $49,999

$50,000 - $74,999

$75,000 - $99,999

$100,000 - $149,999

$150,000 plus



### Substitute behavior

T ravel cost models of economic value must include some measure of su bstitute behavior. Almost h alf ( 49 %) indicate that their substitute behavior choice is activity driven

– that is, their substitute is go ing elsewhere for same activity (Figure 10). A smaller percentage (18 %) indicate they would come back

later for the sam e activity

. Very few (2%) said they would have gone to work instead. V isitors who said they would have gone somewhere else for recreation also indicated how far from their home this alternate

destination was (F igure 11 )

. The distribution of travel dista nces to alternative locations is very similar to

the distribution of travel distances for National Forest visits, which may indicate that a reasonable set of

alternative destinations indeed exists for most visits.- 27

-

Figure 10

. Substitute be havior choices of National Forest visitors, for FY2008

- FY2012

.

18% 10% 49% 17% 4% 2%

Go elsewhere, same activity

Come Later

Go elsewhere, other activity

Stay home

Go to work

Other

Figure 11

. Reported distance visitors would travel to alternative recreation location s, for FY2008

- FY2012

.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0-25 mi. 26-50 mi. 51-75 mi. 76-100 mi. 101-200

mi. 201-300

mi. Over 300

mi.

Distance % of Visits- 28

-



## Appendix A

. Detailed Satisfaction Results

Table A

- 1

. Satisfaction of National Forest recreation visitors at Developed Day Use sites

, for FY2008

- FY2012

.

ITEM Very

Dissatisfied Somewhat

Dissatisfied Nei ther Somewhat

Satisfied Very

Satisfied Avg. Rating Mean Importance

Restroom cleanliness 2.5 3.9 8.6 22.0 63.0 4.4 4.5

Developed facility

condition 0.5 1.5 6.5 21.9 69.6 4.6 4.4

Condition of

environment 0.7 1.6 4.7 21.2 71.8 4.6 4.7

Employee helpfulness 0.9 0.6 4.8 13.8 79.9 4.7 4.5

Interpretive displays 1.4 4.7 16.8 24.8 52.3 4.2 4.1

Parking availability 2.5 4.3 6.3 15.8 71.0 4.5 4.4

Parking lot condition 1.0 2.9 8.6 18.6 68.8 4.5 4.1

Rec. info. availability 1.1 3.5 13.0 23.1 59.3 4.4 4.3

Road cond ition 1.0 2.2 9.4 25.2 62.3 4.5 4.3

Feeling of safety 0.1 0.6 3.1 12.8 83.4 4.8 4.6

Scenery 0.4 0.5 2.5 11.9 84.8 4.8 4.6

Signage adequacy 1.3 4.0 9.8 23.3 61.7 4.4 4.3

Trail condition 0.3 1.7 8.2 22.2 67.6 4.6 4.5

Value for fee paid 2.9 5.0 9.2 20.9 62.0 4.3 4.6

*Scale is: Very Dissatisfied = 1 Dissatisfied = 2 Neither = 3 Satisfied = 4 Very Satisfied = 5

** Scale is: 1= N ot I mportant 2= S omewhat I mportant 3= M oderately I mportant 4= I mportant 5 = V ery I mportant- 29

-

Table A

- 2

. S atisfaction of National Forest recreation visitors at Developed Overnight sites

, for FY2008

- FY2012

.

ITEM Very

Dissatisfied Somewhat

Dissatisfied Neither Somewhat

Satisfied Very

Satisfied Avg

. Rating Mean Importance

Restroom cleanliness 2.7 4.3 8.3 20.5 64.2 4.4 4.7

Developed facility

condition 0.5 1.3 5.9 24.9 67.5 4.6 4.5

Condition of

environment 0.6 2.0 3.2 18.8 75.5 4.7 4.8

Employee helpfulness 1.7 1.2 2.8 11.4 82.9 4.7 4.6

Interpreti ve displays 1.9 4.8 16.1 27.8 49.4 4.2 4.1

Parking availability 1.3 2.8 4.3 16.4 75.3 4.6 4.4

Parking lot condition 0.9 2.3 5.3 17.9 73.6 4.6 4.3

Rec. info. availability 2.4 6.6 13.3 25.2 52.5 4.2 4.4

Road condition 1.6 4.1 7.7 27.3 59.3 4.4 4.4

Feeli ng of safety 0.4 0.6 2.7 14.3 82.0 4.8 4.7

Scenery 0.4 0.4 2.9 13.0 83.2 4.8 4.7

Signage adequacy 1.4 4.1 9.5 22.9 62.0 4.4 4.5

Trail condition 0.4 1.8 6.5 21.8 69.5 4.6 4.5

Value for fee paid 1.8 3.5 6.5 21.0 67.2 4.5 4.6

*Scale is: Very Dissati sfied = 1 Dissatisfied = 2 Neither = 3 Satisfied = 4 Very Satisfied = 5

** Scale is: 1= N ot I mportant 2= S omewhat I mportant 3= M oderately I mportant 4= I mportant 5 = V ery I mportant- 30

-

Table A

- 3

. Satisfaction of National Forest recreation visitors in Dispersed a reas
, for FY200 8

- FY2012

.

ITEM Very

Dissatisfied Somewhat

Dissatisfied Neither Somewhat

Satisfied Very

Satisfied Avg. Rating Mean Importance

Restroom cleanliness 5.7 4 .8 16.6 22.3 50.6 4.1 4.3

Developed facility

condition 1.4 2.4 9.7 26.7 59.8 4.4 4.2

Condition of

environment 1.3 2.2 5.3 23.2 68.0 4.5 4.7

Employee helpfulness 1.4 0.9 12.7 16.5 68.5 4.5 4.2

Interpretive displays 3.3 6.8 20.5 26.1 43.4 4.0 3.8

Parkin g availability 2.2 4.7 8.9 19.3 65.0 4.4 4.2

Parking lot condition 1.4 4.2 9.7 24.2 60.5 4.4 4.0

Rec. info. availability 3.3 7.1 18.8 25.9 44.9 4.0 4.1

Road condition 3.2 6.1 9.9 30.5 50.3 4.2 4.2

Feeling of safety 0.5 2.0 5.1 16.3 76.1 4.7 4.5

Scener y 0.4 0.7 3.9 13.7 81.4 4.7 4.6

Signage adequacy 4.1 6.9 14.5 24.9 49.6 4.1 4.2

Trail condition 1.5 3.5 8.4 26.8 59.8 4.4 4.4

Value for fee paid 4.1 2.7 9.8 15.8 67.5 4.4 4.3

*Scale is: Very Dissatisfied = 1 Dissatisfied = 2 Neither = 3 Sa tisfied = 4 Very Satisfied = 5

** Scale is: 1= N ot I mportant 2= S omewhat I mportant 3= M oderately I mportant 4= I mportant 5 = V ery I mportant- 31

-

Table A

- 4

. Satisfaction of National Forest Wilderness visitors

, for FY2008

- FY2012

.

ITEM Very

Dissatisfied Somewhat

Dissatisfied Neither Somewhat

Satisfied Very

Satisfied Avg. Rating Mean Importance

Restroom cleanliness 5.5 6.6 8.8 24.8 54.3 4.2 4.2

Developed facility

co ndition 0.1 2.8 7.7 19.0 70.4 4.6 4.1

Condition of

environment 0.2 0.9 3.2 17.9 77.8 4.7 4.8

Employee helpfulness 0.5 2.5 6.7 9.5 80.9 4.7 4.4

Interpretive displays 3.6 5.6 20.0 26.6 44.2 4.0 3.8

Parking availability 1.5 4.9 8.0 14.5 71.1 4.5 4.2

Park ing lot condition 1.0 2.4 6.8 19.4 70.4 4.6 3.9

Rec. info. availability 1.4 5.3 13.8 25.4 54.1 4.3 4.2

Road condition 1.3 4.4 10.5 26.6 57.3 4.3 4.2

Feeling of safety 0.4 0.8 3.6 13.0 82.2 4.8 4.4

Scenery 0.3 0.0 1.4 9.7 88.5 4.9 4.8

Signage adequacy 2.4 6.6 11.7 22.4 56.9 4.2 4.3

Trail condition 1.0 2.1 5.4 21.0 70.6 4.6 4.5

Value for fee paid 2.0 1.3 5.2 11.7 79.8 4.7 4.3

*Scale is: Very Dissatisfied = 1 Dissatisfied = 2 Neither = 3 Satisfied = 4 Very Satisfied = 5

** Scale is: 1= N ot I mportant 2= S omewhat I mportant 3= M oderately I mportant 4= I mportant 5 = V ery I mportant