National Visitor Use Monitoring Results

USDA Forest Service

National Summary Report

Data collected FY 2008 through FY 2012

Last updated 20 May2013
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 recreation 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 to 2003. Significant 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 ‘snapshot’ of annual National Forest visitation. Results in this report are compiled from the 

most recent field data on each National Forest, which includes the period from FY2008 to FY2012. 

Results from the field data yield an estimate of just over 160 million recreation visits to National Forests. 

That is slightly higher than the visitation estimates for 2005-2009 (155.8 million), and 2006-2010 (157.1

million), and 2007-2011 (159.0 million). As well, we estimate there were an additional 300 million 

occasions 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 backcountry. 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 activity 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 half of National Forest visitors live within 50 miles of the forest they visited, while slightly more 

than twenty percent travel more than 200 miles to recreate. Many visits (fifty-eight percent) are from 

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

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

Customer satisfaction with recreation experiences on National Forests and Grasslands is very high: 

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

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 satisfied 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. Spending by recreation visitors in areas surrounding National Forests amounted to nearly 

$11 billion. Visitors who live more than 50 miles from the forest account for the bulk of these 

contributions; they spend about $5 billion annually. As visitor spending ripples 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 and 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 improvement of American health, a priority in 

both the Recreation Strategy and among Forest Service leadership. This report emphasizes the 

importance of recreation in the creation of rural wealth, which USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack has 

championed as one of his 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 Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program provides science-based estimates of the volume 

and characteristics of recreation visitation to the National Forest System. Information about the quantity 

and quality of recreation visits is required for National Forest plans, 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 Forests 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 report are derived by summing the results from the most recent NVUM fieldwork for each 

National Forest and Grassland. The results are from NVUM field work completed from FY2008 through 

FY2012. Any single forest gets sampled one time in 5 years, so in a given year about two dozen forests 

are engaged in NVUM field data collection. Those forests that completed their NVUM 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). In 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 visitors are 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, spending 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 of 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 recreated. 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 below) 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 agency’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 performance 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 displays the PME scores.

Finally, an 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 

performance 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 performance 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 importance 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 priority. These are functions where 

performance is not at high levels, but neither are the importance ratings. Focusing effort here is 

unlikely to have as 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 close 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 their recreation site or area felt to them. Perceptions take 

into account the type of site and visitors’ expectations. Ratings ranged from 1 (Hardly anyone there) to 

10 (Overcrowded). 

Spending and Economics: Spending by visitors has important effects to the health of forest-depended 

economies. To estimate total spending associated with recreation visits, one needs: an overall visitation 
estimate, 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. Dr. 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. Visitors 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. Visitors on overnight trips also generally purchase more food during their trip in restaurants or 

grocery stores than visitors on day trips. Visitors who are close to home usually spend less than visitors 

traveling 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 staying 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 trips 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 Used in this Report

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

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

Forest or grassland for an unspecified period of time. A National Forest visit can be composed of 

multiple site visits.” A Site visit is “one person participating in one or more recreation activities at a 

particular National Forest or Grassland 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 certainty 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 national 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 that the true number is between 155.8 million and 166.1

million. 

Local visitors travel less 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 something other than 

recreating on the National Forest – it could be to some other recreation 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 50th 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 trends or make assumptions about changing use patterns:

• Trend analysis is typically based on four or more ‘data points’ from the same location. No forest 

or grassland has yet gone through the NVUM process that many times. 

• Results presented here reflect forest-level data collected during the period FY2008 through 

FY2012. The 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 Forests. 

This report has been written and formatted for a diverse audience. Readers who are interested in 

accessing the NVUM data utilized here can 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 Forests and Wilderness areas, including the proportion 

of visits that come from targeted demographic groups, including children and minorities. Second, 

combined with household surveys of recreation participation, the activity patterns provide a sense of the 

recreation niche for individual National Forests; that is, to identify their unique 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 spending profiles and visitation patterns are used 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

Table 1a displays the number of annual National Forest visits and National Forest site visits for the entire 

National Forest System estimated for FY2012. The site visit estimate includes visits to Wilderness areas.

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

and Wilderness visits in each Forest Service region, along with the proportion of National Forest visits 

that take place in Wilderness. The current annual visitation estimate is about 161 million National Forest

visits. The 90% confidence interval for that estimate ranges from 156 million to 166 million. Wilderness 

on the National Forest System accommodates just over 8 million annual recreational visits.

Visitation estimates over the last several years shows that the number of National Forest visits 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 primary 

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 recreation destination, meaning that the trip was focused on recreating 
someplace 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 1a. National annual visitation estimate for the National Forest System, for FY2012. 

Visit Type

National Forest Visits

Visits 

(thousands)

90% 

confidence 

interval 

width (%)

90% Confidence Interval 

range (thousands of 

visits)

Total Estimated Site Visits 200,798 3.0 194,773 – 206,821

Designated Wilderness 

Visitsa 8,070 6.6 7,537 – 8,603

Total Estimated National Forest 

Visits

160,973 3.2 155,821 – 166,124

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

Table 1b. National 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

14,630 15,943 18,056 17,338

General Forest 

Areas

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

Wilderness 6,519 6,826 7,733 8,070

Total Site Visits 191,444 193,803 198,986 200,798

National Forest 

Visits

155,772 157,129 159,007 160,973
Table 2. Regional annual visitation estimates for the National Forest System, for FY2008 - FY2012. 

Region

National 

Forest 

Visits 

(1000s)

90% 

Confidence 

interval, as 

% of visits

Wilderness 

visits 

(1000s)

90% 

Confidence 

interval, as 

% of visits

01: Northern 8,401 8.0 433 14.4

02: Rocky Mountain 30,737 8.0 1,415 12.9

03: Southwestern 17,808 8.2 1,726 22.2

04: Intermountain 20,818 10.3 882 22.3

05: Pacific Southwest 24,601 8.4 1,028 12.2

06: Pacific Northwest 14,702 5.2 1,104 8.2

08: Southern 28,402 9.7 847 19.8

09: Eastern 13,062 8.7 594 15.2

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 an overall picture of the customer base for National Forest 

recreation. Recreation on National Forests provides opportunities for a wide array of people to connect 

with nature. About thirty-six percent of the visits to National Forests 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 seventeen percent of National Forest visits are children 

under the age of 16 (Table 5). About a quarter of all visits are made in groups that include children. 

A large proportion of National Forest visits come from people who live nearby (Figure 3). About thirtyfive percent of National Forest visits and almost thirty percent of Wilderness visits are made by people 

who live within 25 miles of the place that they visited. Another 16 to 19 percent are from people living 

between 25 and 50 miles away. A little more than half of all visits to National Forests come from people 

who live within about 50 miles of the forest. A somewhat higher percentage of Wilderness users 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 uncommon: they make up only about two percent of all visits (Table 6). Europeans account 

for almost half of all foreign visits, and Canadians about one-third of foreign visits. 

Table 3. Percent of National Forest and Wilderness visits by gender, for FY2008 - FY2012.

Gender National Forest

Visits (%)

Wilderness Visits

(%)

Female 36.1 40.0

Male 63.9 60.0

Total 100.0 100.0
- 8 -

Table 4. Percent of National Forest and Wilderness visits by race and ethnicity, for FY2008 - FY2012.

Race/Ethnicitya National Forest

visits (%)

Wilderness

visits (%)

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” is presented in a separate question because it is an ethnicity, not a race. Respondents first stated whether they were of this 

ethnicity, then a separate question asked which of the racial categories applied to them. Respondents could choose more than one racial group. 

Table 5. Percent of National Forest and Wilderness visits by age class, for FY2008 - FY2012.

Age National Forest

visits (%)

Wilderness visits 

(%)

Under 16 16.8 13.3

16-19 3.5 3.0

20-29 13.2 15.9

30-39 15.0 16.1

40-49 18.2 16.6

50-59 17.6 19.6

60-69 11.6 12.0

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. Distribution of National Forest visits by travel distance 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 visited, activity participation 

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

National Forests and Wilderness areas are typical (Table 7). Although the average National Forest visit 

lasts nearly 16 hours, about half of them last less than 4.25 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. However, 

nearly 45 percent of the Wilderness visits last 3 hours or less, and only about ten percent of Wilderness 

visits last more than 36 hours. 

The great majority of visitors to National Forests only go to one location on the forest during their visit 

(Table 8). However, some visitors do go to more than one recreation 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. Forty-seven percent of visits are made by persons who 

visited that forest at most 5 times per year. However, people who visit very frequently are not 

uncommon. About 15 percent of visits are made by people who visit this forest more than 50 times per 

year. As could be expected, most of the frequent visitors are people who 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 10.2 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 15.6 4.2

Figure 4. Distribution of National Forest and Wilderness visits by duration categories, for FY2008 -

FY2012. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

% of Visits

Under 3

hrs

3-6 hrs 6-12 hrs12-36 hrs36-72 hrsOver 72

hrs

Duration category

NF Visits

Wilderness
- 12 -

Table 8. Other visit characteristics for National Forest recreation visits, for FY2008 - FY2012. 

Characteristic

Percent of recreational visitors who visit just one National 

Forest site during 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. Percent of National Forest Visits by annual visit frequency, for FY2008 - FY2012.

Number of Reported Annual 

Forest Visits

Percent of National Forest Visits

All Activities Primary Activity

1 – 5 times per year 46.5 55.3

6 – 10 times per year 11.7 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 times per year 1.4 0.5
- 13 -

Activities

Most National Forest visitors participate in several recreation activities during each visit. Nearly all 

identify a single primary activity for the visit. Visitors were asked how many hours they spent doing 

their primary activity. Viewing natural features is part of the National Forest experience for almost half 

of all visits (Table 10), and about 32 percent include viewing wildlife. About 42 percent of visits include 

participation in hiking/walking, and 37 percent indicate that relaxation is part of their experience. The 

primary activity most commonly indicated is hiking/walking (19 percent), followed by downhill skiing 

(14%), viewing 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 those who visit. Over 90 million 

visitors (over 55 percent) come primarily to engage in a physically active pursuit. On average, these 

people spend about 7 hours per visit participating in their primary activity. 
- 14 -

Table 10. Activity participation for National Forest recreation visits, for FY2008 - FY2012. 

Activity

% of visitors who 

participated in this 

activitya

% indicating as 

their primary 

activityb

Average hours 

spent in primary 

activityc

Developed Camping 8.4 3.1 38.2

Primitive Camping 3.0 0.6 33.1

Resort Use 2.4 0.2 35.2

Nature Center Activities 6.5 0.3 2.5

Nature Study 6.9 0.3 3.7

Viewing Wildlife 31.8 1.9 4.1

Viewing Natural Features 47.3 13.4 3.3

Visiting Historic Sites 6.8 0.3 2.8

Relaxing 36.7 5.7 16.2

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 23.6 4.7 3.2

Motorized Water Activities 3.1 1.0 8.3

Other Motorized Activity 0.5 0.1 4.1

Fishing* 11.9 7.0 6.1

Hunting* 6.5 5.8 11.7

Gathering Forest Products* 4.2 1.0 5.1

Hiking / Walking* 42.0 19.3 3.5

Backpacking* 2.1 0.7 32.7

Horseback Riding* 1.2 0.7 6.0

Bicycling* 4.7 2.6 3.1

Downhill Skiing* 15.1 14.2 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 activities so this column may total more than 100%. 
- 15 -

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

cComputed only for those who indicated the activity was the main activity 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 evaluation of customer satisfaction with 

the recreation setting, facilities, 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 indicated being very satisfied. 

The Percent Satisfied Index 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 were above the national 

target for 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. Comparing 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. However for those 

that do have fees, the majority of visitors are satisfied with the value they receive for the fees they paid. 

In Day Use Developed Sites, including ski areas, 81 percent are satisfied; in overnight sites, 87 percent 

are satisfied. 

The Percent Meets Expectations (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. Such a gap may indicate that focusing 

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

satisfaction.

National importance-performance results show that there are no elements that fall into the ‘Concentrate 

here’ quadrant (Table 12). Nearly all were in the ‘Keep up the good work’ 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 were rated as high as possible (Figures 7a and 7b).

Feeling that an area is very crowded can diminish recreation satisfaction. Other 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). For the overnight sites, roughly 15 percent of people felt there were high levels 

(8 or higher) of crowding. However, in dispersed settings, almost 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 Indexa scores for aggregate categories, for 

FY2008 - FY2012. 

 Satisfied Survey Respondents (%)

Items Rated

Developed Sitesb General Forest 

Areas

Designated 

Wilderness

Developed Facilities (includes restroom 

cleanliness and facility condition)

88.5 80.0 83.7

Access (includes parking availability, parking lot 

condition, road condition and trail condition) 88.3 84.0 87.9

Services (includes availability of information, 

signage and employee helpfulness)

84.2 73.5 78.8

Perception of Safety 96.2 92.4 95.2

Value received for any Fee Paid at the site 84.1 83.3 91.5

a Composite ratings of the proportion of satisfaction ratings scored by visitors as satisfied or very satisfied. The values are computed as the 

percentages of all ratings for the elements within the groupings that 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 for 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 Areas 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

Condition 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 Good 

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 safety 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 7a. 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 7b. Overall Importance ratings for Road Condition and Signage Adequacy, for FY2008 -

FY2012. 

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 

Sitesc

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 26.3 18.1 17.8

5 12.9 9.1 8.1 12.8

4 18.2 14.5 13.9 17.1

3 15.1 11.6 16.9 17.0

2 16.8 15.4 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 considerations 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, for FY2008 - 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 ECONOMICS

Visitor Spending

Visitors to National Forests often spend money in nearby communities during the time they are on their 

recreation trips. These communities benefit directly from that spending. About 47 percent of visits to 

National Forests are from residents of the local area who are on day trips. Few local residents stay 

overnight on 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 

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

Visitors spend money in towns that are near National Forests for things like gasoline, food, lodging, and 

souvenirs. The spending segments differ markedly in the amount of money per party. In general, visitors 

who come from outside the local area spend more than do those who are from the local area. Those 

parties staying overnight off of National Forest lands spend more than those who spend the night 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 visitors spent about $11 billion in areas around National Forest System lands (Table 

15). Many downhill skiers are from outside the local area and are staying in off-forest lodging. As a 

result, downhill skiers account for slightly more than $3 billion in local spending. Visitors for wildliferelated recreation spend least as a group, 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 Grasslands contributes over $13 

billion to the US economy and sustains nearly 194,000 full-and part-time jobs.
- 24 -

Table 15. Visitor spending and associated economic effects of recreation visits to National Forest land,

for FY2008 - FY2012. 

Downhill Skiing 

Visits

Wildlife-Related 

Visits

Other Recreation 

Visits

TOTAL, ALL 

VISITS

Millions of 

National Forest 

Visits

22.9 23.4 114.7 161.0

Direct spending in 

local economies, 

(millions of 

$2012)

$3,217.6 $1,357.7 $6,392.7 $10,968.0

Total GDP 

contributions 

(millions of 

$2012)

$4,082.5 $1,382.8 $7,209.0 $12,674.3

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 most of them, it includes at 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 35 percent stay in hotels or 

lodges off the forest. About 21 percent camp at developed campgrounds on the National Forest, and 

about 11 percent camp in undeveloped areas of the forest.

Table 16. Visitor Trip Information, for FY2008 - FY2012.

Household Income

The income distribution of visitors to National Forests is varied (Figure 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 earning between $25,000 and $75,000 per year.

Item

Percent of visits 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 within 50

 miles of the forest

5.4

For those staying overnight within 50 miles of the forest, 

percent indicating each type of lodging

 NF campgrounds ON the National Forest 20.9

 Camping in 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, cabin, 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 National 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

Travel cost models of economic value must include some measure of substitute behavior. Almost half 

(49%) indicate that their substitute behavior choice is activity driven – that is, their substitute is going

elsewhere for same activity (Figure 10). A smaller percentage (18%) indicate they would come back 

later for the same activity. Very few (2%) said they would have gone to work instead. Visitors who said 

they would have gone somewhere else for recreation also indicated how far from their home this alternate 

destination was (Figure 11). The distribution of travel distances 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 behavior choices of National Forest visitors, for FY2008 - FY2012.

18%

10%

49%

17%

2% 4%

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 locations, 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 Neither

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 condition 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= Not Important 2= Somewhat Important 3= Moderately Important 4= Important 5 = Very Important
- 29 -

Table A-2. Satisfaction 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

Interpretive 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

Feeling 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 Dissatisfied = 1 Dissatisfied = 2 Neither = 3 Satisfied = 4 Very Satisfied = 5

** Scale is: 1= Not Important 2= Somewhat Important 3= Moderately Important 4= Important 5 = Very Important
- 30 -

Table A-3. Satisfaction of National Forest recreation visitors in Dispersed areas, for FY2008 - 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

Parking 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

Scenery 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 Satisfied = 4 Very Satisfied = 5

** Scale is: 1= Not Important 2= Somewhat Important 3= Moderately Important 4= Important 5 = Very Important
- 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 

condition

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

Parking 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= Not Important 2= Somewhat Important 3= Moderately Important 4= Important 5 = Very Important