Outdoor Recreation Trends and Futures

A Technical Document Supporting

the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment

H. Ken Cordell 
March 2012

Southern Research Station

200 W.T. Weaver Blvd.

Asheville, NC 28804

www.srs.fs.usda.gov

The	Author:		

H. Ken Cordell, Pioneering	Research	Scientist,	U .S .	Department	

of	Agriculture	Forest	Service,	Southern	Research	Station,	Forestry	

Sciences	Laboratory,	Athens,	GA	30602 .

This	national	assessment	report	is	one	of	several	U .S .	Department	of	Agriculture	Forest	

Service	reports	done	for	the	2010	Renewable	Resources	Planning	Act	Assessment .	

The	objectives	of	this	assessment	report	are	to	review	past	trends	in	outdoor	recreation	

participation	and	identify	whether	current	participation	trends	represent	a	departure	

from	trends	previously	reported .	The	intention	is	also	to	describe	in	detail	current	

outdoor	recreation	participation	patterns	and	compare	these	patterns	across	regional	

and	demographic	strata .	Further,	the	objectives	include	describing	recreation	activity	

participation	on	public	and	private	lands	and	providing	projections	of	outdoor	recreation	

participation	out	to	the	year	2060 .

H. Ken Cordell

Product Disclaimer 

The	use	of	trade	or	fi	rm	names	in	this	publication	is	for	

reader	information	and	does	not	imply	endorsement	by	the	

U .S .	Department	of	Agriculture	of	any	product	or	service .
Outdoor Recreation Trends 

and Futures:

A Technical Document 

Supporting the Forest Service 

2010 RPA Assessment

H. Ken Cordell

iii

Contents

Page

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. INTRODUCTION, OBJECTIVES, AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3. METHODS AND DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4. RECREATION PARTICIPATION TRENDS (NATIONAL AND REGIONAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Participation, Regional Distribution, and Trends in Wildlife-Related Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Tracking American Participation In Outdoor Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Trends in Developed Forest Camping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Geocaching: Form, Function, and Opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Wildlife Festivals in North America: Growth and Economic Importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

5. COMPARISON OF RECREATION PARTICIPATION PATTERNS ACROSS DEMOGRAPHIC, 

 REGION-OF-COUNTRY, AND NATURAL SETTING STRATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

A National Study of Constraints to Participation in Outdoor Recreational Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Latinos and Outdoor Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Examining Motivations for Outdoor Recreational Activity Across Multiple Setting Choices: A National Study . . . . . . 79

6. YOUTH TIME AND ACTIVITIES OUTDOORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Preserving the Hunting Heritage: Rise in Youth Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

7. RECREATION USE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Status and Trends in Hunting and Wildlife Watching on Public and Private Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Recreation on Private Forest land in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Tourism in Alaska: Past, Present, and Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

8. U.S. Outdoor Recreation Participation Projections to 2060 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

9. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Appendix Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
iv

List of Tables

Page

Table 2.1	 —	 2008 population for the four RPA regions and by race/ethnicity with percent change since 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 2.2	 —	 2008 population by RPA region and by age group with percent change since 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 4.1	 —	 Lifecycle of participation by age and gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 4.2	 —	Top influencers, motivations, and barriers among youth participants and non-participants in

outdoor recreation, in percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Table 4.3	 —	 Average outings per participant by ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table 4.4	 —	 Top outdoor activities by ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table 4.5	 —	Top influencers, motivations, and barriers among youth participants and non-participants in

outdoor recreation, by ethnicity, youth ages 6 to 17, in percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table 4.6	 —	Trends in number of people ages 16 and older participating in 27 outdoor recreation activities

by historic period in the United States, 1982 to 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Table 4.7	 —	Trends in number and percentage of people ages 16 and older participating in outdoor recreation

activities in 1999-2001 and 2005-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Table 4.8	 —	Trends in number and percentage of people ages 16 and older participating in outdoor recreation

activities in 1999-2001 and 2005-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 4.9	 —	Trends in number and percentage of people ages 16 and older participating in outdoor recreation

activities in 1999-2001 and 2005-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Table 4.10	—	Trends in number and percentage of people ages 16 and older participating in outdoor recreation

activities in 1999-2001 and 2005-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 4.11	—	 Mean and total annual days for activities adding more than 100 million participation days

between 1999-2001 and 2005-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table 4.12	—	 Mean and total annual days for activities adding between 20 and 100 million participation

days between 1999-2001 and 2005-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Table 4.13	—	 Mean and total annual days for activities adding fewer than 20 million participation days

between 1999-2001 and 2005-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 4.14	—	 Local expenditures resulting from wildlife festivals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Table 5.1	 —	 Percentage of participants and population, ratios of percentages, and statistical test results for

the activity group Visiting Recreation and Historic Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Table 5.2	 —	 Percentage of participants and population, ratios of percentages, and statistical test results for

the activity group Viewing and Photographing Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Table 5.3	 —	 Percentage of participants and population, ratios of percentages, and statistical test results for

the activity group Backcountry Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Table 5.4	 —	 Percentage of participants and population, ratios of percentages, and statistical test results for

the activity group Motorized Outdoor Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
v

Table 5.5	 —	 Percentage of participants and population, ratios of percentages, and statistical test results for

the activity group Hunting and Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Table 5.6	 —	 Percentage of participants and population, ratios of percentages, and statistical test results for

the activity group Non-motorized Boating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Table 5.7	 —	 Percentage of participants and population, ratios of percentages, and statistical test results for

the activity group Snow Skiing or Boarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Table 5.8	 —	 Summary of significant likelihood ratio test results for perceived constraints to favorite outdoor

recreation activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Table 5.9	 —	 Percentage of participants and population, ratios of percentages, and statistical test results for

seven activity groups and four regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Table 5.10	—	 Survey questions pertaining to people’s participation in their main outdoor recreational activity

in relation to their specific choice of settings and motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Table 5.11	—	 Post-hoc analysis to identify specific differences in mean motivational scores across different

types of settings, for the activity of walking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Table 5.12	—	 Millions of activity days for six groups of land-based activities that occurred in natural forest,

non-forest natural, and developed or other settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Table 6.1	 —	 Percent of youth ages 6 to 19 (with 95 percent confidence intervals) who spent different amounts

of time outdoors on typical weekdays and weekend days during the week just preceding the interview . . . . . . . 3

Table 6.2	 —	 Percent of youth ages 6 to 19 (with 95 percent confidence intervals) reporting spending less,

about the same, or more time outdoors this year than last . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Table 6.3	 —	 Amount of time youth spent outdoors on a typical weekday and weekend day during the past

week, by gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Table 6.4	 —	 Amount of time youth spent outdoors on a typical weekday and weekend day during the past

week, by age group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Table 6.5	 —	 Amount of time youth spend outdoors on a typical weekday and weekend day during the past

week, by race/ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Table 6.6	 —	 Amount of time youth spend outdoors on a typical weekday and weekend day during the past

week, by annual family income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Table 6.7	 —	 Percent of youth participating in outdoor activity during the past week, by type of activity and gender . . . . . . 87

Table 6.8	 —	 Percent of youth participating by type of outdoor activity and age group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Table 6.9	 —	 Percent of youth stating reason for not spending more time outdoors by gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Table 6.10	—	 Percent of youth stating reason for not spending more time outdoors by age group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Table 7.1	 —	 Percent and number of annual activity days on public and private properties, East and West 2005-2009 . . . . . 91

Table 7.2	 —	 Percent of public land hunters by type of game hunted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Table 7.3	 —	 Percent of away-from-home wildlife watching participants by ownership of area visited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Page
vi

Table 7.4	 —	 Percent of family forest land and owners in the United States by selected recent (past 5 years) activities . . . . . 97

Table 7.5	 —	 Percent and millions of annual activity days on public lands by region for 26 land based activities

in forest settings, in descending order of national total annual activity days, public and private . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Table 7.6	 —	 Millions of recreation visits to Federal agency sites by year, 1996 to 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Table 7.7	 —	 Millions of visits to state park system sites by region, 1992 to 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Table 8.1	 —	Base year 2008 number of participants used in outdoor recreation participation projection models,

by activity category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Table 8.2	 —	 Socioeconomic and supply variables used in outdoor recreation participation projection models . . . . . . . . . . 108

Table 8.3	 —	 Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 to 2060: Developed

site use—family gatherings, picnicking, or developed camping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Table 8.4	 —	 Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 to 2060: Visiting

interpretive sites nature centers, prehistoric sites, historic sites, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Table 8.5	 —	 Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 to 2060: Birding—	

viewing or photographing birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Table 8.6	 —	 Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 to 2060: Viewing

nature—viewing or photographing birds, other wildlife, natural scenery, flowers, etc. or gathering

mushrooms, berries, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Table 8.7	 —	 Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 to 2060: Challenge

activities—mountain climbing, rock climbing, or caving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Table 8.8	 —	 Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 to 2060: Equestrian

activities—horseback riding on trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Table 8.9	 —	 Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 to 2060: Day hiking . . . . . . . . . 115

Table 8.10	—	 Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 to 2060: Visiting

primitive areas—visiting a wilderness, primitive camping, or backpacking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Table 8.11	—	 Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 to 2060: Motorized

off-road activities—off-road driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Table 8.12	—	 Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 to 2060: Motorized

water use—motorboating, waterskiing, or using personal watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Table 8.13	—	 Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 to 2060: Motorized

snow use—snowmobiling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Table 8.14	—	 Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 to 2060: Hunting—	

screener variable for all hunting activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Table 8.15	—	 Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 to 2060: Fishing—	

coldwater fishing, warmwater fishing, saltwater fishing, or anadromous fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Table 8.16	—	 Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 to 2060:

Developed skiing—downhill skiing or snowboarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Page
vii

Table 8.17	—	 Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 to 2060:

Undeveloped skiing—cross-country skiing or snow shoeing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Table 8.18	—	 Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 to 2060:

Swimming activities—screener variable for swimming activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Table 8.19	—	 Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 to 2060:

Floating activities—canoeing, kayaking, or rafting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Table 9.1	 —	 Number of participants in 2008 and projected range of percent growth by 2060 across the

three RPA scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Appendix Table 1	—	Trends in millions of people ages 16 and older participating in 33 outdoor recreation

activities by historic period in the United States, 1982 to 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Appendix Table 2	—	 Percent participating and number of participants ages 16 and older in outdoor recreation

activities by region, 2005-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Appendix Table 3	—	Trends in outdoor recreation activity participation of people ages 16 and older in the

United States with sample size and 95 percent confidence limits, 1994-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Appendix Table 4	—	 Mean and total annual days of participation in outdoor recreation activities by people

ages 16 and older by region, 2005-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Appendix Table 5	—	Trends in outdoor recreation annual activity days by people ages 16 and older in the

United States with sample size and 95 percent confidence limits, 1994-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Appendix Table 6	—	 Percent participating in recreation activity group individual activities by demographic strata . . . . . . . 150

Appendix Table 7	—	 Millions of individual annual activity days of land-based activities that occurred in

natural forest, non-forest natural, and developed or other settings by region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Appendix Table 8	—	 Percent of youth ages 6 to 19 (with 95 percent confidence intervals) reporting spending

less, about the same, or more time outdoors this year than last, by gender and age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Appendix Table 9	—	 Percent and number of annual activity days that occurred on public and private lands in

forest settings by region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Page
viii

List of Figures

Page

Figure 2.1	 —	 People per square mile by county in the contiguous United States, 2008. Source: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 2.2	 —	 Percent change in Hispanic population by county in the contiguous United States, 1990-2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 2.3	 —	 Percent change in non-Hispanic white population by county in the contiguous United States, 1990-2008 . . . 11

Figure 2.4	 —	Change in the number of people per square mile by county in the contiguous United States, 1990-2008 . . . . 12

Figure 4.1	 —	 Hunting participation by type of hunting (Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in millions) . . . . . . 18

Figure 4.2	 —	 Percent of population that hunts by region (National participation rate: 5 percent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 4.3	 —	 Hunting participation: 1996-2006 (Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in millions) . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 4.4	 —	 Fishing participation: 2006 (Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in millions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 4.5	 —	 Percent of population that fishes by region (National participation rate: 13 percent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 4.6	 —	 Fishing participation: 1996-2006 (Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in millions) . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 4.7	 —	Wildlife watching participation: 2006 (Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in millions) . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 4.8	 —	 Percent of around-the-home wildlife watchers by region (National participation rate: 30 percent) . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 4.9	 —	 Percent of away-from-home wildlife watchers by region (National participation rate: 10 percent) . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 4.10	—	Wildlife watching: 1996-2006 (Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in millions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 4.11	—	 Participation in outdoor recreation by age, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 4.12	—	 Participation in gateway activities, 2006-2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 4.13	—	 Participation in multiple outdoor activities vs. participation in one outdoor activity among

participants in the gateway activities-contagious effect of gateway activities, all Americans,

ages 6 and older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 4.14	—	 Youth participation in outdoor recreation by age and gender, 2006-2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 4.15	—	 Outdoor participants by ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 4.16	—	Total number of people participating in top five fastest growing activities, 1999-2001 and 2005-2009 . . . . . . 36

Figure 4.17	—	 Millions of participants in four outdoor recreation activities in three periods (1994-1995,

1999-2001, and 2005-2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Figure 4.18	—	 Millions of total annual days for five high-growth outdoor activities, 1999-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Figure 4.19	—	Indexed moving average of total activity days for activities associated with visiting recreation

or historic sites, 2000-2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Figure 4.20	—	Indexed moving average of total activity days for viewing and photographing nature activities,

2000-2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figure 4.21	—	 Indexed moving average of total activity days for backcountry activities for year 2000 to 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
ix

Figure 4.22	—	 Indexed moving average of total activity days for motorized activities, 2000-2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Figure 4.23	—	 Indexed moving average of total activity days for hunting and fishing, activities, 2000-2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 4.24	—	Indexed moving average of total activity days for non-motorized boating activities, 2000-2008 . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 4.25	—	Indexed moving average of total activity days for snow skiing and boarding activities, 2000-2008 . . . . . . . . 49

Figure 4.26	—	Indexed moving average of total activity days for seven composites of nature-based activities,

2000-2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Figure 4.27	—	 Growth in number of people age 16 and older and number of annual participation days in 60

outdoor recreation activities in the United States, 2000-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Figure 4.28	—	 Growth in number of people age 16 and older and number of annual participation days in 50

nature-based outdoor recreation activities in the United States, 2000-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Figure 6.1	 —	 Five activities with highest participation rates by youth 6 to 19 years of age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Figure 6.2	 —	 Trends in youth hunting, girls and boys age 6 to 15 years old . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Figure 7.1	 —	 Percent of hunters by land ownership where hunting occurs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Figure 7.2	 —	 Percent of away-from-home wildlife watchers by land ownership where activity occurs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Figure 7.3	 —	 Family-owned forests by percent of owners and size of area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Figure 7.4	 —	 Reasons landowners own land by percent of owners and area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Figure 7.5	 —	 Indexed Federal and State visitation trends for the United States, 1996-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Figure 7.6	 —	 Alaska visitor volume, May 2008-April 2009 by exit mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Figure 7.7	 —	 Alaska cruise ship visitation, 1994-2009, in thousands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Figure 8.1	 —	 Adult population growth from 2008 to 2060 by RPAAssessment scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Figure 8.2	 —	 NSRE average household income growth from 2008 to 2060 by RPAAssessment scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Figure 8.3	 —	 Top five activities by percent growth in projected number of participants and scenario, 2008-2060 . . . . . . . 122

Figure 8.4	 —	Bottom five activities by percent growth in projected number of participants and scenario, 2008-2060 . . . . 123

Figure 9.1	 —	 Growth in number of people age 16 and older and number of annual participation days in 50

nature-based outdoor recreation activities in the United States, 2000-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Page

When viewed through the lens of historical context, the first

overriding trend seems clear. What people now choose to

do for outdoor recreation is very noticeably different from

choices made by and available to previous generations of

Americans. The mix of outdoor activities and their relative

popularity are different now than at any time in the past. 

For example, fishing and hunting are often thought of as

widely popular, “traditional” outdoor activities. While still

somewhat popular, participation in these activities generally

has been declining, and they are being replaced by other

activities, such as wildlife or bird watching and photography.

A second overall trend for outdoor recreation, including

nature-based recreation, is growth, even though some

traditional activities have been in decline. In looking at

participation trends, we examined the overall trend across

a list of 60 outdoor activities. Between 2000 and 2009, the

total number of people who participated in one or more

of these 60 grew by 7.5 percent, and the total number of

activity days of participation increased over 32 percent. 

Within this list of 60 outdoor activities, 50 natured-based

activities were examined. There was discernible growth in

nature-based recreation between 2000 and 2009. The total

ABSTRACT

This publication presents a national study of outdoor recreation trends

as part of the 2010 Renewable Resources Planning Act Assessment by

the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. The objectives are

to review past trends in outdoor recreation participation by Americans,

to describe in detail current outdoor recreation participation patterns,

and to compare patterns across regional and demographic strata. Further

objectives include describing recreation activity participation on public and

private lands and providing projections of outdoor recreation participation

out to the year 2060. One overriding national trend is quite evident: the

mix of outdoor activities chosen by Americans and the relative popularity

of activities overall have been evolving over the last several decades. 

One general category of activity that has been showing growth in the first

decade of the 21st century is nature-based recreation. Between 2000 and

2009, the number of people who participated in nature-based outdoor

recreation grew by 7.1 percent and the number of activity days grew about

40 percent. Among types of nature-based recreation, motorized activities

showed growth up to about 2005, but then ended up toward the end of

the 2000-2009 decade at about the same level as in 2000. The trend in

hunting, fishing, and backcountry activities remained relatively flat during

this period. Various forms of skiing, including snowboarding, declined

during this decade. The clear growth area was within the overall group of

activities oriented toward viewing and photographing nature. Generally,

outdoor recreation activities are projected to grow in number of participants

out to 2060. Population growth is projected to be the primary driver of

growth in number of adult participants under each Resources Planning

Act Assessment scenario. The top five activities in terms of growth of

number of participants are developed skiing, other skiing, challenge

activities, equestrian activities, and motorized water activities. The lowest

rates of participant growth are visiting primitive areas, motorized off-road

activities, motorized snow activities, hunting, fishing, and floating water

activities. At the same time, a number of activities are projected to decline

in per-capita adult participation rates. 

Keywords: Nature-based recreation, outdoor recreation, recreation

projections, recreation trends, recreation visitation, 2010 RPAAssessment.

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This national assessment describes the status and trends in

outdoor recreation participation across the United States. 

Tracking these trends is especially important because of the

large role outdoor recreation plays in American lifestyles,

and because of the large investments and management

responsibilities of both the public and private sectors as

providers of recreation opportunities.

Outdoor Recreation Trends and Futures:

A Technical Document Supporting the 

Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment

H. Ken Cordell

Viewing, photographing, or otherwise observing nature has been 

the fastest-growing type of nature-based recreation. Here, amateur 

photographers line up at Yosemite National Park’s Tunnel View in 

August 2005. (Photo courtesy of James G. Lewis) 
2

Executive Summary

among males, Whites, Native Americans, people under 55

years, people well-educated with higher incomes, and rural

residents. Participation in hunting, fishing and motorized

outdoor activities was higher among rural, non-Hispanic

White males with middle-to-high incomes. Non-motorized

boating activities and skiing/snowboarding participation

tended to be greater for younger, non-Hispanic White urban

males with higher incomes and education levels. 

The fifth overall trend, despite some assertions to the

contrary, shows evidence that America’s youth do spend

time outdoors, and that for some it is substantial. Some of

that time is for outdoor recreation. From the National Kids

Survey, we found that approximately 64 percent of youth

ages 6 to19 reported spending two or more hours outdoors

on a typical weekday, and over three-fourths reported two

or more hours outdoors on typical weekend days. One half

of kids surveyed reported spending as much as four or

more hours outdoors on a typical weekend day. Less than

five percent spent no time outdoors on either weekdays or

weekend days. Regarding time spent outdoors relative to last

year, across the entire sample of both boys and girls, only

15 percent reported spending less time, 44 percent reported

spending about the same time, and 41 percent estimated

spending more time outdoors this year than last.

During time outdoors, the NSRE provided data indicating

that the youth outdoor activity with the highest participation

rate was that of “just hanging out or playing outdoors.” The

second highest participation activity, with 80 percent youth

participation, was being physically active by participating in

biking, jogging, walking, skate boarding, or similar activity. 

Playing music or using other electronic devices outdoors

was the third highest participation activity, followed by

playing or practicing team sports and reading/studying

outdoors. From the National Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation Survey, we observed that the number

of girls ages 6 to 15 years who hunt has nearly doubled

between 1991 and 2006, and the number of boy hunters of

that age stayed about level. However, as clearly shown by

the national survey done by the Outdoor Foundation and

the National Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated

Recreation surveys, the number of youth participating in the

outdoor activities they track may be declining.

The sixth trend shows that public lands continue to be highly

important for the recreation opportunities they offer. The

percentage of population participating in visiting recreation

and historic sites on public land is substantial in both the

East (60 percent of annual days) and the West (69 percent). 

In the West, slightly more than 60 percent of viewing and

photographing nature activity occurs on public land. In both

number of people who participated in one or more of these

50 nature-based activities grew by 7.1 percent, and number

of activity days grew about 40 percent. 

A third clear trend is that there is growth in the overall

group of nature-based activities named “viewing and

photographing nature.” Nature-based outdoor activities from

the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment

(NSRE) were organized into seven groups and analyzed

between two time periods within the first decade of this

century. Substantial growth occurred in both participants and

annual days for five nature-based viewing and photography

activities: viewing birds, other wildlife (besides birds), fish,

wildflowers/trees and other vegetation, and natural scenery. 

Visiting recreation and historic sites and non-motor boating

showed moderate growth in total activity days. Three of the

other activity groups—hunting and fishing, backcountry

activities, and motorized activities—ended up toward the

end of this decade at about the same level of participation

as in 2000, while various forms of skiing, including

snowboarding, declined in total days. 

A fourth overall observed trend is that different segments

of society chose different types and levels of participation

in different mixes of outdoor activities. We found that

visiting recreation or historic sites was significantly higher

among non-Hispanic Whites, late teenagers, middle-aged

people, people with some college to completion of advanced

degrees, higher income people, and the foreign born. 

Viewing and photographing nature was higher among people

with higher education, higher incomes, non-Hispanic Whites,

people ages 35 to 54, those having some college to post

graduate education, and those earning more than $50,000 per

year. For backcountry activities, participation was highest

Viewing and photographing natural scenery. (Photo courtesy of 

Babs McDonald)
3

Executive Summary

and to get away from the everyday demands of life. For

walking, the motivations are to be outdoors, to contribute to

health, physical exercise, or training, and to get away from

the demands of everyday life.

The final, and perhaps as important of any other trends

described in this report, is our analysis of where future

trends might take us in terms of per capita participation

and of total number of participants. The five activities

projected to grow fastest in per capita participation over

the next 50 years are developed skiing (20 to 50 percent),

undeveloped skiing (9 to 31 percent), challenge activities

(6 to 18 percent increase), equestrian activities (3 to

19 percent), and motorized water activities (-3 to 15

percent). The activities projected to decline in per capita

adult participation rates include visiting primitive areas

(-5 to 0 percent), motorized off-road activities (-18 to 0

percent), motorized snow activities (-11 to 2 percent),

hunting (-31 to -22 percent), fishing (-10 to -3 percent), and

floating activities (-11 to 3 percent). Growth of per capita

participation rates for the remaining activities will either

hover around zero or grow minimally.

The five activities projected to grow the most in terms of

number of participants are developed skiing (68 to 147

percent), undeveloped skiing (55 to 106 percent), challenge

activities (50 to 86 percent), equestrian activities (44 to 87

percent), and motorized water activities (41 to 81 percent). 

The activities with the lowest growth in participant numbers

are visiting primitive areas (33 to 65 percent), motorized offroad activities (29 to 56 percent), motorized snow activities

(25 to 61 percent), hunting (8 to 23 percent), fishing (27 to

56 percent), and floating activities (30 to 62 percent). While

activities currently having high participation levels may not

show large percentage increases in participant numbers,

even small percentage increases in already highly popular

activities can mean quite large increases in participants. 

Generally, all of the 17 outdoor recreation activities

examined in “U.S. Outdoor Recreation Participation

Projections to 2060” of this report are projected to grow in

the number of participants out to 2060, under each of the

three Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning

Act (RPA) Assessment scenarios.

A General Observation

This assessment points out that what people now choose

to do for outdoor recreation is different from previous

generations of Americans. It also points out that outdoor

recreation, including nature-based recreation, is growing

and is likely to continue to grow. But because Americans’

recreation choices are changing, growth is and will likely

the East and West, around three-fourths of backcountry

activity occurs on public lands. In the East, 43 percent of

hunting occurs on public forest lands, while in the West

that figure is 57 percent. The majority of cross-country

skiing—57 percent of annual days in the East and 67 percent

in the West—is estimated to occur on public lands. In the

East, days of activity on private land across the six activity

groups ranges from a low of 28 percent for backcountry

activities to a high of 57 percent for hunting. Motorized land

activity in the East follows closely with 54 percent of annual

days occurring on private lands. When family or individual

owners were asked specifically about recreation on their

land, a third of the owners, who control just over half of the

family forest land in the United States, reported that they,

their family, and/or friends have recently—within the past 5

years—recreated on their land. A far smaller percentage of

private forest land was open to the general public. 

From the National Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation Survey, estimates were produced

showing that 39 percent of hunters used public lands,

while 82 percent used privately owned lands. For wildlife

watchers, publicly owned lands were the most popular

destinations for observing, feeding, or photographing. Just

38 percent of wildlife watchers visited private areas. About

27 percent of trip-taking wildlife watchers visited both

public and private land.

The seventh trend highlights visitation to public land. 

Visits to various units of the National Park System have

been relatively stable, while visitation at National Wildlife

Refuges and other areas managed by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service has shown fairly steady growth. Visitation

at Bureau of Land Management areas has been relatively

stable over the years, while visitation to national forests has

been declining. State park visitation grew pretty steadily

from 1992 up through 2000 then declined until 2005. Since

2005, State park visitation increased through 2008 before

dipping again in 2009.

The eighth trend concerns a national study of constraints

to participation and indicated that some segments of our

society feel more constrained than others. A national study

of motivations showed that there are different reasons why

people seek different forms of outdoor recreation. Over all

societal segments, the most important motivations for hiking

are to be outdoors, to experience nature, to get away from

the demands of everyday life, and to have physical exercise

or training. For camping, the most important motivations

are to be outdoors, to get away from the everyday demands

of life, and to experience nature. For sightseeing, the most

important motivations are to be with family, to be outdoors,
4

Executive Summary

The challenge for the United States, for States, and for land

managers will be to maintain the integrity of natural places

to the maximum extent possible.

2. INTRODUCTION, OBJECTIVES, AND 

ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT

The 2010 Resources Planning Act Assessment 

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning

Act (RPA) of 1974 mandates a periodic assessment of the

condition and trends of the Nation’s renewable resources. 

The RPA assessment provides a snapshot of current

U.S. forest and rangeland conditions and trends on all

ownerships, identifies drivers of change, and projects 50

years into the future. Analyses of the status and trends for

recreation, water, timber, wildlife (biodiversity), urban forest

and range resources, as well as land use change and climate

change, are included. 

2010 RPA Assessment Scenarios—Future renewable

resource conditions are influenced by common driving

forces such as population change, economic growth, and

land use change, while other drivers of change are unique to

individual resources. The purpose of scenarios in the RPA

assessment is to characterize the common demographic,

socioeconomic, and technological driving forces underlying

changes in resource condition, and to evaluate the sensitivity

of resource trends to a feasible future range of these driving

forces. The use of scenarios links underlying assumptions

of the individual analyses and frames the future uncertainty

in these driving forces within the integrated modeling and

analysis framework of the 2010 RPA assessment. 

Three scenarios were chosen that are linked to globallyconsistent and well-documented scenarios used in the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4th

Assessment (AR4) (IPCC 2007). The scenarios include a

range of future global and U.S. socioeconomic and climate

conditions that are likely to have different effects on

future U.S. resource conditions and trends. The IPCC AR4

scenario designations have been maintained in the 2010 RPA

assessment documentation for continuity: A1B, A2, and B2. 

The IPCC AR4 global data were scaled to the U.S. national

level and subnational levels to facilitate the resources

analyses for the 2010 RPA assessment. U.S. gross domestic

product and population projections used in AR4 analyses

were updated, and U.S. population and disposable personal

income data were then downscaled to the U.S. county

level (Zarnoch and others 2010). The associated climate

be spread across a different mix of activities, relative to

one, two, or five decades ago, and in the future relative to

today. Out of this changing mix we observed growth in

nature-based recreation, especially viewing, photographing,

or otherwise appreciating nature. This group of activities

includes viewing birds, other wildlife (besides birds), fish,

other natural vegetation, and natural scenery. Visiting

recreation and historic sites and non-motor boating (e.g.,

kayaking) also showed moderate growth during the past

decade. Adaptive management of public lands will be

essential as change emerges in the future. It seems as if

a current emphasis on venues for the public to see and

appreciate nature could be a primary focus. Orienting

overnight and day-use sites on public lands to emphasize

nature viewing, photography, and study would seem to be an

appropriate strategy.

Our projections for trends indicated that outdoor recreation

choices will continue to grow and change in the future. 

Our changing demographics, lifestyles, reliance on digital

technologies, economic fluctuations (e.g., from rapid growth

in the 1990s to recession in the last half of the 2000s),

changing landscape and natural land base, globalization, and

many other changes will continue to drive changes in outdoor

recreation. These changes will be important for public

lands, e.g., Federal lands and State parks. The five activities

projected to have the highest percentage growth in number

of participants are developed skiing, undeveloped skiing,

challenge activities, equestrian activities, and motorized

water activities. At the same time, the lowest percentage

growth in participant numbers is projected to be visiting

primitive areas, motorized off-road activities, motorized

snow activities, hunting, fishing, and floating activities. All

of these activities very much depend on public lands. If these

projections fairly well depict the future, how public lands

are used for recreation will change over the next 50 years. 

Access for activities such as snow skiing, rock climbing,

and horseback riding may rise in importance relative to

other activities. Access for off-road and snowmobile driving,

hunting, and fishing may decline in relative importance.

Drawing implications from our findings for all combinations

of location in the country, kinds of private sector association,

and types of public land is not straightforward; the iterations

are too numerous. We recommend careful study of our

findings with consideration of each State’s situation and

of each land management entity’s authorities in order to

interpret what the emerging and forecast changes will

mean. Certainly the implications for an eastern State with

little public land will differ from a western one which is

made up mostly of public land. What is clear is that people

appreciate nature and desire to experience it in many ways. 
5

seems to be growing popularity. Some outdoor recreation

activities have even demonstrated rather strong popularity

growth. One such activity is visiting wilderness and other

primitive areas (Cordell and others 2008).

Because trends in nature-based and other outdoor recreation

have far reaching implications, a close look at those trends

and projected futures is important. Historical perspective is

offered to help understand how today’s trends differ from

the past. This contrast can provide insights for possible

needs for adjustments in forest, other natural resource,

and public land management programs and policies. This

report offers the only public agency-sponsored long range

forecasting of recreation demand for the United States.

Outdoor and Nature-Based Recreation Defined

Godbey (1985) has defined “leisure” as “Living in relative

freedom from the external compulsive forces of one's culture

and physical environment so as to be able to act ... in ways

which are personally pleasing, intuitively worthwhile, and

provide a basis for faith.” This definition of leisure is widely

accepted and its author deeply respected by scholars in

the leisure and recreation fields worldwide. Generally, it is

agreed upon that recreation occurs during leisure and that

recreation is activity that is done for the personal pleasure

it provides. “Outdoor recreation” is recreation activity done

out-of-doors, which can, of course, take many forms. Those

many forms occur with different activities, settings, social

engagements, equipment, and times which are chosen by the

recreation participant. “Nature-based outdoor recreation” is

defined as outdoor activities in natural settings or otherwise

involving in some direct way elements of nature—terrain,

plants, wildlife, water bodies, and even celestial bodies

(Cordell 2008). Recreation and nature-based recreation can

be physically active or sedentary. Nature-based recreation

activities as referred to in this report include the following

groups of activities:

•	 Visiting recreation and historic sites—visiting the

beach, visiting prehistoric sites, visiting historic sites,

developed camping, swimming in lakes/ponds/etc.,

visiting waterside besides beach

•	 Viewing/photographing nature—viewing/photographing

birds, viewing/photographing natural scenery, viewing/

photographing other wildlife (besides birds), viewing/

photographing wildflowers/trees/etc., viewing/

photographing fish, visiting nature centers/etc.,

sightseeing, gathering mushrooms/berries/etc., taking

tours or excursions on boats

•	 Backcountry activities—backpacking, day hiking,

horseback riding on trails, mountain climbing, visiting

scenario output from several global circulation models were

downscaled to the county level of resolution (Joyce and

others, in press).

2010 RPA Assessment of Outdoor Recreation 

Trends and Futures

Working within the national RPA framework, this RPA

assessment research provides a nationwide overview

of outdoor recreation participation in the United States. 

Recreation and protected land resources will be covered in

other reports to be published in the near future. A related

RPA report will be published that provides descriptions and

projections of the movement or migration of people to areas

and regions of the United States rich in natural amenities,

such as rivers, shorelines, and mountains.

This report provides an extensive overview of outdoor

recreation participation, regional variation in participation,

and differences in participation by demographic groups. 

We emphasize nature-based outdoor recreation and the

natural amenity values driving these activities. Throughout

this report, invited papers are included to add contextual

dimension. 

There has been considerable recent interest in better

understanding trends in nature-based and other outdoor

recreation (Cordell 2008). In an earlier national report,

“Outdoor Recreation for 21st Century America,” we reported

that Americans’ participation in outdoor activities, including

nature-based recreation activities, had been increasing

through the early part of the 2000s. There were observed

declines in a few activities (Cordell and others 2004). 

These declines seemed to signal changes in Americans’

outdoor recreation that had not been seen in the decades

following World War II. However, since the first nationwide

assessment of outdoor recreation trends (ORRRC 1962),

almost all forms of outdoor activity and public land

visitation were observed to be growing.

Jacobs and Manfredo (2008) also noted decreases in some

forms of outdoor recreation, but they noted that other forms

were showing growth. They concluded that there seems to

be a shift in peoples’ patterns of outdoor involvement, but

not necessarily an overall decrease. Cordell (2008) also

observed that there seem to be some shifts in the making:

Both the National Survey on Recreation and the

Environment (NSRE) and the National Survey on

Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation

show that participation in some nature-based activities

has declined. However, for many other activities there

Introduction, Objectives, and Organization of this Report
6

Introduction, Objectives, and Organization of this Report

The release of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review

Commission Report in 1962 set off a chain of initiatives

that redefined national and state policies and programs on

outdoor recreation. As a direct result of the ORRRC studies,

Congress passed a series of acts that included establishment

of the National Wilderness Preservation System, the

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, the National

Trails System, and a system of National Recreation Areas. 

Legislation funded acquisition of recreation land under the

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCF) of 1965. 

Since then, LWCF has provided funding for Federal, State,

and local governments for thousands of recreation projects

and land purchases nationwide.

Among the many benefits of the ORRRC was stimulation

of research on outdoor recreation trends, visitors to public

lands, impacts of use on recreation resources, economic

impacts of recreation-based tourism, travel patterns,

recreation technology trends, and many other topics. 

Federal agencies, universities, and some States established

recreation research programs which led to recreation

curricula for professional study. Another benefit of the

ORRRC was the establishment of the National Recreation

Survey. This was an ongoing research project through the

early 1980s that was housed in the U.S. Department of the

Interior. As described later in this report, this national survey

has been continued in various forms over the years since

1960, and was renamed the National Survey on Recreation

and the Environment in the early 1990s.

Also as a result of the ORRRC, the Department of the

Interior conducted studies in support of a published series

of Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plans. Each State

conducted similar studies and published its own Statewide

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). The

nationwide plans ended in the early 1980s, but SCORPs

have continued to today.

The ORRRC created the impetus for establishing a

number of Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

research projects at various locations around the country. 

These projects were responsible for funding, stimulating,

conducting, and publishing literally many hundreds of

science studies across the country. In 1974, Congress

passed the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Planning Act, which mandated the Forest Service to conduct

decennial nationwide assessments of the status and futures

of forest and range resources. These assessments were and

are conducted by the research arm of the Forest Service. 

This outdoor recreation report represents a continuation

of the outdoor recreation portion of the mandated RPA

Assessments. The first Outdoor Recreation Assessment,

a wilderness or primitive area, primitive camping,

mountain biking, caving, rock climbing, orienteering

•	 Motorized activities—motorboating, off-highway

vehicle driving, snowmobiling, using personal

watercraft, waterskiing

•	 Hunting and fishing—anadromous fishing (salt-to-freshwater migratory fish, e.g., salmon), coldwater fishing,

warmwater fishing, saltwater fishing, big game hunting,

small game hunting, and migratory bird hunting

•	 Non-motor boating and diving—canoeing, kayaking,

rafting, rowing, sailing, surfing, windsurfing, snorkeling,

scuba diving

•	 Snow skiing and other winter activities—cross-country

skiing, downhill skiing, snowboarding, snowshoeing,

ice fishing

Historical Importance of Outdoor Recreation in 

American Society 

The agrarian way of life in the early part of the 19th

century, and in earlier centuries, meant that the majority of

people in the United States worked outside and had little

desire to spend their leisure time outdoors. After the Great

Depression and World War II, however, outdoor recreation

became a more prominent part of American life. Americans

in larger numbers shifted to manufacturing and other

forms of livelihood. With shifting work lives and rapid

advances in communication and transportation technology,

especially the mass production of affordable automobiles,

Americans took to the open road to see and experience

“the great outdoors.” This led to mounting pressures on

recreation facilities and most public lands. Pressures from

recreation demand were being recognized in the 1950s

when Congress passed legislation to set up a commission

that would conduct the first nationwide study of outdoor

recreation resources and demand for them. This commission

was named the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review

Commission (ORRRC). The ORRRC was established in

1958 and charged to look in depth at present and future

outdoor recreation trends.

The scale and depth of the work undertaken by the ORRRC,

and the many researchers, policy analysts, management

professionals, writers, and citizens affiliated with it were

outstanding. Releasing its findings in early 1962, the

ORRRC and its 27 comprehensive reports stimulated an

unprecedented national movement to create more recreation

opportunities in the United States (ORRRC 1962). One of

the studies the ORRRC commissioned was a nationwide

recreation participation survey. Administered in 1960, this

was the first of this nation’s outdoor recreation participation

surveys, called the National Recreation Survey (NRS). 
7

Introduction, Objectives, and Organization of this Report

A Brief Overview of the People of the United States

This report concerns outdoor recreation demand by the

population of the United States. It seems appropriate that

we briefly examine the characteristics and trends of this

country’s population. Some of the tables show population

statistics by region. Regions include: North—Connecticut,

Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,

Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia,

Wisconsin; South—Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina,

Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia;

Rocky Mountains—Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas,

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,

South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming; and Pacific Coast—Alaska,

California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington.

The race/ethnicity composition across the regions of the

country, and the change in the composition between 1990

and 2008, are summarized in table 2.1. Race and ethnicity

are important determinants of what people chose as outdoor

recreation activities and settings. It is quite obvious that

the race/ethnicity makeup of the U.S. population has been

changing dramatically in the 18 years leading up to 2008

and since the 1990 Census. Although all races have been

growing in number, Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander

components of the population generally have been growing

fastest. Numbers of non-Hispanic Whites have been growing

slowly. By region, the greatest percent growth has been

in the Rocky Mountains; the least growth has been in the

North. The greatest percentage growth of a region’s race

group has been Asian or Pacific Islanders in the Rocky

Mountain Region, with near identical growth in the South. 

There was loss of population of non-Hispanic Whites in the

North and Pacific Coast Regions.

Similar to race/ethnicity, people’s age also affects

recreation choices. Like other demographic aspects, the

age distribution of the U.S. population has been changing

over time, as table 2.2 shows. Nationally, the fastest

growing age group since 1990 (in percent) has been ages

44 to 54 and 55 to 64, in descending order. The next fastest

growing is the age group 65 and older. Age group 44 to 54

is the fastest growing age group in all regions. There has

been a decline in age group 25 to 34 nationally, driven by

steep population declines in this age group in the North

and Pacific Coast Regions. There has also been a decline

in people ages 10 and younger in the North. The fastest

growth of people ages 10 and younger has been in the

Rocky Mountain Region. 

done in 1975, was published by the Forest Service in 1978

(USDA Forest Service 1978). Subsequent national RPA

Assessments of Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness were

completed in 1980, 1990, and 2000, with 5-year interim

updates in 1985, 1995, and 2005. This will represent the fifth

nationwide assessment as mandated by RPA.

Following about 25 years after the ORRRC, the President’s

Commission on Americans Outdoors (PCAO) was

established to revisit the overall status and trends in outdoor

recreation in America. The PCAO released its nationwide

report in December of 1986 (PCAO 1986). An overall

conclusion of the PCAO was that greater attention was

needed for providing outdoor recreation opportunities in

and near cities and towns where a greater proportion of

the population lived. The report provided a framework for

national action and recommended a number of initiatives,

including identification and protection of natural areas,

more recreation sites close to urban areas, establishment

of a network of scenic highways, building an outdoor

ethic, involvement of students in outdoor activities, better

environmental laws, establishment of an outdoor corps, and

more involvement by the private sector. 

In 2007, organizational efforts began for a nationwide

study as a follow up to the PCAO’s work of the 1980s. Vast

overall societal change, huge population growth, rapidly

changing technological lifestyles of Americans, and urban

development on a massive scale seemed to mean a different

relationship with the outdoors. In response, the Outdoor

Resources Review Group (ORRG) was created to take

another broad scale look at natural resources and outdoor

recreation. In September 2009, the ORRG released its

nationwide report entitled “The State of the Great Outdoors”

(ORRG 2009). The ORRG report concluded that outdoor

recreation in the United States is shifting. For example,

more women are participating in outdoor activities now

than in the past. Hunting and fishing seem to have declined

in popularity over the past several years. Nature-based

activities such as viewing, studying, and photographing

birds and wildlife have gained in popularity. Mountain

climbing, backpacking, and rock climbing, among others,

have also gained as popular activities. Still, some of the

traditional outdoor activities, including picnicking, hiking,

team sports, tennis, and bicycling are widely popular. From

the studies of the ORRG and of others throughout the 1990s

and into the first years of this decade and new century, it

is very clear that Americans’ outdoor recreation has been

changing at a very rapid rate, and in dramatic ways. This

assessment of outdoor recreation will examine these changes

and present forecasts of the future.
8

Introduction, Objectives, and Organization of this Report

Table 2.1—2008 population for the four RPA regions and by race/ethnicity with percent change since 1990 

Race/ 

Ethnicity North 

Percent 

change South 

Percent 

change 

Rocky 

Mountains 

Percent 

change 

Pacific 

Coast 

Percent 

change 

United 

States 

Percent 

change 

thousands thousands thousands thousands thousands

White 92,246.8 -0.2 63,478.5 14.0 19,479.6 25.3 24,286.6 -1.4 199,491.5 5.9

African 

American 14,780.5 18.7 18,866.8 35.4 952.9 69.4 2,571.6 8.9 37,171.8 26.8

American 

Indian 416.7 23.2 704.0 36.4 768.9 38.3 439.3 13.7 2,329.0 29.6

Asian or 

Pacific 

Islander 4,670.3 116.4 2,481.3 170.6 690.5 171.1 5,830.2 59.0 13,672.3 95.4

Two or more 

races 1,492.0 – 1,261.5 – 426.6 – 1,271.6 – 4,451.7 –

Latino or 

Hispanic 10,761.7 94.6 16,013.4 143.2 5,497.2 157.8 14,671.3 80.4 46,943.6 109.8

Total 124,368.0 10.1 102,805.6 32.5 27,815.7 46.0 49,070.4 25.2 304,059.7 22.2

Missing data are denoted with “–”. 

Note: Hispanics may be of any race, but are included in the Latino or Hispanic category only. Percent change for two or more races 

is missing because U.S. citizens could not select more than one until the 2000 Census. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2008), 2008 population estimates and 1990 Census of Population and Housing. 

Table 2.2—2008 population by RPA region and by age group with percent change since 1990 

Age group North 

Percent 

change South 

Percent 

change 

Rocky 

Mtns. 

Percent 

change 

Pacific 

Coast 

Percent 

change 

United 

States 

Percent 

change 

thousands thousands thousands thousands thousands

Under 6 9,503.9 -3.0 8,825.9 27.1 2,555.8 37.7 4,196.7 10.4 25,082.3 12.0 

Age 6-10 7,793.1 -1.2 6,939.6 21.7 1,941.7 24.1 3,222.9 11.4 19,897.3 10.2 

Age 11-15 8,206.8 10.9 6,864.0 27.6 1,897.9 34.5 3,377.4 31.9 20,346.1 21.5 

Age 16-24 15,645.9 3.7 12,740.3 19.2 3,544.3 41.8 6,442.8 18.6 38,373.4 13.8 

Age 25-34 15,928.0 -17.6 14,037.8 5.6 3,965.7 22.7 7,000.0 -4.3 40,931.6 -5.2 

Age 35-44 17,416.9 2.7 14,349.8 25.2 3,679.9 28.7 7,054.5 14.4 42,501.1 13.5 

Age 44-54 18,933.9 63.2 14,586.3 86.8 3,861.1 111.2 6,990.7 82.6 44,372.1 77.0 

Age 55-64 14,246.1 42.1 11,307.9 71.4 2,989.5 96.1 5,142.7 73.3 33,686.2 59.5 

Age 65+ 16,693.5 12.4 13,153.9 35.2 3,379.6 48.6 5,642.7 33.6 38,869.7 25.0 

Total 124,368 10.1 102,805 32.5 27,815.7 46.0 49,070.4 25.2 304,059.0 22.2 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2008), 2008 population estimates and 1990 Census of Population and Housing. 
9

Introduction, Objectives, and Organization of this Report

through the upper Midwest and through Arizona, Utah, and

Wyoming. Substantial growth can also be seen in coastal

Oregon and Washington counties.

Growth of the non-Hispanic White population has been

occurring in metropolitan areas such as Atlanta, Washington,

DC, Minneapolis/St. Paul/Duluth, Albuquerque, Phoenix,

and the Greater Salt Lake City area (fig. 2.3). Also, the nonHispanic White population has been growing fastest in areas

rich in natural amenities, such as the Rocky Mountains and

Florida.

Overall, as figure 2.4 shows, much of the growth in

concentration of population (people per square mile)

The population of the United States is distributed across the

country as shown in figure 2.1 From this map of people per

square mile, one can clearly see that the greatest density

of population is in Florida, in the Piedmont areas of North

Carolina to Georgia, along the coast of the Northeastern

states, in the Great Lakes region, in eastern Texas, in the

Denver Front Range area, and along the Pacific Coast to

Arizona. The greatest density in Alaska (not shown) is in the

Anchorage area.

Figure 2.2 shows the distribution of growth of the Hispanic

population of the United States. Much of this growth has

been in the Southeastern States and states bordering the

Mississippi River. High rates of growth have also occurred

States

2008 population density,

by county

0 - 16.9

16.91 - 44.5

44.51 - 112.3

112.31 - 71201.9

Figure 2.1—People per square mile by county in the contiguous United States, 2008. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2008), 2008 Population 

Estimates.

States

2008 population density,

by county

0 - 16.9

16.91 - 44.5

44.51 - 112.3

112.31 - 71201.9
10

Introduction, Objectives, and Organization of this Report

Objectives of This Report

This report has six central objectives:

1. Review and present past trends in outdoor recreation

participation to set a context for examining whether

current participation patterns and trends represent

a departure from trends reported in previous RPA

assessments and in reports such as those done by the

President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors.

2. Describe in detail current outdoor recreation

participation patterns and trends.

has occurred along the Northeast coast, on both sides of

the Southern Appalachians south through Atlanta, in the

Chicago area, in the Denver and Salt Lake City areas, in

the Southwest, in coastal California, and in the Portland

and Seattle areas. Some of this growth in people per

square mile is phenomenally large and exceeds the Census

definition of an urban area, which is defined as 500 people

per square mile. Eastern Texas and the greater Los Angeles

area are examples. Greater concentrations of people in

places near public lands and near water are likely to put

increasing pressures on these limited resources. 

States

Percent Hispanic (all races) population

change, 1990-2008

-57.1 - 0

0.01 - 200

200.01 - 376.9

376.91 - 12700

Figure 2.2—Percent change in Hispanic population by county in the contiguous United States, 1990-2008. Source: U.S. Census Bureau 

(2008), 1990 Census of Population and Housing and 2008 Population Estimates. Note: Hispanic or Latino people may be of any race.

States

Percent Hispanic (all races) population

change, 1990-2008

-57.1 - 0

0.01 - 200

200.01 - 376.9

376.91 - 12700
11

Methods and Data

3. METHODS AND DATA

Overall Approaches

The principal approach for addressing the six objectives

listed previously for studying outdoor recreation

participation is the examination of results from analysis

of previous and current data from the National Survey on

Recreation and the Environment (NSRE). Formerly known

as the National Recreation Survey (NRS), the NSRE offers

a consistent, ongoing survey database comparable over

time and across regions of the country. Results for two

other ongoing surveys are also covered here; one is from

3. Compare outdoor recreation participation patterns

across regional and demographic strata.

4. Describe recreation activity participation on public and

private lands.

5. Provide projections of outdoor recreation participation

out to the year 2060.

6. Summarize national and regional trends and futures

and highlight departures from past patterns to indicate

potential public and private sector implications.

States

Percent Non-Hispanic White

population change, 1990-2008

-60.40 - 0

0.01 - 3.8

3.81 - 18.5

18.51 - 315.7

Figure 2.3—Percent change in non-Hispanic white population by county in the contiguous United States, 1990-2008. Source: U.S. Census 

Bureau (2008), 1990 Census of Population and Housing and 2008 Population Estimates.

States

Percent Non-Hispanic White

population change, 1990-2008

-60.40 - 0

0.01 - 3.8

3.81 - 18.5

18.51 - 315.7
12

Methods and Data

provide coverage of a wider diversity of topics in outdoor

recreation, ranging from coverage of specific activities

to motivations for participation. These papers represent a

small sampling of the rich information available through

the research by scientists across the country whose focus is

outdoor recreation.

Recreation Use Data Sources

The Outdoor Recreation Resouces Review Commission

(ORRRC) contracted the U.S. Census Bureau to conduct

the first NRS in 1960. Subsequent NRS studies were

conducted in 1965, 1972, 1977, and in 1982-83. Some

of the results from these earlier surveys will be reviewed

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. and the other is from

not-for-profit the Outdoor Foundation. More information

on these three surveys is provided below. Together, these

three surveys give in-depth coverage for adult participation

in outdoor recreation for the Nation. Added to each of these

three surveys are data from the National Kids Survey, which

covers youth from age 6 to 19. Results from these data are

also presented.

The supporting approach for addressing the six objectives

previously listed is to present papers invited by research

experts in the field of outdoor recreation. These papers

are interspersed within the main text of this report and

are identifiable by their titles and authorship. They

States

Population ensity rowth, d g

1990-2008

-1226.40 - 0

0.01 - 3.2

3.21 - 16.7

16.71 - 6413.7

Figure 2.4—Change in the number of people per square mile by county in the contiguous United States, 1990-2008. Source: U.S. Census 

Bureau (2008), 1990 Census of Population and Housing and 2008 Population Estimates.

States

Population ensity rowth, d g

1990-2008

-1226.40 - 0

0.01 - 3.2

3.21 - 16.7

16.71 - 6413.7
13

Methods and Data

in this report, but not in detail. The NSRE represents a

continuation of the NRS into contemporary time.

The National Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated

Recreation Survey is also conducted by the U.S. Census

Bureau for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The survey

was first conducted in 1955 and was the Nation’s first

countrywide recreation survey. The Outdoor Foundation

is an industry-sponsored survey currently being conducted

by the private firm Synovate. The National Kids Survey is

conducted by a consortium of the University of Tennessee,

University of Georgia, and the Forest Service’s Southern

Research Station. Each primary data source is presented in

more detail below.

National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation—The National Survey of Fishing,

Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation is one of

the oldest and most comprehensive continuing recreation

surveys. It has been conducted about every fifth year since

1955. The survey has collected information on the number

of anglers, hunters, and wildlife watchers ages 16 years and

older, how often they participate, and how much they spend

on their activities in the United States. Recently, youth 6 to

15 years old have been added to the sampling. The data are

collected by the U.S. Census Bureau in two phases.

For the latest survey conducted in 2006, the initial

phase began with the U.S. Census Bureau interviewing

85,000 households to develop a listing of individual

wildlife recreationists with whom to conduct in-depth

interviews. The in-depth phase consisted of three detailed

interview waves beginning in 2006 and continuing into

2007. Interviews were conducted primarily by phone. If

unreachable by phone, in-person interviews were conducted. 

Sample sizes were designed to provide statistically reliable

results at both the national and State levels. Altogether,

interviews were completed with 21,938 anglers and hunters,

and 11,279 wildlife watchers. The survey’s content and

methodology as used in 2006 is similar to that used in

2001, 1996, and 1991, so the estimates are comparable. 

Current and past survey reports are available on the Fish and

Wildlife Service Web page at: http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/

Subpages/NationalSurvey/NatSurveyIndex.htm.

The Outdoor Foundation Annual Survey—The Outdoor

Foundation’s annual participation report captures responses

from over 40,000 Americans ages 6 and older and covers

114 different activities, 40 of which are used to define

participation in outdoor recreation (The Outdoor Foundation

2009). These outdoor activities are the focus for this report. 

In alphabetic order, the outdoor activities included were:

•	 adventure racing

•	 backpacking

•	 bicycling (BMX, mountain/non-paved surface, road/

paved surface)

•	 birdwatching (more than 1⁄4 mile from home/vehicle)

•	 boardsailing/windsurfing

•	 camping (backyard or car, within 1⁄4 mile of home/

vehicle and recreational vehicle)

•	 canoeing

•	 climbing (sport/indoor/boulder, traditional/ice/

mountaineering)

•	 fishing (fly, freshwater, saltwater)

•	 hiking

•	 hunting (rifle, shotgun, handgun, bow)

•	 kayaking (recreational, sea/touring, whitewater)

•	 rafting

•	 running/jogging

•	 sailing

•	 scuba diving

•	 skateboarding

•	 skiing (alpine/downhill, cross-country, telemarking and

snowboarding)

•	 snorkeling

•	 snowboarding

•	 snowshoeing

•	 surfing

•	 trail running

•	 triathlon (nontraditional/off road and traditional/road)

•	 wakeboarding

•	 wildlife viewing (more than 1⁄4 mile from home/vehicle).

For the above activities, survey respondents were asked

if they participated at least once during the past calendar

year. The data presented in this report was for calendar year

2008. The Outdoor Foundation survey is a collaborative

effort among six partner organizations including Snowsports

Industries America, The Sporting Goods Manufacturers

Association, National Golf Foundation, United States Tennis

Association, and International Health, Racquet & Sports Club

Association. It is based on 41,500 online surveys carried out

each January with a nationwide sample of individuals and

households from the U.S. Online Panel operated by Synovate. 

In 2009, a total of 15,013 individual and 26,487 household

surveys were completed. The total panel has over 1 million

members and is maintained to be representative of the U.S. 

population. Oversampling of some groups is done to boost

response rates from typically underrepresented groups.

A post-sampling weighting method was applied to adjust

the data to reflect the demographic profile of the total U.S. 

population ages 6 and above. The following variables were

used for weighting: gender, age, income, household size,
14

Methods and Data

region, and population density. The 2008 participation survey

sample size of 41,500 completed surveys provides a high

degree of statistical accuracy. All surveys are subject to

some level of standard error—that is, the degree to which the

results might differ from those obtained by a complete census

of every person in the nation. For example, with the sample

size achieved an outdoor activity with a participation rate of

5 percent of the total population has a confidence interval of

± 0.21 percentage points at the 95-percent confidence level. 

The survey methodology changed slightly in 2007 to include

household interviews in addition to individual interviews. The

two methodologies are comparable and all results are seen

by the Outdoor Foundation as indicative of the state of sports

and leisure activity participation. Caution is recommended in

comparing participation rates back to 2006, because some of

the groups surveyed are relatively small in number.

The Outdoor Foundation uses data from this annual study

to profile American participation in outdoor recreation

in general, including participation in individual outdoor

activities. In 2009, the Foundation released the “2009

Outdoor Recreation Participation Report, Special Report

on Fishing and Boating, Special Report on Camping,” and

“Special Report on Paddlesports.” All these reports were

based on participation that occurred in 2008.

National Survey on Recreation and the Environment—

The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment

(USDA Forest Service 2000) is a general population,

random-digit-dialed household telephone survey designed

to measure participation in outdoor recreation activities and

people’s environmental behaviors and attitudes. Telephone

numbers are selected to represent households and noninstitutionalized residents of the United States, 16 years

of age and older. Interviews are typically restricted to an

average of 12 to 14 minutes. The Human Dimensions

Research Laboratory in the Department of Forestry, Wildlife

and Fisheries at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville,

an ongoing NSRE cooperator, has conducted the survey

since 1999 using samples of household telephone numbers

purchased from a private research-sampling firm. The

survey instrument consists of a script used with a computerassisted telephone interview system.

Between the fall of 1999 and late April 2009, more than

97,000 Americans were interviewed for the NSRE. This

most recent application of the NSRE is the eighth in the

U.S. series of NRS studies. As noted earlier, the first such

national survey was done in 1960 for the ORRRC. Since

1999, the survey has been conducted in many different

versions, each of which interviews about 5,000 Americans. 

Every version of the NSRE consists of “core” sections

covering outdoor recreation activity participation and

personal demographics, plus one or two additional sections

or modules that address different data needs of sponsoring

organizations. Many of these additional modules addressed a

variety of environmental and natural resource topics.

Nearly 80 different recreation activities are tracked through

various versions of the survey. Central to these activities are

50 that are considered to be traditional nature-based activities. 

These 50 activities are tracked to meet one of the primary

objectives of the NSRE, which is to provide data for the

periodic RPAAssessment. NSRE sampling occurs across both

rural and urban areas of the country and includes all activity

participation whether on public or private land and water. 

Many agencies and organizations have been interested in

the core module of recreation activity participation data

from NSRE. It provides a baseline of data representing

recreation participation by the U.S. population as it engages

in a variety of outdoor activities. Questions are compatible

with some of the previous NRS studies dating back to

1960. This comparability enables tracking long-term trends. 

Some of the NSRE versions also ask number of days in

the past 12 months on which respondent participated in a

given activity. This question is asked for only a subset of

activities. Annual days of participation is an indicator of

the level of participation across the United States. Days

of participation is used in recreation resource planning

and research to define the size and distribution of outdoor

recreation markets, and to model participation sensitivity to

social and economic trends.

The other core module, the demographic profile, describes

both participant and non-participant populations and is

included in all versions of the survey. These survey questions

use the standard wording and groupings required for use

by the U.S. Census Bureau and by other Federal agencies. 

Demographics are asked as the last section of the survey. The

structure of the demographics questions have varied little

over time and change only as mandated by the U.S. Office of

Management and Budget, which oversees Federal surveys.

The NSRE data were weighted to assure that the

demographic composition of the NSRE sample closely

approximates the estimated composition of the U.S. 

population, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Adjustments were made to correct for over or under

sampling of various demographic segments. A composite

of multivariate and multiplicative weights was used to

account for age, race, sex, education, and urban/rural

differences between the NSRE samples and Census data. 
15

Methods and Data

Wi= SWi • EWi • RWi 	 	 	 	 (2)

where

Wi = NSRE composite weight

SWi = Age/sex/race stratum weight

EWi = Educational attainment weight

RWi = Residence weight

The largest composite weights, therefore, were applied to

survey respondents whose numbers were underrepresented

as a proportion of the total sample. The smallest weights

were applied to strata which were overrepresented. The

sample had a potential total of 600 (60 strata * 5 race *

2 sex) unique weights, with each individual assigned a

weight, Wi

, depending on his or her combination of the

three intermediate weights. The weights are used in national

analyses only since they adjust the national sample to

more closely approximate the true national population

proportions. A series of regional weights was also derived

for each of the four RPA regions. The same approach

used for the national weights were applied to each of

four regions. Regional weights adjust the demographic

differences by region instead of nationally, thus producing

more representative regional estimates.

National Kids Survey—The National Kids Survey is

administered nationally to develop estimates of time

spent outdoors and activities of youth ages 6 to 19 years. 

Demographics and reasons for not spending time outdoors

are also asked. The survey is a general population, randomdigit-dialed household telephone survey. Telephoning is

accomplished by calling a random, cross-sectional sample of

non-institutionalized youth in residences across the United

States. The Human Dimensions Research Laboratory at the

University of Tennessee-Knoxville conducted the National

Kids Survey almost daily starting in September 2007 and

running through August 2009.

The survey system uses computer-assisted telephone

interviewing (CATI) so the trained interviewers work from

a computer monitor and the data are automatically entered

as telephone interviews proceed. The average length of

this survey about youth was approximately 6 minutes. A

proxy household member age 20 years or older (e.g., parent,

guardian, grandparent, older sibling) is interviewed to

speak for children ages 6 to 15 years old. Teens ages 16 to

19 years old are interviewed directly. If there is more than

one child in the household, the child with the last birthday

is selected for interviewing (directly or through proxy). The

sample size as of April 2009, at the time the analysis for this

report was begun, was 1,201.

This composite weighting adjusts the sample estimates of

recreation participation and other study variables to better

represent what those estimates would have been had the

sample been truly a proportionate distribution across U.S. 

social strata.

This type of weighting procedure is referred to as poststratification (Holt and Smith 1979). It is a widely accepted

method for adjusting sample proportions to mirror population

distributions (Zhang 2000). Post-stratification has been

successfully applied in similar national surveys in the United

States and in other countries (Thomsen and Halmoy 1998). 

For NSRE, a total of 60 strata (6 age * 2 sex * 5 race) were

identified to match identical strata in the U.S. Census. Each

individual stratum weight, SWi

, is the ratio of the Census

population proportion to the NSRE sample proportion:

SWi = Pi / pi 	 	 	 	 	 (1)

where	

Pi = U.S. Census proportion for stratum i

pi = NSRE 2000 sample proportion for stratum i

A weight of SWi >1.0 indicated that the particular stratum

was a smaller proportion of the NSRE sample than it was

of the U.S. population based on the latest available Census

estimates. (The U.S. Census Bureau has an estimates

program which provides estimates of population and other

demographic variables in the years between the decennial

Censuses.) Weights with a value < 1.0 indicated that the

stratum was randomly sampled in greater numbers than

their proportion of the U.S. population ages 16 and older. 

Each individual respondent was assigned to one, and only

one, of the 60 age-sex-race strata and thus assigned the SWi

for that stratum. 

We took an additional step to account for the sampling

proportions of two other socioeconomic strata: educational

attainment and place of residence (rural/urban). Weights

for each of these were calculated separately in a similar

fashion to the age-sex-race weight. The education weight,

EWi

, is the ratio of Census/NSRE proportions for five

different levels of educational attainment, ranging from

“less than high school” to “postgraduate degree.” The

residence weight, RWi, is a similar ratio of the proportion

of the U.S. population living either in metropolitan

statistical areas (urban) or not (rural) divided by the

counterpart proportions in the NSRE data. This component

adjusted for the under sampling of urban or metropolitan

residents in the survey. A single weight, Wi, for each

individual survey respondent was then calculated as the

product of the three intermediate weights:
16

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional)

Because the National Kids Survey is structured similarly to

the NSRE, appropriate NSRE weights were applied as a first

step in weighting the Kids Survey data. This assured that

the sample demographic proportions closely approximate

the true population proportions. A secondary weight was

also applied to adjust the proportions of youth in the sample

to align closely with the corresponding national population

proportions of male and female age groups. The age groups

are 6 to 9, 10 to 12, 13 to 15, and 16 to19. Proportions

were derived for these eight groups for both the population

(Census) and sample (National Kids Survey). The National

Kids Survey weights are then simply the ratio of the

population-to-sample proportions. This adjusts any age/

sex group that is underrepresented (youth weight > 1.0) or

overrepresented (youth weight <1.0) in the sample. The final

weight used in National Kids Survey analyses is the product

of the equivalent NSRE sample weight and the Kids Survey

sample weight.

Federal and State Visitation Data

Federal land and water management agencies—Visitation

estimates for Federal agencies are typically provided by

the individual agencies. As of the writing of this report,

there were some missing data for some of the agencies for

some years. The Bureau of Reclamation and the Tennessee

Valley Authority (not shown in table) do not annually collect

agency-wide data on visitation at recreation areas. Bureau

of Reclamation visitation for 2008 appeared in the 2009

Second Triennial Report to Congress under the Federal

Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (U.S. Department of the

Interior, USDA 2009), but no specific source was listed.

State parks system visitation—State Park System

visitation data for all 50 states were obtained through

the National Association of State Park Directors’Annual

Information Exchange annual reports. Each report covers

the previous 12-month period of July 1 to June 30 of the

following year. For example, the 2009 report covers July 1,

2007, through June 30, 2008. Column headings refer to the

latter year of data collection, not the report publication year. 

In a few cases, some States did not report visitation statistics

for certain years. These included New Hampshire in 2005,

and Illinois and Rhode Island in 2004. Where this occurred,

previous year statistics were used as an approximation of the

missing data.

Projecting Futures

In chapter 8, we develop and present national outdoor

recreation participation projections for 17 recreation

activities or activity composites through 2060. Past outdoor

recreation trends are important indicators of what may

happen with outdoor recreation in the near future, but they

do not explore underlying factors which may be driving

trends. Trend analysis can through use of projection models

which can simulate future participation by combining

external projections of relevant factors with estimated

model parameters.

A two-step approach was used to develop projections for

17 individual outdoor recreation activities. The first step

focused on the development of statistical models of per

capita participation for each of the activities. These models

are important because they allow a better understanding of

how driving factors influence recreation activity choices

and how choices may change over time. The recreation

participation data used in estimation of these models is the

National Survey on Recreation and the Environment.

The second step combined the estimated models with

external projections of relevant model explanatory variables

to generate estimated per capita participation probabilities

for each activity at 10-year intervals to 2060. Per capita

estimates were combined with population projections

to derive national estimates of adult participants for

each activity. These estimates were then used to create

indices of estimated adult participation for each of the 17

activities across the three 2010 RPAAssessment scenarios

as described in “Methods and Data” of this report. For

projections, the activities were grouped into the broad

categories of visiting developed sites; viewing and

photographing nature; backcountry activities; motorized

activities; hunting and fishing; non-motorized winter

activities; and non-motorized water activities.

4. RECREATION PARTICIPATION TRENDS 

(NATIONAL AND REGIONAL) 

In this chapter, outdoor recreation participation statistics are

presented. The primary data sources for this chapter are the

four major national outdoor recreation participation surveys

as described earlier. The first survey results shown are from

the Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Survey of Fishing,

Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Survey. This

is followed by the Outdoor Foundation’s Annual Recreation

Participation Survey (an outdoor industry survey). 

Following this is the Forest Service’s National Survey on

Recreation and the Environment (NSRE), which represents

a continuation of the National Recreation Survey (NRS) of

the 1960s through the 1980s. For historical context, 1982-

83 results from the NRS are compared with NSRE results
17

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional) 

up through the 1990s. Then more recent NSRE trend results

are shown for the first decade of this century. Following

in chapter 6 are survey results from the National Kids

Survey. These four surveys represent the Nation’s major

ongoing surveys aimed at estimating the American public’s

recreation participation patterns.

It should be noted that the metric in each of the four major

surveys summarized here is different. The Fishing, Hunting

and Wildlife-Associated Recreation survey metric was

participation in a wildlife- or fish-associated activity that

was the primary reason for an outing. If a wildlife- or

fish-associated activity was not the primary reason for

an outing, participation was not counted. The Outdoor

Foundation survey focused on participation in 40 outdoor

activities during the previous calendar year, whether or not

the activity was the primary reason for an outing. Outdoor

participation beyond these 40 activities was not counted. 

The NSRE measures activity participation across 62

outdoor activities that occurred any time during the past 12

months preceding the interview. The activities in the NSRE

did not have to be the primary reason for an outing. The

National Kids Survey asked about time and activities of

youth outdoors during the week preceding the survey.

Invited Paper

Participation, Regional Distribution, and Trends in 

Wildlife-Related Recreation 

by Anna Harris1

In 2006, over 87 million Americans 16 years old or older

enjoyed some form of wildlife-associated recreation. This

section provides a summary of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service’s 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and

Wildlife-Associated Recreation (U.S. Department of the

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; and U.S. Department

of Commerce, Census Bureau 2007). It is the most

comprehensive survey of wildlife recreation in the United

States. This report presents overall participation rates, both

nationally as well as regionally, and identifies trends in

hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching. The participation

reported is for outdoor occasions for which hunting, fishing,

or wildlife watching in some form was the primary reason

for the occasion.

Hunting Highlights

In 2006, 12.5 million people 16 years old or older enjoyed

hunting a variety of game animals. Big game hunting

was unquestionably the most popular type of hunting,

with an estimated 10.7 million hunters pursuing animals

such as deer and elk. There were 4.8 million hunters of

small game, including squirrels and rabbits. Migratory

bird hunters numbered around 2.3 million, and about 1.1

million hunters sought other animals, such as raccoons and

groundhogs (fig. 4.1). 

Hunting Participation by Geographic Region

Figure 4.2 reveals regional differences in the prevalence of

hunting. Regionally, participation rates in hunting ranged

from 2 percent in the Pacific region to 12 percent in the

West North Central region. Coincidentally, the West North

Central is also the region with the highest participation rates

for both fishing and wildlife watching. The national hunting

participation rate of 5 percent was exceeded in the West

North Central, East North Central, East South Central, West

South Central, and Mountain regions. 

1996–2006 Comparison of Hunting Participation

The overall number of hunters in the United States declined

from 1996 to 2006 (fig. 4.3). The downturn from 1996

to 2001 was 7 percent, a statistically significant change.

2

The downturn from 2001 to 2006 was 4 percent and was

not statistically significant. Big game hunting remained

relatively stable from 2001 to 2006, while small game and

migratory bird hunting had significant declines from 2001

Anna Harris

1Anna Harris, Economist, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Arlington, VA. 2This report uses 95-percent confidence intervals to determine statistical validity. A non-significant change means that for 95 percent of all possible samples the

estimate for one survey year is not different from the estimate for the other survey year.
18

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional)

Figure IV.1—Hunting Participation by Type of Hunting

(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in millions) 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Total Big  game Small  game Migratory

bird

Other

animals

Hun%ng

Millions

Figure 4.2—Percent of population that hunts by region (National participation rate: 5 percent).

Figure 4.1—Hunting participation by type of hunting (population 16 years of age and older). 

Note: The sum of the different types of hunting participants exceeds the total number of hunters 

because some people participated in more than one type of hunting.
19

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional) 

to 2006 of 12 percent and 22 percent, respectively. There

are abundant speculations about why hunting participation

has declined; the loss of small game habitat may partially

explain it. 

Fishing Highlights

In 2006, 229 million people 16 years old or older lived

in the United States, and one in every eight of these went

fishing. As shown in figure 4.4, this equates to nearly 30.0

million people enjoying a variety of fishing opportunities.

3

Freshwater anglers (including Great Lakes anglers)

numbered 25.4 million, while saltwater fishing attracted

7.7 million anglers. 

Fishing Participation by Geographic Region

As outlined in figure 4.5, fishing is enjoyed by anglers

in all regions of the United States. While the national

participation rate was 13 percent, regional rates ranged from

8 percent in the Middle Atlantic and Pacific to 21 percent in

the West North Central. The West North Central, East North

Central, East South Central, West South Central, and South

Atlantic regions all reported participation rates above the

national average. 

1996–2006 Comparison of Fishing Participation

Comparing overall fishing participation rates in 2006 with

those in 2001 reveals significant declines (fig. 4.6). The

majority of the downturn occurred over the 5-year period

from 2001 to 2006. The total number of anglers fell 15

percent from 1996 to 2006 and 12 percent from 2001 to

2006. Over the 10 years from 1996 to 2006, fishing in

the Great Lakes experienced the greatest downturn at 30

percent. Fishing in freshwater other than Great Lakes fared

the best with a decline of 13 percent from 1996 to 2006 and

a decline of 10 percent from 2001 to 2006. The decline in

saltwater fishing was 18 percent from 1996 to 2006 and

15 percent from 2001 to 2006. 

Wildlife Watching Highlights

Nearly a third of the U.S. population, or 71 million people,

enjoyed wildlife watching in 2006.

4 The Survey uses a strict

definition of wildlife watching. Participants must either

take a “special interest” in wildlife watching around their

homes or take a trip for the “primary purpose” of wildlife

watching. The survey categorizes wildlife watching in two

ways: (1) around the home (within a mile of home) or (2)

away from home (at least one mile from home). In 2006,

Figure IV.3—Hunting Participation: 1996-2006

(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in millions) (Bar Chart)

1996 14.0

2001 13.0

2006 12.5

Figure IV.3—Hunting Participation: 1996-2006

(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in millions) 

11.5

12.0

12.5

13.0

13.5

14.0

14.5

1996 2001 2006

Year

Millions

3Three types of fishing are analyzed: (1) freshwater, excluding the Great Lakes, (2) Great Lakes, and (3) saltwater.

Figure 4.3—Hunting participation: 1996-2006 (Population 16 years of age and older). 
20

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional)

8 percent

13 percent 21 percent

15 percent

11 percent

14 percent

16 percent 18 percent

8 percent

Figure 4.5—Percent of population that fishes by region (National participation rate: 13 percent).

Figure IV.4—Fishing Participation: 2006

(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in millions)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Total Freshwater Saltwater

Anglers

Millions

Figure 4.4—Fishing participation: 2006 (population 16 years of age and older). 

Note: The sum of freshwater and saltwater anglers exceeds the total number of anglers 

because some people participated in both types of fishing. 
21

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional) 

watching, the Pacific and Mountain regions both had

participation rates higher than the national average. 

1996-2006 Comparison of Wildlife Watching 

Participation

Comparing the number of wildlife watchers in 2006 with the

two previous surveys shows a 5 percent increase from 1996

to 2001 and an 8 percent increase from 2001 to 2006. There

were 62.9 million participants in 1996, 66.1 million in 2001,

and 71.1 million in 2006 (fig. 4.10). Results from the last

three surveys show differing trends for the two categories

of wildlife watching. Around-the-home wildlife watching,

the most popular type of wildlife watching, was the largest

contributor to the overall upward trend with a 12 percent

increase from 1996 to 2006. Photographing wildlife aroundthe-home had a noteworthy increase of 17 percent from 16.0

million in 1996 to 18.8 million in 2006. Unlike around-thehome wildlife watching, away-from-home wildlife watching

did not increase from 1996 to 2006. From 1996 to 2001,

participation decreased 8 percent, from 23.7 million to 21.8

million, while from 2001 to 2006 there was no change in

participation. Of the three categories of away-from-home

wildlife watching (observing, photographing, and feeding),

the number of feeders dropped significantly in participation

from 10.0 million to 7.1 million (29 percent) from 1996 to

2006. 

nearly 68 million people took a special interest in wildlife

watching around the home, while 23 million people enjoyed

wildlife watching trips away from their home (fig. 4.7). Of

all wildlife activities, birds attracted the greatest number

of recreationists; about 48 million people observed birds

around the home and on trips in 2006. A large majority

of these individuals—88 percent (41.8 million people)—

observed wild birds around the home, while 42 percent, or

19.9 million people, took trips away from home to observe

wild birds.

Wildlife Watching by Geographic Region

The participation rates for both around-the-home and

away-from-home wildlife watching varied by region of the

country. As shown in figure 4.8, the percentages of regional

populations that watched wildlife around their homes ranged

from 24 percent in the Pacific to 42 percent in the West

North Central. The away-from-home participation rate was

lower, ranging from 7 percent in the South Atlantic region

to 14 percent in the West North Central region (fig. 4.9). 

In both instances, the West North Central region had the

highest participation rate of wildlife watchers. The New

England, East South Central, East North Central, and West

North Central regions all had participation rates above the

national average for both away-from-home and around-thehome wildlife watching. Also, for away-from-home wildlife

Total Fishing

1996 35.2

2001 34.1 Figure IV.6—Fishing Participation: 1996-2006

2006 30.0 (Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in millions)

27	
  

28	
  

29	
  

30	
  

31	
  

32	
  

33	
  

34	
  

35	
  

36	
  

1996	
   2001	
   2006	
  

Millions	
  

Year	
  

Figure 4.6—Fishing participation: 1996-2006 (Population 16 years of age and older).

4Wildlife watching is defined as closely observing, feeding, and photographing wildlife around the home or on trips away from home, visiting public parks

around the home because of wildlife, and maintaining plantings and natural areas around the home for the benefit of wildlife. 
22

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional)

Around  the  home 67.8

Away  from  home 23.0 Figure IV.7—Wildlife Watching Participantion: 2006

(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in millions)

Figure IV.7—Wildlife Watching Participantion: 2006

(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in millions)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Total

Around  the  home

Away  from  home

Millions

29 percent

42 percent

33 percent

38 percent

27 percent

28 percent

25 percent 34 percent

24 percent

Figure 4.8—Percent of around-the-home wildlife watchers by region (National participation rate: 30 percent).

Figure 4.7—Wildlife watching participation: 2006 (population 16 years of age and older). 

Note: The sum of wildlife watching away from home and around the home exceeds the 

total number of wildlife viewers because some people participated in both types of wildlife 

watching. 
23

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional) 

13 percent

14 percent

11 percent

12 percent

9 percent

7 percent

8 percent 13 percent

11 percent

Figure 4.9—Percent of away-from-home wildlife watchers by region (National participation rate: 10 percent).

1996 62.9

2001 66.1

2006 71.1 Figure IV.10—Wildlife Watching: 1996-2006

(Population 16 years of age and older. Numbers in millions)

	
  	
  

58	
  

60	
  

62	
  

64	
  

66	
  

68	
  

70	
  

72	
  

1996	
   2001	
   2006	
  

Millions	
  

Year	
  

Figure 4.10—Wildlife watching: 1996-2006 (Population 16 years of age and older). 
24

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional)

released its latest “Outdoor Recreation Participation

Report,” along with special reports on fishing and boating,

camping, and paddle sports (The Outdoor Foundation

2009). All these reports were based on 2008 participation

data collected in early 2009 and follow up surveys

conducted in subsequent months.

American Participation in Outdoor Recreation

According to the most recent survey data collected by

the Outdoor Foundation, 48.6 percent of all Americans

participated in one or more of 40 outdoor activities at least

once in 2008 (see “Methods and Data” in this report for a

complete list of activities). From day hiking in an urban

park to backpacking in a designated wilderness area to

snowboarding at a mountain resort, 135.9 million Americans

participated in one or more of the 40 outdoor activities

surveyed. Participation ranged from a high of 64 percent

among individuals ages 6 to 12, to a low of 38 percent

among those ages 45 and older (fig. 4.11).

Since 2006, American participation in the 40 outdoor

recreation activities included in the Outdoor Foundation

survey has hovered at or just below 50 percent, from 49.0

percent in 2006, 50.0 percent in 2007, to 48.6 percent in

2008. In 2008, the most popular outdoor activities were

(freshwater, saltwater, and fly) fishing with 17 percent of

Americans ages 6 and older participating; (car, backyard,

and RV) camping, 15 percent; running (which includes

jogging and trail running), 15 percent; bicycling (road and

mountain biking), 15 percent; and hiking, 12 percent.

Among the activities the Outdoor Foundation surveyed,

Americans participated in an estimated total of 11.16 billion

days of outdoor activity in 2008. These outings ranged

from short day hikes to overnight trips in national parks. 

For many Americans, getting outdoors is viewed as part

of a healthy lifestyle; 50 percent of outdoor participants

considered outdoor activities as their main source of exercise

(The Outdoor Foundation 2004). Yet in 2008, 43 percent of

all participants in outdoor recreation participated in outdoor

activities less than once every other week (less than 24 times

per year), and only 23 percent of participants got out two

times a week or more (104 times per year or more).

A return to nature—While participation in outdoor

activities overall declined slightly in 2008, in many cases,

participation in nature-based outdoor activities increased

significantly. Activities like backpacking, mountain

Wildlife Recreation Summary

With more than 87 million people 16 years of age and older

participating in 2006, wildlife-related recreation is clearly an

important leisure activity in the United States. This equates

to almost 4 out of every 10 people one would meet at school,

in a restaurant, or while strolling down a sidewalk. To put

the 87 million people who participate in wildlife recreation

into context with other leisure activities, consider that there

are more wildlife recreationists in the United States than

golfers, skiers, and tennis players combined (The Outdoor

Foundation 2009). For more detailed survey information,

including State participation rates, how wildlife-related

recreation is a catalyst of economic growth and other

reporting, visit the following Web site: http://wsfrprograms.

fws.gov/Subpages/NationalSurvey/National_Survey.htm. 

End Invited Paper

Invited Paper 

Tracking American Participation In Outdoor 

Recreation 

by Bryan Mahler5

Each year, the Outdoor Foundation conducts an extensive

survey of American participation in outdoor recreation

in the United States. Over 40,000 Americans ages 6 and

older are surveyed to examine their participation in 114

different outdoor, indoor, team, and fitness activities. This

section focuses on the 40 outdoor activities included in the

survey. The survey represents a collaborative effort among

six partner organizations. In 2009, the Outdoor Foundation

Bryan Mahler

5Bryan Mahler, Senior Manager, at The Outdoor Foundation and leads the organization’s annual participation study and other research efforts, Denver, CO.
25

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional) 

adulthood. After this decline, participation among males

ages 26 to 30 begins to climb again, increasing gradually

until ages 36 to 40. Among females, participation begins to

increase again among ages 21 to 25 but quickly resumes a

gradual decline lasting through ages 66 and older.

Among men, outdoor activities are more popular than

indoor fitness activities and team sports across all age

groups, except ages 66 and older. Among women, indoor

activities are most popular among those ages 21 to 25, and

remain popular through to age 66 and older. Despite initial

popularity with youth, participation in team sports declines

quickly among males and females from ages 16 to 20 and

older, and dipping below 5 percent among males ages 66

and older and among females ages 51 and older.

Gateway activities—Participants in outdoor recreation

often begin with specific “gateway,” or starter, outdoor

activities. These activities—fishing, bicycling, running,

camping, and hiking—are popular, accessible, and often

lead to participation in other outdoor activities (fig. 4.12). 

Participants in gateway activities are much more likely to

participate in multiple outdoor activities than they are likely

to participate in one activity alone. Their participation in

these activities often leads to higher overall activity levels

and apparently a greater connection with the outdoors. 

Introducing non-participants to a gateway activity seems to

be a powerful way to create lifelong outdoor enthusiasts

(fig. 4.13).

Youth—Introducing youth to the outdoors at a young age

is likely essential to ensuring future generations of outdoor

biking, and trail running showed double-digit increases in

participation; hiking and camping showed 9 percent and

7 percent increases, respectively. 

These increases are particularly notable when trends in

nature-based activity participation are compared to trends in

their urban-based outdoor counterparts. While participation in

bicycling and running on roads or paved surfaces decreased

or remained relatively flat, participation in mountain biking

and trail running both increased over 10 percent.

Demographics—Participants in outdoor recreation

represent a demographic diversity. The full 2009 Outdoor

Recreation Participation Report includes complete

demographic information for outdoor participants, including

age, gender, income, education, ethnicity and geography

(available at www.outdoorfoundation.org/research). But

while there is great variety among participants, females and

ethnically diverse groups are significantly underrepresented

in the outdoor activities surveyed. Only 43 percent of

participants are female, and 80 percent of participants are

White (see “Lifecycle” and “Ethnicity” below).

Lifecycle—The percent of people participating in outdoor

recreation activities varies among different age groups. As

individuals age, their lives are shaped by their evolving

environment and life experiences. Participation rate in

outdoor recreation by age group helps describe this lifecycle

(table 4.1).

Although youth participation in outdoor activities is

initially high, it declines sharply in adolescence and young

Figure 4.11—Participation in outdoor recreation by age, 2008.

0%	
  

10%	
  

20%	
  

30%	
  

40%	
  

50%	
  

60%	
  

70%	
  

80%	
  

90%	
  

100%	
  

6-­‐12	
   13-­‐17	
   18-­‐24	
   25-­‐44	
   45+	
  

Age	
  of	
  Par+cipant	
  
26

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional)

Table 4.1—Lifecycle of participation by age and gender 

(percent participating one or more times during 2008) 

Gender/age Outdoor activities Team sports 

percent

Males 

6-10 68 59 

11-15 71 62 

16-20 62 49 

21-25 57 39 

26-30 58 34 

31-35 61 33 

36-40 61 28 

41-45 60 23 

46-50 59 22 

51-55 53 15 

56-60 49 10 

61-65 46 8 

66+ 36 4 

Females 

6-10 56 38 

11-15 59 48 

16-20 48 29 

21-25 52 19 

26-30 48 14 

31-35 48 12 

36-40 47 9 

41-45 43 9 

46-50 40 7 

51-55 37 4 

56-60 32 4 

61-65 26 2 

66+ 18 1 

Source: The Outdoor Foundation (2009).
27

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional) 

ultiple outdoor activities vs. participation in one outdoor activity among participants in the gateway activities.

tivities, All Americans, Ages 6 and Older

Participants who do participate in another outdoor activity Participants who don't participate in another outdoo

78 22

84 16

78 22

87 13

70 30

0	
   10	
   20	
   30	
   40	
   50	
   60	
   70	
   80	
   90	
   100	
  

Fishing	
  

Camping	
  

Bicycling	
  

Hiking	
  

Running	
  

Percent	
  par+cipa+ng	
  

Gateway	
  Ac+vity	
  

Par@cipants	
  who	
  don't	
  par@cipate	
  in	
  another	
  outdoor	
  ac@vity	
  

Par@cipants	
  who	
  do	
  par@cipate	
  in	
  another	
  outdoor	
  ac@vity	
  

Figure 4.12—Participation in gateway activities, 2006 to 2008.

Figure 4.13—Participation in multiple outdoor activities vs. participation in one outdoor 

activity among participants in the gateway activities-contagious effect of gateway activities, all 

Americans, ages 6 and older. 

Participant (millions)

untain Biking, and BMX 41.548 42.126 39.688

32.511 29.965 29.863

Figure IV.12—Participation in gateway activities, 2006 to 2008.

Participation in the Gateway Activities, All Americans, Ages 6 and Older

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Freshwater,  Saltwater,  and  Fly  Fishing

Car,  Backyard,  and  RV  Camping

Running/Jogging  and  Trail  Running

Road  Biking,  Mountain  Biking,  and  BMX

Hiking

	
  Par&cipants	
  (millions)

2006  ParKcipants 2007  ParKcipants 2008  ParKcipants  
28

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional)

youth made a total of 2.9 billion outdoor outings in 2009,

averaging 94 outings per participant.

Influences, motivations, and barriers—In addition to

surveying participation trends, the Outdoor Foundation also

examined participant and non-participant behaviors. Among

youth, the Outdoor Foundation examined the motivations

and barriers to participation in outdoor activities, as well

as influencing factors that introduce youth to outdoor

activities. This research has provided important insights

to help understand and perhaps reverse what appears to be

a growing inactivity and disconnection with the outdoors

among youth as well as adults.

Findings reveal several clear trends. Youth are most often

introduced to the outdoors by their family and friends. For

youth ages 6 to 12, parents are the top influencers by a large

margin, followed by brothers, sisters, and relatives. Friends

are next most important after parents among youth ages 13

to 17. Few youth cite the media, experienced mentors, or

outdoor education programs as influencers.

Simple “fun” is the most often cited motivation for

participation in outdoor recreation for youth of all ages,

particularly youth ages 6 to 12. For youth ages 13 to 17,

outdoor recreation is also valued for its relaxing qualities and

ability to offer an escape from routine. This seems to point to

the importance of outdoor recreation in helping adolescents

manage stress. Youth ages 6 to 12 also enjoy opportunities for

discovery and exploration, which were second in popularity to

the fun outdoor activities offer (table 4.2).

Among young non-participants in outdoor recreation, a

enthusiasts. In the Outdoor Foundation’s report “Exploring

the Active Lifestyle,” 90 percent of active adult participants

in outdoor recreation reported that they were introduced

to the outdoors between the ages of 5 and18 (The Outdoor

Foundation 2004). Over the past 3 years of the Outdoor

Foundation’s annual participation survey, youth participation

in outdoor recreation activities has dropped significantly. 

Between 2006 and 2007, participation among youth ages 6

to 17 dropped over 11 percent, and between 2007 and 2008,

it dropped 6 percent. This was a total decline in participation

of 16.7 percent over 3 years. 

This drop in participation was most pronounced among the

youngest age group, those ages 6 to 12. Participation by

this age group fell from 78 percent in 2006 to 64 percent in

2008. While the declines among boys and girls in this age

group were both significant, the decline among girls was

sharper. From 2006 to 2008, boys’ participation dropped

from 79 to 69 percent, and girls’ participation dropped from

77 to 58 percent (fig. 4.14). With these declines, there is now

a significant gap between boys’ and girls’ participation that

did not exist when the Outdoor Foundation’s study began.

While all declines are of concern, the rate of decline in

2008 was not as dramatic as in 2007. This may reflect the

positive impact of efforts nationwide to connect youth and

the outdoors. In addition, there are a few signs of increased

youth participation in some outdoor activities, including

mountain biking (17 percent increase), hiking (5 percent)

and backpacking (16 percent). Among youth ages 6 to 17,

the most popular activities are biking (30 percent), fishing

(23 percent), car and RV camping (22 percent), running

(19 percent), and hiking (12 percent). Among all activities,

Figure IV.14—Youth participation in outdoor recreation by age and gender.

Age Year 2008 Year 2007 Year 2006

13–17 Females 54 55 54

6–12 Females 58 61 77

13–17 Males 66 71 74

6–12 Males 69 72 79

Figure IV.14—Youth participation in outdoor recreation by age and gender.

0 20 40 60 80 100

13–17  Females

6–12  Females

13–17  Males

6–12  Males

Percent

Year  2006 Year  2007 Year  2008

Figure 4.14—Youth participation in outdoor recreation by age and gender, 2006 to 2008.

Percent
29

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional) 

Youth participants ages 6 to 17, no matter what their

ethnicity, are all most often introduced to the outdoors by

parents, friends, and family. Youth of all ethnicities also

most often cite “fun” as their top motivation for participating

in outdoor recreation. Hispanics, however, cite relaxation

more frequently than other ethnic groups, while Whites cite

opportunities for discovery and exploration more often. 

And again, while youth non-participants of all groups cite

a lack of interest as their top barrier to outdoor recreation,

Whites and Asians/Pacific Islanders are more likely to cite

a preference for screen media—such as TVs, computers,

and video games—as barriers. Whites and Asians/Pacific

Islanders also cite time with friends as a barrier more often

than Hispanics and African Americans. Hispanics mention a

lack of access to opportunities for nearby outdoor recreation

and a lack of interest in purchasing outdoor gear more often

than the other ethnic groups (table 4.5).

End Invited Paper 

Historic National Trends

1982 through the 1990s—The National Recreation 

Survey and NSRE

Using historic NRS data, a brief overview of past trends

since the early 1980s is provided in table 4.6. Shown are

activity participation trends from the early 1980s through

the 1990s (up to the beginning of the first decade of the 21st

century). Reported is the number of participants 16 years

of age and older for the 27 outdoor recreation activities

included in both the 1982-83 NRS study and the recent

NSRE studies. Activities are listed in descending order of

level of change in total number of participants between 1982

and 1983 and between 1999 and 2001. 

Walking outdoors is at the top of the list in table 4.6, as

it typically had been in previous surveys. The number of

participants in this broadly popular activity has steadily

increased over time as both the percentage of the population

participating and the size of the U.S. population have

increased. Following, in terms of growth of number of

participants, is viewing or photographing wild birds, day

hiking, picnicking, and visiting outdoor nature centers or

zoos. The next highest growth activities, in terms of added

number of participants, are swimming in natural waters,

sightseeing, boating, bicycling, and developed camping. 

Some of the activities following after those involve use of

general lack of interest was the most often cited motivation

for their preference for indoor and team activities. Unlike

more specific, considered responses, “I’m not interested”

could simply be the result of a lack of experience with

the outdoors and limited exploration of possible outdoor

opportunities. After “lack of interest,” young nonparticipants of all ages indicated they were kept indoors by

schoolwork and a preference for screen media, such as TV,

computers, and video games.

Ethnic participation—As populations of Hispanics,

African Americans, and Asians/Pacific Islanders continue

to grow in the United States, knowledge about their outdoor

recreation preferences will become increasingly important. 

Even as the U.S. population is moving toward the time

that Whites will no longer be in the majority, minority

populations are still underrepresented in outdoor recreation.

Participation in outdoor activities is significantly higher

among Whites than among any other ethnicity for all

age groups. Whites make up 80 percent of all outdoor

participants in the activities included in the OF survey

in 2008; African Americans make up 7 percent, Asian/

Pacific Islanders 5 percent, Hispanics 5 percent, and other

ethnicities 3 percent (fig. 4.15).

Interestingly, although participation is lower among minority

groups, those who do participate get out more often than

Whites. African Americans take the most outdoor recreation

outings per year, followed closely by Hispanics and Asian/

Pacific Islanders. This finding is potentially important for

organizations and businesses looking to connect with more

active outdoor participants (table 4.3).

All four of the largest ethnic groups in the United States

participate in biking, running, camping, fishing, and hiking

more than any other outdoor activities, however, they

participate in these activities at varying rates. Running

is the most popular activity among African Americans,

Asian Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics, but the fourth most

popular activity among Whites, who most often participate

in fishing. Hiking—while the fifth most popular activity

among African Americans, Whites, and Hispanics—is the

third most popular activity among Asians/Pacific Islanders

(table 4.4).

Influences, motivations, and barriers among youth of 

different ethnicities—Comparing the influencing factors,

motivations, and barriers of youth participants and nonparticipants of different ethnicities reveals some similarities

as well as some significant differences.
30

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional)

Table 4.2—Top influencers, motivations, and barriers among youth participants and non-participants 

 in outdoor recreation, in percent 

Question/answer Ages 6-12 Ages 13-17 

percent

Who influenced your decision to participate in outdoor activities? 

Parents 75 64 

Brothers, sisters, or other relatives 36 26 

Friends 33 44 

Myself (no one else influenced me) 13 20 

Community program (Boy Scouts, YMCA, neighborhood program) 13 10 

School program 12 12 

TV, movies, magazines, books, Web sites about the outdoors 5 4 

Something else 3 3 

What motivates you to participate in outdoor activities? 

Itʼs fun. 73 52 

I enjoy discovery and exploration. 42 32 

Itʼs relaxing. 28 37 

I can do outdoor activities near my house. 28 21 

It is a great way to get exercise. 28 32 

I get to hang out with my friends. 27 32 

I like new experiences. 27 26 

I get away from my usual routine. 23 34 

What motivates your decision NOT to participate in outdoor activities? 

Iʼm not interested. 39 54 

My parents donʼt take me to go on outdoor activities. 17 11 

I have too much schoolwork. 16 29 

I donʼt have the time. 15 25 

I would rather spend free time watching TV/movies, on a computer, or 

playing video games. 

15 27 

Iʼm involved in other activities such as team sports and fitness activities. 12 11 

Iʼd rather hang out with my friends. 11 26 

I donʼt want to spend the money on gear or equipment. 11 11 

Source: The Outdoor Foundation (2009).

percent
31

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional) 

Hispanic 5

Other 3

0	
  

10	
  

20	
  

30	
  

40	
  

50	
  

60	
  

70	
  

80	
  

90	
  

100	
  

African	
  

American	
  

Asian/Pacific	
  

Islander	
  

White	
   Hispanic	
   Other	
  

Percent	
  

Ethnicity	
  

Table 4.3—Average outings per participant by 

ethnicity 

Ethnicity Average outings per year 

African American 90 

Hispanic 89 

Asian/Pacific Islander 85 

White 80 

Source: The Outdoor Foundation (2009).

Table 4.4—Top outdoor activities by ethnicity 

African Americans, ages 6 and older 

1. Running/jogging and trail running 

2. Road biking, mountain biking, and BMX 

3. Freshwater, saltwater, and fly fishing 

4. Car, backyard, and RV camping 

5. Hiking 

Asian/Pacific Islanders, ages 6 and older 

1. Running/jogging and trail running 

2. Road biking, mountain biking, and BMX 

3. Hiking 

4. Freshwater, saltwater, and fly fishing 

5. Car, backyard, and RV camping 

Whites, ages 6 and older 

1. Freshwater, saltwater, and fly fishing 

2. Car, backyard, and RV camping 

3. Road biking, mountain biking, and BMX 

4. Running/jogging and trail running 

5. Hiking 

Hispanics, ages 6 and older 

1. Running/jogging and trail running 

2. Freshwater, saltwater, and fly fishing 

3. Road biking, mountain biking, and BMX 

4. Car, backyard, and RV camping 

5. Hiking 

Source: The Outdoor Foundation (2009).

Figure 4.15—Outdoor participants by ethnicity.
32

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional)

Table 4.5—Top influencers, motivations, and barriers among youth participants and non-participants in 

outdoor recreation, by ethnicity, youth ages 6 to 17, in percent 

Question/Answer Hispanic 

African 

American 

Asian/ 

Pacific 

Islander White 

percent

Who influenced your decision to participate in outdoor activities? 

Parents 71 50 76 73 

Friends 38 32 43 40 

Brothers, sisters, or other relatives 34 26 30 32 

School program 14 13 21 11 

Community program (Boy Scouts, YMCA, neighborhood 

program) 

10 12 11 11 

What motivates you to participate in outdoor activities? 

Itʼs fun. 64 64 60 63 

I like new experiences. 36 22 27 27 

I enjoy discovery and exploration. 35 24 31 40 

It is a great way to get exercise. 33 24 32 30 

I get to hang out with my friends. 33 27 29 30 

Itʼs relaxing. 30 31 32 32 

I get away from my usual routine. 22 27 26 28 

What motivates your decision NOT to participate in outdoor activities? 

Iʼm not interested. 40 44 28 52 

I have too much schoolwork. 21 25 22 23 

I donʼt have the time. 17 18 11 22 

I donʼt want to spend the money on gear or equipment. 16 7 16 11 

There arenʼt places to do outdoor activities near where I live. 16 14 0 5 

I would rather spend free time watching TV/movies, on a 

computer, or playing video games. 

14 18 22 24 

My parents donʼt take me to go on outdoor activities. 10 16 31 13 

Iʼd rather hang out with my friends. 10 15 17 22 

I donʼt know how to get started, what to do, or where to go. 3 11 24 6 

Source: The Outdoor Foundation (2009).
33

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional) 

Table 4.6—Trends in number of people ages 16 and older participating in 27 outdoor 

recreation activities by historic period in the United States, 1982 to 2001 

Total participants Change 

Activity 1982-83 1994-95 1999-2001 

1982-1983 

to 

1999-2001 

millions

Walk for pleasure 91.9 138.5 175.6 83.7 

View or photograph birds 20.8 54.3 68.5 47.7 

Day hiking 24.3 53.6 69.1 44.8 

Picnicking 83.3 112.1 118.3 35.0 

Visit outdoor nature center/zoo 86.7 110.9 121.0 34.3 

Swimming in lakes, streams, etc. 55.5 87.4 85.5 30.0 

Sightseeing 79.8 117.5 109.0 29.2 

Boating 48.6 76.2 75.0 26.4 

Bicycling 55.5 77.8 81.9 26.4 

Developed camping 29.5 46.5 55.3 25.8 

Driving for pleasure 83.3 – 107.9 24.6 

Motorboating 33.0 59.5 50.7 17.7 

Off-highway vehicle driving 19.1 35.9 36.0 16.9 

Primitive camping 17.3 31.4 33.1 15.8 

Sledding 17.3 27.7 30.8 13.5 

Backpacking 8.7 17.0 21.5 12.8 

Fishing 59.0 70.4 71.6 12.6 

Swimming in an outdoor pool 74.6 99.1 85.0 10.4 

Canoeing or kayaking 13.9 19.2 23.0 9.1 

Downhill skiing 10.4 22.8 17.4 7.0 

Snowmobiling 5.2 9.6 11.3 6.1 

Horseback riding 15.6 20.7 19.8 4.2 

Ice skating outdoors 10.4 14.2 13.6 3.2 

Hunting 20.8 25.3 23.6 2.8 

Cross-country skiing 5.2 8.8 7.8 2.6 

Waterskiing 15.6 22.7 16.0 0.4 

Sailing 10.4 12.1 10.4 0.0 

Missing data are denoted with “—” and indicate that participation data for that activity were not collected during that 

time period. 

Note: The numbers in this table are annual participant estimates based on data collected during the three time periods. 

1982-1983 participants based on 173.5 million people ages 16+ (U.S. Department of the Interior 1986). 

1994-1995 participants based on 201.3 million people ages 16+ (Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2007). 

1999-2001 participants based on 214.0 million people ages 16+ (U.S. Department of Commerce 2000). 

Source: NRS 1982-1983 (n=5,757), USDA Forest Service (1995) (n=17,217), and USDA Forest Service (2001) (n=52,607). 
34

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional)

to 2009 and appendix table 3 for more detail on U.S. 

participation trends. Based on the pooled NSRE data

from 2005 to 2009, the 13 activities at the top of the list

in table 4.7 had 100 million or more people participating

at least once during a single year. Walking for pleasure,

family gatherings outdoors, gardening or landscaping

for pleasure, viewing/photographing natural scenery,

and visiting outdoor nature centers or zoos occupy the

top five slots, with each activity having over 130 million

participants. Participation of between 100 and 130

million people ages 16 and older include the activities of

sightseeing, picnicking, viewing/photographing flowers

and trees, driving for pleasure, viewing/photographing

wildlife (besides birds and fish), visiting historic sites

and monuments, visiting a beach, and swimming in an

outdoor pool. All of these activities have shown growth

in this decade, but activities oriented toward viewing and

photographing nature (e.g., scenery, flowers/trees, and

wildlife) have been among the fastest growing.

Twelve activities have between 50 and 100 million

participants, including swimming in lakes/streams/etc.,

bicycling, and viewing or photographing birds; these

activities had more than 80 million people participating

(table 4.7). All 12 of these activities showed growth in

number of participants during the current decade of 2000-

2009, though some grew very little, including developed

camping and visiting watersides other than beaches. The

fastest growing activities between 1999-2001 and 2005-09

were viewing/photographing wildflowers/trees, visiting

farms or agricultural settings, gathering mushrooms and

berries, viewing/photographing other wildlife, and viewing/

photographing birds. These growth trends are highlighted in

figure 4.16. 

There are eight activities with 25 to 49 million participants

(table 4.8). Prehistoric or archaeological sites visits, offhighway vehicle driving, boating tours and excursions,

and mountain biking are at the top of this list. Except

for bicycling on a mountain or hybrid bike, all of these

activities have shown growth since 1999-2001. Driving

motor vehicles off-highway was the fastest growing activity

in the list of activities in table 4.8 by a wide margin. For

public natural land managers, the growth in off-highway

driving has been a management challenge. Moderate

growth is shown for saltwater fishing, visiting prehistoric

sites, and boat tours or excursions (such as whale spotting).

Table 4.9 shows outdoor activities with between 15 and

25 million participants. At the top with 20 or more million

participants are backpacking, canoeing, horseback riding,

waterskiing, using personal watercraft, and big game

motors and include driving for pleasure, motorboating, and

off-highway vehicle driving. More details may be found in

appendix table 1, including activities that are not naturebased, such as individual and team sports. These activities

appear in a number of the appendix tables, but are not

included in the main body of this report.

Some of the other fast growing activities from the early

1980s through the 1990s, in terms of added participants,

were primitive camping, sledding, backpacking, fishing, and

swimming in an outdoor pool.

Current Decade Participation Trends 

from the NSRE 

Extensively presented below are recent survey results from

the NSRE during the first decade of the 21st century. NSRE

methods and protocols were described earlier.

Trends in Percent of Population and 

Number of People Participating—NSRE

Based on the NSRE, tables 4.7 through 4.10 summarize

the trends in activity participation (number of people and

percent of population ages 16 and older) since the 1990s

to the present time. To break up the length, these are

presented as four sequential tables, rather than one very

long table. The tables represent statistics about outdoor

activities for the periods 1999-2001 and 2005-2009. The

activities in these tables are shown in descending order

by number and percent of people ages 16 and older who

participated. Number of participants is also shown for the

earlier period 1994-95 only to provide the reader with the

longer-term trend context, but the emphasis for the text and

tables is on the period 1999-2009.

The NSRE surveying included some activities which are

not nature-oriented, such as individual and team sports. 

These activities are reported in appendix tables for the

purpose of continuing to monitor Americans’ outdoor

recreation participation of all forms, which began with the

first National Recreation Survey in 1960. It is noteworthy

that some nature-based activities, such as bird watching,

rank high in number of people participating relative

to activities such as yard games and team sports. The

emphasis in this report will be on nature-based activities

such as bird watching. 

The most recent overall trends (percent change during

the current decade since 1999) are summarized in the

final column of each table (tables 4.7-4.10). See appendix

table 2 for numbers of participants by region from 2005
35

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional) 

Table 4.7—Trends in number and percentage of people ages 16 and older participating in outdoor 

recreation activities in 1999-2001 and 2005-2009 (for activities with greater than 50 million 

participants from 2005 through 2009) 

Total participants 

Percent 

participating 

Percent 

change 

Activity 1994-1995 1999-2001 2005-2009 2005-2009 

1999-2001 to 

2005-2009 

-------------------- millions ------------------ 

Walk for pleasure 138.4 175.6 200.0 85.0 13.9 

Gathering of family/friends 128.2 157.6 174.2 74.0 10.5 

Gardening/landscaping for pleasure – 140.8 157.9 67.1 12.1 

View natural scenery – 127.1 149.8 63.7 17.9 

Visit outdoor nature center/zoo 110.9 121.0 133.3 56.6 10.2 

Sightseeing 117.5 109.0 123.9 52.7 13.7 

Picnicking 112.1 118.3 121.6 51.7 2.8 

View wildflowers/trees – 93.8 121.3 51.6 29.4 

Driving for pleasure – 107.9 120.5 51.2 11.6 

View wildlife besides birds and fish 62.8 94.2 118.1 50.2 25.4 

Visit historic sites/monuments 91.6 96.1 103.9 44.1 8.1 

Swimming in an outdoor pool 99.0 85.0 102.0 43.3 20.0 

Visit a beach 128.8 84.4 102.0 43.3 20.7 

Swimming in lakes, streams, etc. 87.4 85.5 97.5 41.5 14.0 

Bicycling 77.8 81.9 88.3 37.5 7.8 

View or photograph birds 54.3 68.5 84.1 35.7 22.8 

Day hiking 53.5 69.1 79.7 33.9 15.4 

Visit a wilderness – 67.2 79.1 33.6 17.7 

Gather mushrooms/berries – 60.0 77.2 32.8 28.6 

Visit farm or agricultural setting – 58.6 75.3 32.0 28.6 

View salt/freshwater fish 27.6 52.3 63.5 27.0 21.4 

Visit waterside besides beach – 53.2 56.5 24.0 6.3 

Developed camping 46.5 55.3 56.0 23.8 1.1 

Warmwater fishing 49.3 47.6 55.7 23.7 17.1 

Motorboating 59.5 50.7 55.0 23.4 8.6 

Missing data are denoted with “—“ and indicate that participation data for that activity were not collected during that time 

period. Percent change was calculated before rounding. 

Note: The numbers in this table are annual participation estimates based on data collected during the three time periods. 

1994-1995 participants based on 201.3 million people ages 16+ (Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2007). 1999-2001 

participants based on 214.0 million people ages 16+ (U.S. Department of Commerce 2000). 2005-2009 participants 

based on 235.3 million people ages 16+ (U.S. Department of Commerce 2008). 

Source: USDA Forest Service (1995) (n=17,217), USDA Forest Service (2001) (n=52,607), and USDA Forest Service 

(2009) (n=30,398). 
36

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 

View or photograph birds 

View wildlife besides birds and fish 

Gather mushrooms/berries 

Visit farm or agricultural setting 

View wildflowers/trees 

Par$cipants	
  

Ac$vity	
  

2005-2009 Total participants (millions) 1999-2001 Total participants (millions) 

Figure 4.16—Total number of people participating in top five fastest growing activities in the periods 1999-2001 and 2005-2009.
37

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional) 

Table 4.8—Trends in number and percentage of people ages 16 and older participating in outdoor 

recreation activities in 1999-2001 and 2005-2009 (for activities with between 25 and 49 million 

participants from 2005 through 2009) 

Total participants 

Percent 

participating 

Percent 

change 

Activity 1994-1995 1999-2001 2005-2009 2005-2009 

1999-2001 to 

2005-2009 

------------------- millions ------------------- 

Visit archaeological sites 36.1 44.0 48.8 20.8 11.1 

Off-highway vehicle driving 35.9 36.0 48.4 20.6 34.5 

Boat tours or excursions – 40.8 46.1 19.6 13.1 

Bicycling on mountain/hybrid bike – 44.0 42.7 18.1 -3.0 

Primitive camping 31.4 33.1 34.2 14.5 3.2 

Sledding 27.7 30.8 32.0 13.6 3.9 

Coldwater fishing 25.1 28.4 30.9 13.1 8.7 

Saltwater fishing 22.9 21.4 25.1 10.7 17.2 

Missing data are denoted with “—” and indicate that participation data for that activity were not collected during that time 

period. Percent change was calculated before rounding. 

Note: The numbers in this table are annual participation estimates based on data collected during the three time periods. 

1994-1995 participants based on 201.3 million people ages 16+ (Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2007). 1999-2001 

participants based on 214.0 million people ages 16+ (U.S. Department of Commerce 2000). 2005-2009 participants 

based on 235.3 million people ages 16+ (U.S. Department of Commerce 2008). 

Source: USDA Forest Service (1995) (n=17,217), USDA Forest Service (2001) (n=52,607), and USDA Forest Service 

(2009) (n=30,398). 
38

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional)

Table 4.9—Trends in number and percentage of people ages 16 and older participating in outdoor 

recreation activities in 1999-2001 and 2005-2009 (for activities with between 15 and 25 million 

participants from 2005 through 2009) 

Total participants 

Percent 

participating 

Percent 

change 

Activity 1994-1995 1999-2001 2005-2009 2005-2009 

1999-2001 to 

2005-2009 

------------------ millions ---------------- 

Backpacking 17.0 21.5 23.2 9.9 7.9 

Canoeing 17.9 19.3 22.8 9.7 18.2 

Horseback riding 20.7 19.8 21.5 9.1 8.4 

Waterskiing 22.7 16.0 21.3 9.0 33.1 

Use personal watercraft 12.0 19.1 21.1 9.0 10.9 

Big game hunting 19.0 17.8 20.9 8.9 17.1 

Rafting 19.3 19.1 18.6 7.9 -2.8 

Small game hunting 17.3 14.8 16.5 7.0 11.4 

Horseback riding on trails 15.1 15.8 16.1 6.8 1.6 

Downhill skiing 22.8 17.4 15.9 6.8 -8.5 

Snorkeling 16.2 13.6 15.2 6.5 11.8 

Note: The numbers in this table are annual participation estimates based on data collected during the three 

time periods. 1994-1995 participants based on 201.3 million people ages 16+ (Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2007). 

1999-2001 participants based on 214.0 million people ages 16+ (U.S. Department of Commerce 2000). 

2005-2009 participants based on 235.3 million people ages 16+ (U.S. Department of Commerce 2008). 

Snorkeling in 1994-1995 included scuba diving. Percent change was calculated before rounding. 

Source: USDA Forest Service (1995) (n=17,217), USDA Forest Service (2001) (n=52,607), and USDA Forest Service 

(2009) (n=30,398). 
39

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional) 

spent any amount of time participating in an activity. 

Participation in more than one activity on any given day is

the typical pattern. For example, a person could walk for

pleasure and view or photograph birds in the same day, or

even during the same outing. This pattern of participation

would thus count as two activity days. See appendix table

4 for current mean and total annual days by region for all

activities, and appendix table 5 for more detail on U.S. 

annual days trend data.

Figure 4.18 shows the number of activity days for the five

activities which grew by the greatest percentage between

1999-01 and 2005-09 as shown in table 4.11. These

activities illustrate how outdoor recreation is changing

over the years. There is heightened interest in viewing,

photographing, learning about nature and farms, and riding

off-highway motor vehicles. 

Table 4.12 describes trends in days of participation for

a number of very traditional outdoor activities. Fishing,

hunting, backpacking, and water sports are among activities

that grew between 20 and 100 million days since

1999-2001. Percentage growth in snowboarding and

especially kayaking is high, although these activities had

by far the smallest base number of days in 1999-2001. 

Activities such as these, which exhibit strong percentage

growth, eventually enter the ranks of the more popular

outdoor activities if that growth continues. 

Table 4.13 shows the trend in days of participation for

activities which added up to fewer than 20 million days. 

This table also shows activities which declined in days of

participation. As well, this table reinforces the new faces of

outdoor recreation in the 21st century (tables 4.11 and 4.12),

relative to the last half of the 20th century. For example,

downhill skiing has been declining while snowboarding

has grown (table 4.12). Many of the traditional winter

snow activities, such as snowmobiling and snowshoeing,

have declined, as have mountain biking and horseback

riding on trails. One of the main drivers of this change

has been participants limiting themselves to fewer days of

activity on average during the year. Gas prices, the state of

the economy, and loss of open space for some activities are

factors that likely are contributing to the declines. As well,

it is widely understood that households’ lifestyles have

been changing dramatically over the last two decades to

include fewer vacations and shorter trips overall.

hunting. Each of these activities except for backpacking and

horseback riding experienced double-digit growth. Downhill

skiing and rafting saw decreases in number of participants

since 1999. Participants for some activities (e.g., big and

small game hunting, horseback riding, waterskiing, and

snorkeling) decreased between 1994 and 1999-2001, but

then rebounded from 1999 to 2005-09. 

Table 4.10 shows activities with fewer than 15 million

participants. Most of these activities can be classified as

physically challenging and in some cases risky. Some of

these activities have shown growth in number of participants

between 1999 and 2009, such as kayaking, snowboarding,

orienteering, anadromous fishing, caving, and surfing. 

However, many of these activities have declined in number

of participants. These declining activities include crosscountry skiing, ice skating, snowshoeing, ice fishing,

snowmobiling, windsurfing, and others.

The within-decade trends shown in tables 4.7 through

4.10 do not necessarily fully describe very recent, shortterm trends. Some of these very recent trends likely are

reflecting the rapid rise in gasoline prices of 2007-08 and

of the recession which began in 2007 and continues as of

the writing of this report. However, viewed over all the

activities listed in these four tables, it is very clear that what

people in the United States chose as activities is changing

over time. Some of the activities that dominated in the

1960s, 1970s, and 1980s no longer dominate as society,

lifestyles, information, and technology are shifting (Cordell

and others 2008).

Figure 4.17 illustrates how rapidly outdoor activities can

shift relative positions in terms of number of people who

participate in them. For example, activities are graphed

and include kayaking, snowboarding, snowmobiling, and

cross-country skiing. Kayaking and snowboarding were

well below participation levels of snowmobiling and crosscountry skiing in 1994-95. By the 2005-09 period, however,

kayaking and snowboarding had taken participation

positions well above the other two activities. 

Trends in Number of Days for 

Individual Activities from NSRE

Table 4.11 highlights recent trends for activities with

greatest growth in total number of days on which people

participated in them between 1999 and 2009. The metric

of total days indicates overall participation as the product

of mean annual days per participant multiplied by number

of participants (as reported earlier in tables 4.7-4.10). The

NSRE definition of a day is any day during which a person
40

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional)

Table 4.10—Trends in number and percentage of people ages 16 and older participating in 

outdoor recreation activities in 1999-2001 and 2005-2009 (for activities with fewer than 15 

million participants from 2005 through 2009) 

Total participants 

Percent 

participating 

Percent 

change 

Activity 1994-1995 1999-2001 2005-2009 2005-2009 

1999-2001 to 

2005-2009 

------------------ millions ---------------- 

Kayaking 3.4 7.0 14.2 6.0 103.8 

Mountain climbing 9.0 13.2 12.4 5.3 -5.9 

Snowboarding 6.1 9.1 12.2 5.2 33.7 

Ice skating outdoors 14.2 13.6 12.0 5.1 -11.5 

Snowmobiling 9.6 11.3 10.7 4.5 -5.5 

Anadromous fishing 11.0 8.6 10.7 4.5 24.1 

Sailing 12.1 10.4 10.4 4.4 -0.4 

Caving 9.5 8.8 10.4 4.4 18.4 

Rock climbing 7.5 9.0 9.8 4.2 9.5 

Rowing 10.7 8.6 9.4 4.0 8.9 

Orienteering 4.8 3.7 6.2 2.6 67.8 

Cross-country skiing 8.8 7.8 6.1 2.6 -21.7 

Migratory bird hunting 5.7 4.9 4.9 2.1 -1.1 

Ice fishing 4.8 5.7 4.8 2.1 -15.5 

Surfing 2.9 3.2 4.7 2.0 46.3 

Snowshoeing – 4.5 4.1 1.7 -9.4 

Scuba diving – 3.8 3.6 1.5 -5.6 

Windsurfing 2.8 1.5 1.4 0.6 -10.1 

Missing data are denoted with “—“ and indicate that participation data for that activity were not collected during that 

time period. Percent change was calculated before rounding. 

Note: The numbers in this table are annual participation estimates based on data collected during the three time periods. 

1994-1995 participants based on 201.3 million people ages 16+ (Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2007). 1999-2001 

participants based on 214.0 million people ages 16+ (U.S. Department of Commerce 2000). 2005-2009 participants 

based on 235.3 million people ages 16+ (U.S. Department of Commerce 2008). 

Source: USDA Forest Service (1995) (n=17,217), USDA Forest Service (2001) (n=52,607), and USDA Forest Service 

(2009) (n=30,398). 
41

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional) 

yg 

To	
  resize	
  chart	
  data	
  range,	
  drag	
  lower	
  right	
  corner	
  of	
  range.

0	
  

2	
  

4	
  

6	
  

8	
  

10	
  

12	
  

14	
  

16	
  

Kayaking	
   Snowboarding	
   Snowmobiling	
   Cross-­‐country	
  

skiing	
  

Millions	
  

Ac*vity	
  

1994-­‐1995	
   1999-­‐2001	
   2005-­‐2009	
  

1999-­‐2001 2005-­‐2009

Visit	
  farm	
  or	
  agricultural	
  se6ng 1750.4 3655.3

View	
  wildflowers/trees 5739.9 10532.2

View	
  natural	
  scenery 7141.5 11608.6

View	
  wildlife	
  besides	
  birds	
  &	
  fish 3630.6 5509.5

Off-­‐highway	
  vehicle	
  driving 710.4 1048.2

To	
  resize	
  chart	
  data	
  range,	
  drag	
  lower	
  right	
  corner	
  of	
  range.

0	
  

2000	
  

4000	
  

6000	
  

8000	
  

10000	
  

12000	
  

14000	
  

Total	
  Annual	
  Days	
  

1999-­‐2001	
   2005-­‐2009	
  

Figure 4.17—Millions of participants in four outdoor recreation activities in three periods 

(1994-1995, 1999-2001, and 2005-2009).

Figure 4.18—Millions of total annual days for five high-growth outdoor activities between 1999 and 2009.

Activity
42

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional)

Table 4.11—Mean and total annual days for activities adding more than 100 million participation 

days between 1999-2001 and 2005-2009 

1999-2001 2005-2009 

Activity 

Mean 

annual 

days 

Total 

annual 

days 

Mean 

annual 

days 

Total 

annual 

days 

Percent 

change in 

total days 

1999-2001 to 

2005-2009 

Change in 

total days 

1999-2001 to 

2005-2009 

View wildflowers/trees 61.2 

--millions--

5,739.9 86.8 

--millions--

10,532.2 83.5 

--millions--

4,792.3 

View natural scenery 56.2 7,141.5 77.5 11,608.6 62.6 4,467.1 

Walk for pleasure 103.2 18,109.3 104.6 20,927.8 15.6 2,818.5 

View or photograph birds 87.8 6,009.3 97.7 8,215.0 36.7 2,205.7 

Visit farm or agricultural setting 29.9 1,750.4 48.5 3,655.3 108.8 1,904.9 

View wildlife besides birds and fish 38.5 3,630.6 46.7 5,509.5 51.8 1,878.9 

Swimming in an outdoor pool 23.2 1,971.1 25.7 2,621.1 33.0 650.0 

Off-highway vehicle driving 19.7 710.4 21.6 1,048.2 47.6 337.8 

Visit a beach 10.9 924.0 11.6 1,184.2 28.2 260.2 

Sightseeing 14.8 1,616.5 14.9 1,842.5 14.0 226.0 

Gathering of family/friends 6.2 970.4 6.8 1,179.3 21.5 208.9 

Gather mushrooms/berries 10.2 614.3 10.3 799.0 30.1 184.7 

Visit a wilderness 8.3 558.7 9.3 736.3 31.8 177.6 

Visit waterside besides beach 11.5 611.4 13.9 783.4 28.1 172.0 

Swimming in lakes, streams, etc. 12.4 1,062.4 12.6 1,232.4 16.0 170.0 

Visit outdoor nature center/zoo 5.1 620.9 5.5 736.4 18.6 115.5 

Note: The numbers in this table are annual activity days estimates based on data collected during the two time periods. 

Mean days is the average annual number of days in which participants engage in an activity. Total annual days 

(in millions) is the product of the estimated number of participants times the mean annual days. 

Source: USDA Forest Service (2001) (n=52,607) and USDA Forest Service (2009) (n=30,398). Change in total days may not 

exactly equal the difference between the two time periods due to rounding. 
43

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional) 

Table 4.12—Mean and total annual days for activities adding between 20 and 100 million participation 

days between 1999-2001 and 2005-2009 

1999-2001 2005-2009 

Activity 

Mean 

annual 

days 

Total 

annual 

days 

Mean 

annual 

days 

Total 

annual 

days 

Percent 

change in 

total days 

1999-2001 to 

2005-2009 

Change in 

total days 

1999-2001 to 

2005-2009 

 ---millions--- ---millions--- ---millions--- 

Driving for pleasure 18.9 2,045.2 17.8 2,140.1 4.6 94.9 

Warmwater fishing 15.2 721.8 14.6 816.3 13.1 94.5 

Motorboating 11.5 581.6 11.9 653.1 12.3 71.5 

Big game hunting 13.8 246.4 14.4 301.2 22.2 54.8 

Backpacking 8.7 186.2 10.2 235.8 26.6 49.6 

Kayaking 6.2 43.0 5.6 80.1 86.3 37.1 

Visit historic sites/monuments 4.3 411.2 4.2 439.8 7.0 28.6 

Waterskiing 8.1 129.7 7.3 155.6 20.0 25.9 

Snowboarding 7.4 67.4 7.4 89.4 32.6 22.0 

Note: The numbers in this table are annual activity days estimates based on data collected during the two time periods. 

Mean days is the average annual number of days in which participants engage in an activity. Total annual days 

(in millions) is the product of the estimated number of participants times the mean annual days. 

Source: USDA Forest Service (2001) (n=52,607) and USDA Forest Service (2009) (n=30,398). Change in total days may 

not exactly equal the difference between the two time periods due to rounding. 
44

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional)

Table 4.13—Mean and total annual days for activities adding fewer than 20 million participation days 

between 1999-2001 and 2005-2009 

1999-2001 2005-2009 

Activity 

Mean 

annual 

days 

Total 

annual 

days 

Mean 

annual 

days 

Total 

annual 

days 

Percent 

change in 

total days 

1999-2001 to 

2005-2009 

Change in 

total days 

1999-2001 to 

2005-2009 

 ---millions--- ---millions--- ---millions--- 

Use personal watercraft 7.8 148.2 7.9 167.0 12.7 18.8 

Primitive camping 7.1 234.1 7.3 249.6 6.6 15.5 

Visit archaeological sites 3.3 144.0 3.2 157.6 9.4 13.6 

Surfing 21.1 67.2 17.1 79.7 18.6 12.5 

Canoeing 5.1 98.8 4.7 106.7 8.0 7.9 

Rafting 4.0 77.2 4.5 83.3 7.9 6.1 

Anadromous fishing 7.2 62.1 6.4 68.1 9.7 6.0 

Rock climbing 4.4 39.8 4.6 44.7 12.3 4.9 

Coldwater fishing 11.3 320.9 10.5 325.4 1.4 4.5 

Rowing 5.7 49.2 5.5 51.7 5.1 2.5 

Caving 1.9 17.1 1.9 19.5 14.0 2.4 

Developed camping 7.6 419.8 7.5 421.8 0.5 2.0 

Sailing 6.0 62.4 6.1 63.8 2.2 1.4 

Migratory bird hunting 11.1 54.8 11.3 55.0 0.4 0.2 

Snorkeling 5.3 71.3 4.7 70.9 -0.6 -0.4 

Small game hunting 14.3 212.0 12.7 210.6 -0.7 -1.4 

Saltwater fishing 10.4 221.9 8.8 220.3 -0.7 -1.6 

Windsurfing 5.5 8.5 4.6 6.4 -24.7 -2.1 

Mountain climbing 4.7 62.4 4.8 59.7 -4.3 -2.7 

Scuba diving 7.0 26.9 6.3 22.7 -15.6 -4.2 

Snowshoeing 6.3 28.3 5.2 21.2 -25.1 -7.1 

Cross-country skiing 6.9 53.5 5.9 35.9 -32.9 -17.6 

Downhill skiing 6.3 109.5 5.5 88.3 -19.4 -21.2 

Snowmobiling 9.0 101.4 7.2 77.4 -23.7 -24.0 

Horseback riding on trails 18.3 290.3 16.3 262.1 -9.7 -28.2 

Picnicking 6.8 808.9 6.3 762.0 -5.8 -46.9 

Day hiking 27.8 1,919.6 22.9 1,825.5 -4.9 -94.1 

Bicycling on mountain/hybrid bike 25.4 1,119.6 19.4 825.8 -26.2 -293.8 

Note: The numbers in this table are annual activity days estimates based on data collected during the two time periods. Mean 

days is the average annual number of days in which participants engage in an activity. Total annual days (in millions) is the 

product of the estimated number of participants times the mean annual days. 

Source: USDA Forest Service (2001) (n=52,607) and USDA Forest Service (2009) (n=30,398). Change in total days may not exactly 

equal the difference between the two time periods due to rounding. 
45

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional) 

•	 Motorized activities—motorboating, off-highway

vehicle driving, snowmobiling, using personal

watercraft, and waterskiing.

•	 Hunting and fishing—anadromous fishing (salt to fresh

water migratory fish, e.g., salmon), coldwater fishing,

warmwater fishing, saltwater fishing, big game hunting,

small game hunting, and migratory bird hunting.

•	 Non-motor boating—canoeing, kayaking, rafting,

rowing, and sailing.

•	 Snow skiing and snowboarding—cross-country skiing,

downhill skiing, and snowboarding.

Shown in the line graphs are 3-year moving averages of

total annual number of activity days on which participation

occurred across the U.S. population of people ages 16 and

older. These moving averages are indexed to the estimated

number of days in the year 2000, where the index value

for 2000 is shown as zero; the indexed values represent

the percent change since the base year 2000. Graphing

for subsequent years shows whether there was an upward

or downward trend above or below the 2000 zero base

line for individual activities, respectively. The moving

average metric is used to decrease year-to-year variation in

participation in individual activities that result from weather

patterns, catastrophes such as Hurricane Katrina, the 9-11

attacks, fluctuating gas prices, and other factors.

Trends in Participation Across Composites of 

Activities from NSRE 

Figures 4.19 through 4.26 present indexed line graphs of

trends in selected nature-based activities grouped according

to general types of recreation. Activities were grouped

as listed below because of similarities in either setting or

primary focus of the activities. For example, the activities

in the composite “visiting recreation and historic sites”

were grouped because they involve people using designated

recreation sites. As another example, the composite named

“viewing and photographing nature” includes activities

focused on viewing and photographing birds, natural

scenery, other wildlife (besides birds), wildflowers and

trees, and the like. The seven activity composites and the

activities they cover include:

•	 Visiting recreation and historic sites—family gatherings,

picnicking, visiting the beach, visiting historic or

prehistoric sites, and camping.

•	 Viewing/photographing nature—view/photograph

birds, natural scenery, other wildlife (besides birds), and

wildflowers, trees, etc.

•	 Backcountry activities—backpacking, day hiking,

horseback riding on trails, mountain climbing, and

visiting a wilderness or primitive area.

Figure 4.19—Indexed moving average of total activity days for activities associated with visiting recreation or 

historic sites, 2000-2008.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Developed	
  camping 0 0.04459 0.07533 0.10843 0.1211 0.1265

Family	
  gathering 0 0.017881 0.03483 0.16465 0.17788 0.14543

Picnicking 0 0.004907 0.01774 -0.01082 0.00038 -0.02089

Visit	
  a	
  beach 0 0.04297 0.10409 0.32301 0.33803 0.36202

Visit	
  historic	
  sites 0 0.010005 0.00977 -0.06455 -0.05384 -0.01977

Visit	
  prehistoric/archeological	
  sites 0 0.014835 0.01281 -0.06608 -0.05529 -0.00674

-­‐1	
  

-­‐0.5	
  

0	
  

0.5	
  

1	
  

2000	
   2001	
   2002	
   2003	
   2004	
   2005	
   2006	
   2007	
   2008	
  

Moving	
  average	
  index	
  

Year	
  

Developed	
  camping	
  

Family	
  gathering	
  

Picnicking	
  

Visit	
  a	
  beach	
  

Visit	
  historic	
  sites	
  

Visit	
  prehistoric/archeological	
  sites	
  
46

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional)

activities of developed camping, family gatherings, and 

especially visiting a beach outpaced the other activities. 

Most activities dipped slightly in 2006 before rebounding 

in 2007 and 2008. Beach visits slowed somewhat and 

camping and picnicking settled at nearly the same level as 

2000. By 2008, family gatherings and visiting prehistoric or 

archeological sites showed the highest rates of growth.

Figure 4.20 shows indexed trends for activities associated 

with viewing and photographing nature. By the middle 

years of this decade, all of these five activities were showing 

growth, especially viewing and photographing wildflowers 

and trees as well as natural scenery. Slower growth, but 

growth nonetheless occurred for viewing and photographing 

wildlife and birds, and for visiting nature centers. As a 

group of activities, the ones shown in figure 4.20 showed 

consistent growth patterns likely indicating increasing 

interest in nature. 

Backcountry activity trends are indexed in figure 4.21. 

Starting in 2002 to the middle years of this decade, days 

of day hiking, horseback riding on trails and mountain 

climbing declined. But by 2008, mountain climbing had 

recovered and was showing growth. Backpacking and 

visiting wild areas were maintaining levels reached in the 

middle years of 2003-2005.

The 3-year moving average is computed as the annual 

average of the sum of total activity days across the span 

of 3 years. This average is applied to the middle of the 3 

years averaged and shown in the line graphs relative to base 

year 2000. For example, for 2001, the totals for years 2000, 

2001, and 2002 are summed, divided by 3, and applied to 

2001. In the first seven figures (4.19-25), indexed trends for 

individual activities in each activity composite are shown. 

In figure 4.26, moving average trends for the seven activity 

composites, indexed to base year 2000, are shown. Variation 

from the base year zero is computed for any given year 

beyond 2000 as:

MA = ((MA(2000 +n) / MA2000 ) -1) (3)

where 

n=number of years since 2000 

MA=moving average of annual total number of activity 

days

Often, when people think of outdoor recreation, site-based 

activities such as camping, picnicking, or going to the beach 

come to mind. In figure 4.19, trends in indexed total days of 

participation across six such traditional activities are shown. 

Relative to base year 2000, a mixture of trends is revealed. 

In the middle years (2003-2005), the family-oriented 

Figure 4.20—Indexed moving average of total activity days for viewing and photographing nature activities, 2000-2008.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

View/photograph	
  birds0 0.018239 0.11307 0.29205 0.30667 0.41856 0.37097 0.32329

View/photograph	
  natural	
  scenery 0 0.019629 0.08646 0.5059 0.52294 0.53685 0.6048 0.4701

View/photograph	
  other	
  wildlife 0 0.011925 0.0603 0.3112 0.32601 0.43678 0.47334 0.35982

View/photograph	
  wildflowers,	
  trees,	
  etc. 0 0.033328 0.0395 0.45472 0.47117 0.77211 0.78162 0.75039

Visit	
  nature	
  centers,	
  etc. 0 0.010235 0.0072 0.02671 0.03838 0.13977 0.15465 0.19655

-­‐1	
  

-­‐0.5	
  

0	
  

0.5	
  

1	
  

2000	
   2001	
   2002	
   2003	
   2004	
   2005	
   2006	
   2007	
   2008	
  

Moving	
  average	
  index	
  

Year	
  

View/photograph	
  birds	
   View/photograph	
  natural	
  scenery	
  

View/photograph	
  other	
  wildlife	
   View/photograph	
  wildflowers,	
  trees,	
  etc.	
  

Visit	
  nature	
  centers,	
  etc.	
  
47

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional) 

Figure 4.22—Indexed moving average of total activity days for motorized activities, 2000-2008.

Figure 4.21—Indexed moving average of total activity days for backcountry activities, 2000-2008.

Backpacking 0 0.000548 0.031798 0.15077 0.16393 0.16831 0.16338 0.16996

Day	
  hiking 0 0.026703 -0.040715 -0.12555 -0.11565 -0.13905 -0.14088 -0.09412

Horseback	
  riding	
  on	
  trails 0 -0.015499 0 -0.46032 -0.45412 -0.34191 -0.31215 -0.17049

Mountain	
  climbing 0 0.01506 0.027108 -0.43223 -0.4262 -0.36295 -0.08133 0.12199

Visit	
  a	
  wilderness	
  or	
  primi=ve	
  area 0 0.015436 0.075075 0.24838 0.26259 0.24452 0.16348 0.23294

-­‐1	
  

-­‐0.5	
  

0	
  

0.5	
  

1	
  

2000	
   2001	
   2002	
   2003	
   2004	
   2005	
   2006	
   2007	
   2008	
  

Moving	
  average	
  index	
  

Year	
  

Backpacking	
   Day	
  hiking	
  

Horseback	
  riding	
  on	
  trails	
   Mountain	
  climbing	
  

Visit	
  a	
  wilderness	
  or	
  primi=ve	
  area	
  

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Motorboa)ng 0 0.019575 0.03493 0.11745 0.1301 0.15845 0.07408 0.02548

Off-­‐highway	
  vehicle	
  driving 0 0.041835 0.2347 0.50397 0.52099 0.67424 0.39883 0.3998

Snowmobiling 0 0.037106 0.01855 -0.09369 -0.08256 -0.20408 -0.42393 -0.40724

Use	
  personal	
  watercra>0 0.024888 0.05935 0.21634 0.22974 0.13401 -0.01978 -0.02106

Waterskiing 0 -0.010197 -0.05535 0.02768 0.03933 -0.00583 -0.02331 -0.00437

-­‐1	
  

-­‐0.5	
  

0	
  

0.5	
  

1	
  

2000	
   2001	
   2002	
   2003	
   2004	
   2005	
   2006	
   2007	
   2008	
  

Moving	
  average	
  index	
  

Year	
  

Motorboa)ng	
   Off-­‐highway	
  vehicle	
  driving	
  

Snowmobiling	
   Use	
  personal	
  watercra>	
  

Waterskiing	
  
48

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional)

Big	
  game	
  hun3ng 0 0.025704 0.053856 0.09098 0.10322 0.26642 0.22032 0.23949

Coldwater	
  fishing 0 0.006272 0.006272 -0.02101 -0.00972 0.0138 -0.07087 -0.03606

Migratory	
  bird	
  hun3ng0 -0.007353 -0.03125 -0.04963 -0.04044 -0.09926 -0.13235 -0.10846

Saltwater	
  fishing 0 0.017998 0.013169 -0.10843 -0.09833 0.01536 -0.05004 -0.0439

Small	
  Game	
  hun3ng 0 0.013226 0.037317 -0.00661 0.00425 -0.03448 -0.02976 -0.06849

Warmwater	
  fishing 0 0.003714 -0.00784 0.05653 0.0685 0.11774 0.05488 0.00413

-­‐1	
  

-­‐0.5	
  

0	
  

0.5	
  

1	
  

2000	
   2001	
   2002	
   2003	
   2004	
   2005	
   2006	
   2007	
   2008	
  

Moving	
  average	
  index	
  

Year	
  

Anadromous	
  fishing	
   Big	
  game	
  hun3ng	
   Coldwater	
  fishing	
  

Migratory	
  bird	
  hun3ng	
   Saltwater	
  fishing	
   Small	
  Game	
  hun3ng	
  

Warmwater	
  fishing	
  

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Canoeing 0 0.019868 0.00095 0.00662 0.01798 -0.01419 -0.0965 -0.11921

Kayaking 0 0.091304 0.26739 0.51522 0.53261 0.6 0.48261 0.71522

Ra.ing 0 0.020507 0.1158 0.27624 0.29071 0.23764 -0.07238 -0.04584

Rowing 0 0.031809 -0.0159 0.02783 0.03976 0.00398 -0.04175 -0.14513

Sailing 0 0.044006 0.04097 0.05615 0.06829 0.01669 -0.05615 -0.01821

-­‐1	
  

-­‐0.5	
  

0	
  

0.5	
  

1	
  

2000	
   2001	
   2002	
   2003	
   2004	
   2005	
   2006	
   2007	
   2008	
  

Moving	
  average	
  index	
  

Year	
  

Canoeing	
   Kayaking	
   Ra.ing	
   Rowing	
   Sailing	
  

Figure 4.24—Indexed moving average of total activity days for non-motorized boating activities, 2000-2008.

Figure 4.23—Indexed moving average of total activity days for hunting and fishing activities, 2000-2008.
49

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional) 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Cross	
  country	
  skiing 0 -0.005329 -0.06927 -0.14032 -0.13144 -0.28774 -0.44405 -0.5524

Downhill	
  skiing 0 0.016949 0.01017 -0.07373 -0.06271 -0.16271 -0.21271 -0.31695

Snowboarding 0 0.060526 0.10526 0.56447 0.58289 0.20526 -0.00395 0.04079

-­‐1	
  

-­‐0.5	
  

0	
  

0.5	
  

1	
  

2000	
   2001	
   2002	
   2003	
   2004	
   2005	
   2006	
   2007	
   2008	
  

Moving	
  average	
  index	
  

Year	
  

Cross	
  country	
  skiing	
   Downhill	
  skiing	
   Snowboarding	
  

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Visit Recreation And Historic Sites 0 0.023632 0.04998 0.12642 0.13924 0.13883

Viewing/Photographing Nature 0 0.021257 0.07525 0.39522 0.41101 0.53931

Backcountry Activities 0 0.018481 -0.00958 -0.08209 -0.07167 -0.07656

Motorized Activities 0 0.028104 0.11259 0.26795 0.28233 0.33631

Hunting And Fishing 0 0.009503 0.00891 0.01031 0.02171 0.07527

Non-Motor Boating 0 0.035633 0.06813 0.14937 0.16249 0.13426

Snow Skiing And Boarding 0 0.02517 0.02117 0.10507 0.11786 -0.07911

-­‐1	
  

-­‐0.5	
  

0	
  

0.5	
  

1	
  

2000	
   2001	
   2002	
   2003	
   2004	
   2005	
   2006	
   2007	
   2008	
  

Moving	
  average	
  index	
  

Year	
  

Visit	
  Recrea>on	
  And	
  Historic	
  Sites	
  

Viewing/Photographing	
  Nature	
  

Backcountry	
  Ac>vi>es	
  

Motorized	
  Ac>vi>es	
  

Hun>ng	
  And	
  Fishing	
  

Non-­‐Motor	
  Boa>ng	
  

Snow	
  Skiing	
  And	
  Boarding	
  

Figure 4.26—Indexed moving average of total activity days for seven composites of nature-based activities, 2000-2008.

Figure 4.25—Indexed moving average of total activity days for snow skiing and boarding activities, 2000-2008.
50

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional)

Broad Summary of Trends in Outdoor and 

Nature-Based Recreation from NSRE

In the summer of 2008, papers describing the overall trends

in general outdoor recreation and in specific nature-based

outdoor recreation were published in the International 

Journal of Wilderness (Cordell and others 2008) and in

Forest History Today (Cordell 2008). This section updates

those trends with additional data from NSRE through 2009. 

Consistent with the previous section, these trends are based

on pooled data from 1999-2001 and 2005-09. (Relatively

few NSRE interviews were conducted during the calendar

year 1999, which is why the trend period is designated as

2000 to 2009.)

Outdoor recreation broadly defined—Between 2000 and

2009, the total number of people who participated in one or

more of a list of 60 outdoor activities grew by 7.5 percent,

from an estimated 208.2 million to 223.9 million (fig. 4.27). 

Included in the list of 60 was a wide range of activities, from

visiting beaches and visiting farms to rock climbing and

backpacking. Across the 60 activities, the number of activity

days of participation (an index measuring the average

number of days per activity x number of activity participants

summed across all activities) increased from 61.3 billion to

81.3 billion, an approximate 32.5 percent increase in 9 years. 

The average annual days of participation per person (i.e.,

total days divided by the total number of participants in each

period) who participated in one or more of the 60 activities

increased about 23 percent.

Nature-based outdoor recreation specifically—Within

the list of 60 outdoor recreation activities making up the

trends in figure 4.27 are 50 nature-based activities. These

are activities associated in some way with wildlife, birds,

streams, lakes, snow and ice areas, trails, rugged terrain,

mountains, caves, and other natural outdoor resources or

settings. Included in the list of 50 are activities such as

mountain biking, coldwater fishing, whitewater rafting,

downhill skiing, primitive camping, backpacking,

mountain climbing, visiting prehistoric sites, saltwater

fishing, and snorkeling.

Pursuit of nature-based activities, such as bird watching or

swimming, can occur near home, or as with backpacking or

mountain climbing, at more remote wildland areas. As is the

case with more broadly defined outdoor recreation activities,

nature-based outdoor recreation showed a discernible

growth in the total number of participants and in the

summed number of activity days between 2000 and 2009. 

Figure 4.28 summarizes this growth.

The indexed trends in motorized activity participation

are shown in figure 4.22. Through the middle years of

this decade, the only activity showing a decline was

snowmobiling. That downward trend continued through

2006 but rebounded slightly through 2008. Off-highway

vehicle driving grew steadily until 2005 before falling back

to its 2000 level by 2008. Only snowmobiling had a lower

level of participation in 2008 than it had in 2000.

Figure 4.23 covers seven hunting and fishing activities. 

Although there were some slight growth or decline trends

shown in the middle years, generally all activities ended

close to the same levels of participation in 2008 as in 2000. 

Big game hunting had grown the most by 2008, slightly

more than anadromous fishing. Saltwater and coldwater

fishing were the two activities posting declines since 2000. 

Hunting and fishing as referenced for the NSRE respondents

includes any amount of participation, whether or not it was

the primary activity of choice for an outing. Thus, this trend

is not inconsistent with the earlier reported hunting and

fishing trends reported in the paper by Anna Harris from the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Non-motorized boating activities include paddling

(canoeing or kayaking), floating (rafting), rowing and

sailing (fig. 4.24). Through this decade, canoeing, rowing,

and sailing maintained about the same level of total days of

activity as in 2000. Kayaking and rafting showed moderate

growth up through the middle years, but by 2006, rafting

had dropped below its 2000 level before rebounding in

2008. Kayaking grew steadily throughout the decade with

only a slight dip in 2006.

Cross-country skiing and downhill skiing showed a slow but

steady decline from 2000 to 2007 before rebounding slightly

in 2008 (fig. 4.25). Snowboarding, however, increased in the

middle years of this decade, but since then declined back to

its level of 2000. 

The patterns shown in figure 4.26 reflect the cumulative

effects of trends in the individual activities reported in the

previous line graphs. While motorized activities showed

growth up to about 2005, it, along with hunting, fishing,

and backcountry activities, ended up toward the end of this

decade at about the same level of participation as in 2000. 

Non-motor boating grew modestly, and visiting recreation

and historic sites grew at a slightly higher rate. Various

forms of skiing, including snowboarding, declined during

this decade. The clear leader in growth of total annual days

was the overall group of activities named “viewing and

photographing nature.”
51

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional) 

United States as one of the Nation’s more traditional core

activities. Developed camping means camping overnight in

sites specifically set up to accommodate overnight visitors. 

The second is a paper on the activity of geocaching, an

activity very often involving natural settings. Geocaching

is a relatively new activity that involves use of a handheld

Global Positioning System (GPS) device to find hidden

stashes of mystery items in outdoor areas based on clues

posted on the Internet. The third is a paper covering the

growth of wildlife festivals (e.g., birds, mammals, fish, and

invertebrates). Festivals can be local or as broad as national

and typically involve volunteers as well as related social,

recreational, and educational activities. Wildlife and other

festivals are important draws for tourists and speak to the

growing popularity of wildlife viewing and photography. 

The total number of people who participated in one or

more of these fifty activities grew by 7.1 percent, from an

estimated 196.0 million to 209.9 million. At the same time,

the number of activity days of participation summed across

all participants and activities grew about 40 percent, from

an estimated 37 billion to about 52 billion. Over all fifty

nature-based activities, per capita days of participation for

the U.S. population increased by around 31 percent during

this period. 

Experts Focus on Three Outdoor Activities

The following section includes invited papers that focus on

three specific nature-based outdoor activities. The first paper

discusses developed camping, which has been viewed in the

2000 2009

Number	
  Who	
  Par0cipate	
  (million) 208 224

Number	
  of	
  Ac0vity	
  Days	
  (billion) 61 81

208	
  

224	
  

61	
  

81	
  

40	
  

60	
  

80	
  

100	
  

150	
  

200	
  

250	
  

2000	
   2009	
  

Billions	
  of	
  days	
  

Millions	
  who	
  par1cipate	
  

Number	
  Who	
  Par0cipate	
  (million)	
   Number	
  of	
  Ac0vity	
  Days	
  (billion)	
  

+32.5%	
  

+7.5%	
  

Figure 4.27—Growth in number of people age 16 and older and number of annual 

participation days in 60 outdoor recreation activities in the United States, 2000-2009. 
52

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional)

common ways that Americans spend time in the outdoors,

with over one-fourth of the U.S. population participating in

some form of camping. 

From the late 1950s to the early 1970s, researchers studied

elements of developed camping experiences such as

associated activities (King 1966) and patterns of social

interaction (Burch 1965, Hendee and Campbell 1969, Shafer

1969). Hendee and Harris (1970) observed that developed

campgrounds reflected complex social systems among

groups, and both Etzkorn (1964) and Hendee and Campbell

(1969) found that campers often appeared to care more

Invited Paper

Trends in Developed Forest Camping

by Barry A. Garst, Daniel R. Williams, and Joseph W. 

Roggenbuck6

Introduction

Over the past 40 years, the number of forest campers has

grown from 13 million in the 1960s to approximately 56

million in 2000 (table 4.6). Camping is now one of the more

0 2009

7 52

6 210

196 210

37

52

100

150

200

250

2009

Millions	
  who	
  par-cipate

20

40

60

+40.1%

+7.1%

Number  Who  Par/cipate  (million)

Number  of  Ac/vity  Days  (billion)

Billions	
  of	
  days

2000

Year

Figure 4.28—Growth in number of people age 16 and older and number of annual participation 

days in 50 nature-based outdoor recreation activities in the United States, 2000-2009.

Daniel R. Williams Joseph W. Roggenbuck

Barry Garst

6Barry A. Garst, Director of Research Application on National Staff, American Camp Association, Salem, VA; Daniel R. Williams, Research Social Scientist,

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO; Joseph W. Roggenbuck, Professor Emeritus, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and

State University, Blacksburg, VA.
53

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional) 

engaged in passive entertainment rather than in active,

nature-based experiences. However, even some of the

studies of developed camping from the 1960s noted that

“few visitors engaged in activities that were dependent upon

the natural environment or displayed any concern for the

flora, fauna, geology, or natural history of the area” (Hendee

and Campbell 1969).

Modern campers also appear to have a different set of

expectations for campground facilities when compared

to 1960s campers. The trend even among some publicmanaged campgrounds, particularly those found in State

park systems, has moved toward expanded amenities and

services, reflecting trends in American society toward

personal comfort and convenience. In addition, many U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service campgrounds

are now managed by outside concessionaires and thus

reduce the prevalence of more rustic developed camping

opportunities that provide fewer amenities.

A Virginia Case Study

Further documentation of developed forest camping trends

can be gleaned from a 2003 case study of developed

camping conducted in the Mount Rogers National

Recreation Area with 38 camping groups across three

campgrounds that varied in their level of development

(Garst and others 2010). Participants tended to be very

experienced with camping, with 13 percent having 21 to

25 years of experience and 41 percent having more than

25 years of experience. Participants had traveled to Mount

Rogers from nine States, with most participants (37 percent)

being Virginia residents.

Camping vehicles—Data about the types of vehicles that

participants used were collected in the interviews and via

observations made at the time of the interview. In the less

developed campgrounds, in which the roads were too small

to accommodate larger camping vehicles, participants

used tents or small pop-up campers. Participants from the

moderately developed campground used tents, pop-up

campers, pull behind trailers, and smaller motor homes. 

These campgrounds could accommodate larger camping

vehicles like motor homes because of wider, paved

roads, but because they did not have full hook-ups, motor

homes were rare. Participants from the highly developed

campgrounds tended to use motor homes and larger pullbehind trailers. 

A common theme related to camping vehicles that emerged

from the interviews involved “transitioning” or “upgrading”

as a participant moves from one type of camping vehicle

for social interaction than natural amenities. For example,

research into activity patterns of campers emphasized the

importance of campfires for facilitating social interaction

during camping (Hendee and Campbell 1969).

This trend summary compares developed camping in the

1960s and 1970s with 21st century developed camping

and suggests that developed forest camping has changed

considerably over the past 40 years, especially in the area

of equipment and technologies. Today’s campers show

different characteristics, preferences, and behaviors than

campers of the 1960s, when camping was sometimes

viewed as an inexpensive lodging option for families

on vacation (ORRRC 1962). Developed campground

campers today tend to be retirees camping in motor homes

or recreationists using camping to gain access to specific

recreation activities (Cordell and others 1999). Despite

these changes the values and benefits of the experience have

much in common with the past.

Technological advancements have changed modern

camping. Synthetic materials have replaced natural fabrics

in many types of clothing, tents, and sleeping bags (Tilin

and Grudowski 1997). Advancements in equipment such

as weather-resistant tents, portable cook-stoves, selfinflating pads, collapsible water bladders, and solar-heated

showers have made camping much more comfortable

today (Cordell and others 1999). Modern campers utilize a

wider variety of electronic technologies for communication

and entertainment as compared to what was available to

1960s campers. In addition to the ubiquitous cell phone,

televisions, DVD players, wireless connections, and even

satellite dishes have become commonplace, which may

suggest that today’s campers spend much of their time

Travelling and camping. (Photo courtesy of Ken Cordell)
54

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional)

their camping experiences, some onsite and some offsite. 

Activities were almost always social, and a majority of

participants stated that “who they were with” was most

important. The setting of the experience was also salient, as

expressed through nature-based activities and preferences

for certain campground and campsite characteristics. 

Participants expressed a range of emotions that they felt

during their camping experience, and their mood states

ebbed and flowed based upon what was happening to them

(e.g., the weather) and what they were doing.

Meaning of camping—Participants were asked about the

meanings associated with their onsite developed forest camping

experiences (associated meanings) and also about the ways

in which camping was meaningful within the greater context

of their lives (life-context meanings). The most common

associated meanings were: restoration (including escape, rest,

and relaxation), family functioning, special places, self-identity,

social interaction, experiencing nature, and opportunity

for children to learn. When compared to camping studies

from the 1960s and 1970s, one key difference appears to be

the increasing importance given to family functioning and

children’s learning (Garst and others 2010). 

As described by participants, camping meanings were

interrelated. For example, family functioning meanings

were related to the opportunity that participants had to

“escape” (a category of restoration) the stresses of their

home environments in order to focus on members of their

family during their camping trips. Another example was

“special places,” which evolved from participants spending

time in nature and then developing family traditions focused

around their attachment to a particular campground. Another

example was “appreciation for nature,” which evolved

from experiencing nature and feelings of restoration. As

participants spent time in nature and were restored through

contact with it, they expressed appreciation for nature. 

Some meanings were not only associated with participants’

current camping trip but were also identified as important

in the greater context of participants’ lives (life-context

meanings). The most common life-context meanings were:

restoration (including escape, rest, and relaxation), sharing

positive family memories and traditions, experiencing and

appreciating nature, freedom, novelty, self-identify, family

functioning, and self-reliance.

Implications

Comfort and convenience, important to the participants in

the case study, were most often associated with access to

campsite amenities such as water, electricity, hot showers,

to another during the course of one’s life to accommodate

preferences for comfort. Transitioning from tent camping,

to a pop-up, to a camper, and finally to a motor-home was

seen by many participants as a natural progression and an

inevitable aspect of developed camping. As a participant

from the moderately developed campground shared,

“We went from a tent to a pop-up because we [were] getting

so old we couldn’t get down on the ground and get up...

campers definitely want more comfort when they get older.”

Electronics—To explore how technology facilitated the

modern developed forest camping experience, data were

collected about electronics as a part of the interviews. 

Participants from the less developed and moderately

developed campgrounds used the fewest types of

electronics, which typically included items such as radios

and televisions. 

In comparison, participants from the highly developed

campground used a wide range of electronics, including

televisions, radios, VCRs, personal gaming devices

(e.g., Nintendo, Game Boy, Sega/Play Station), cell

phones, microwave ovens, CD players, satellite dishes,

coffeemakers, refrigerators, DVD players, electric blankets,

weather radios, air conditioning units, electric grills, digital

cameras, and even a ham radio. This seems consistent with

the fact that a majority of participants camping in the highly

developed campground utilized motor homes which gave

them easier access to electricity, thus making electronic

technology much more likely. 

In addition to asking participants about the electronics

they brought and utilized on their camping trips, they

were also asked about whether or not these electronics

were important for their developed forest camping

experiences and how these technologies influenced their

experiences. The most common theme that emerged among

participants was comfort and convenience. Participants

used technologies, from camping vehicle to gear to

electronics, to make the camping experience more pleasant

and less work. As a participant from the highly developed

campground explained, “We wouldn’t be here if we didn’t

have waterproof tents and nylon bags to put all our stuff

in, and plastic coolers to keep our ice frozen...This kind

of stuff is what we need, it really makes camping more

comfortable.”

Camping experiences—To identify the most salient aspects

of developed forest camping experiences, participants in

the Virginia study were asked to describe in detail different

aspects of their developed forest camping experiences. 

Participants were involved in a range of activities during
55

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional) 

Invited Paper

Geocaching: Form, Function, and Opportunity 

by Ingrid E. Schneider and Deborah J. Chavez7 

The role technology plays in outdoor recreation is evolving

and of ongoing interest. One technology-related activity

in particular emerged at the start of the 21st century:

geocaching. Geocaching involves using a handheld GPS

device to find hidden caches in areas based on clues posted

on the Internet. Geocaching.com, the primary source

for geocachers, provides information and guidelines for

participating in the activity. In 2010, geocaching celebrated

its 10th birthday heralded by nearly 100,000 geocaching.

com members and nearly 1,000,000 active caches around

the world. The current estimate of the percent of population

of people in the United States of age 16 and older who

participate in geochaching is 3.5 percent (based on

sampling for the NSRE described earlier). This is roughly

8 million participants of this age in the United States based

on the Bureau of Census population estimate for 2008. 

Since this is an activity popular with youth, there obviously

are many more participants than this 8 million.

In its simplest form, a geocache is a small, waterproof

container with a logbook. The logbook contains

information from the cache hider and notes from its

finders. A logbook might contain information about nearby

attractions, coordinates to other unpublished (not posted

on the Internet) caches, and even jokes. Those who take

information from the logbook then leave some information

too, at least providing the date and time they visited. 

The geocaching.com Web site notes that geocaching is

deceptively easy; it is one thing to see where an item is

clean bathrooms, and technologies such as satellite and cell

phone reception. Future developed forest campers will likely

continue to demand these types of amenities. 

Developed forest campers perceived many benefits related

to family functioning and identified family functioning as

an important meaning associated with developed forest

camping experiences. Quality family interaction was in part

attributed to the opportunities camping afforded families

to have some “down time.” This additional quality family

time was used for unscheduled time together as well as to

participate in organized programs, campfires, and selfguided trails associated with the campgrounds and nearby

facilities and attractions. 

Despite a plethora of “indoor” conveniences, campfires

continue to be a center for social experiences in the

campsites and were the catalyst for the expression and

sharing of stories and even traditions. Sharing and hearing

stories about camping was seen as a particularly valuable

component of the social interactions among campers. 

Managers may want to consider ways to enhance these

types of experiences through site construction, visitor

interpretation, and organized programming. As one

example, interpretive sites and trails can incorporate more

electronic communications technologies to help attract

younger participants.

Given what we learned from researchers investigating

developed forest camping in the 1960s, it is apparent that the

technology campers take with them has evolved, while the

experiences and meanings have remained largely the same. 

People continue to look to developed camping as a way to

comfortably contact nature and to satisfy important human

needs for personal restoration and social bonding. The

motivations that led campers to escape and to travel in social

groups to less populated areas for the restorative effects of

a camping trip are still very much present. Coupled with

meanings like emotional attachments to special camping

places, the strengthening of social family relationships

through memories and stories, and the enhancement of a

general appreciation of nature, developed forest camping

continues to play an important role within the larger context

of outdoor recreation experiences.

End Invited Paper

Ingrid E. Schneider Deborah J. Chavez

7 Ingrid E. Schneider, Ph.D., Professor, Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN; Deborah J. Chavez, Ph.D., Supervisory Research Social

Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Riverside, CA.
56

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional)

purpose of this project was to profile geocachers and their

activity. Notably, the samples reported are small and not

representative of all geocachers across the United States. 

However, many of the issues identified in these studies can

help in better understanding this growing user group and

their impact on public lands.

Methods

To find out more about geocachers, an electronically

administered survey was developed and disseminated to

geocachers in Minnesota (MN) and Michigan (MI) in

2003 and 2004, respectively. Potential respondents were

geocachers drawn from the appropriate State Geocaching

Association (n=235 in MN and n=480 in MI). Due to the

few Minnesota association members at that time, that list

was supplemented by cachers who found a cache in the

seven county metropolitan Minnesota area, as was listed

online at www.geocaching.com.

A questionnaire was designed, pre-tested, and

electronically implemented via Zoomerang© using a

modified Dillman (2000) technique. The questionnaire

addressed experience with geocaching, preferences for

geocaching experiences, environmentally appropriate

behaviors, and demographics. Demographics included age,

gender, income, and education level. 

More than 50 percent of geocachers responded to the

questionnaires (MN 62 percent response rate, MI 52 percent

response rate). Descriptive analysis provided means,

standard deviations, and frequencies. 

Findings

The respondents ranged in age from 18 to 70 years, with a

mean age near 40 (39 years in MN, 43 years in MI). The

vast majority of survey respondents were male (85.6 percent

in MN, 72 percent in MI) and White (96.1 percent in MN,

97 percent in MI), highly educated (47.7 percent college

degree, 14.4 percent advanced degree in MN, 39 percent

college degree, 16 percent advanced degree in MI), and

reported an income > $75,000 in MN and > $50,000 in MI. 

At the time of the survey, respondents most frequently

indicated they had participated in geocaching for 1 to 2

years. Respondents were typically with members of their

immediate family when geocaching (48.1 percent in MN,

52.8 percent in MI) or alone (24.8 percent in MN, 20.8

percent in MI). The majority of respondents indicated they

always found caches (66.9 percent in MN, 66.3 percent in

MI). Almost half had hidden at least one cache (48 percent

on the GPS unit, but it is a different story to get there. 

After finding the cache, participants are asked to place it

back where and how they found it. After returning home,

the cache finder posts an email to the cache owner via

geocache.com to let them know the cache was found and

comments on the condition of the cache. Appropriately

placed and well-maintained caches are recommended by

www.geocaching.com.

With emergent activities come new challenges and

opportunities for land managers and planners, e.g., off-trail

travel, disturbed natural areas, abandoned property, and

more visitors. Although geocaching has existed for a decade,

few empirical studies of geocachers exist (Chavez and

others 2004, O’Hara 2008). As such, little is known about

this user group, their behaviors, and preferences. Thus, the

Example of cache contents. (USDA Forest Service file photo)

Example of a micro (small) cache. (USDA Forest Service file photo)
57

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional) 

to get out and walk, as well as to push themselves physically

to find the cache. Given the obesity epidemic in the United

States and emphasis on physical fitness by government and

non-government organizations, geocaching participants’

motivation for exercise is very promising. Participants’

physical health changes, if any, and the realized health

benefits would be of interest in future research. 

Communication and programming implications are evident

with this activity. First, electronic communication is almost

mandatory with geocachers, given the internet dependency

for cache coordinates. While typical communication methods

of onsite signs and brochures may be of use, immediate and

real-time messages can be delivered on management Web

sites, through www.geocaching.com, and a local geocaching

organization Web site if one exists. The use of caches

themselves for information or education may be of interest. 

For example, the use of the Register of Big Trees (which

are maintained by public forestry agencies describing the

location of the largest specimens of various tree species) as

caches may improve people’s understanding and appreciation

of the trees (Wright 2003). Research on optimizing

messaging and delivery will be essential as this, and other,

technologically-driven activities evolve. Second, given the

male dominance of the activity, single-sex programming

could provide opportunities to overcome constraints related

to technology as well as the outdoors for women. 

As geocaching appears to be a family activity, social group

research is of interest. Research documents that family

leisure and recreation enhances family satisfaction (Orthner

1975, 1976) as well as couple satisfaction (Holman and

Epperson 1984; Holman and Jacquart 1988). However,

the leisure experience within groups varies among

group members by age and family role (Martinson and

others 2002). Thus, understanding if and how leisure is

experienced within geocaching family groups is of interest. 

O’Hara (2008) positively notes the flexibility of geocaching

for participation and inclusivity to create a positive social

environment, regardless of group. Similarly, understanding

if and how technology-based group leisure is experienced is

of interest. The integration of technology may dramatically

change the outdoor recreation experience. GPS use could

cross over generational divides associated with technology

and enhance family opportunities in the outdoors. Also,

as geocaching brings decisions regarding directions,

technology, as well as hand-held controls, the opportunity

for marital and family conflict presents itself (Imber-Black

2001). As such, exploring the actual effect of geocaching

experiences on family cohesion and group dynamics would

be enlightening. Beyond the family, the socialization and

patterns of the geocaching e-community deserves attention

in MN, 55 percent in MI). 

The majority of respondents in both States agreed on the

most important motivations for geocaching and that it

increased their visitation to parks. At least 80 percent of

respondents in both States agreed that important motivations

for geocaching were to experience nature, get away from the

usual demands of life, get physical exercise, and test their

skills. More than 95 percent of respondents in both States

agreed or strongly agreed that geocaching had increased

their number of visits to parks and recreation areas. 

Regarding environmentally responsible behavior, the

vast majority of geocachers in both States (85 percent)

concurred that it was important to pack out everything they

brought in, remove dog feces, and control pets. However, a

lower number of cachers (65 percent) identified that it was

important to stay on trails.

Implications for the Future 

Results from the electronically administered questionnaire

indicate that Midwestern geocaching participants are

similar to outdoor recreationists in other activity groups,

although more male dominated (Cordell and others 1999). 

These results are also comparable to the computer gaming

area, where males have dominated as technology emerges

(Bryce and Rutter 2003). If the gender divide continues in

geocaching, it will be interesting to follow and compare

with Internet and computer gaming participation where,

as the innovation diffuses, the female presence has grown

(Schumacher and Morahan-Martin 2001).

Among these respondents, geocaching has led to an

increased use of public lands. Knowing more about the

increase in visitation in terms of number of visits or

duration would be meaningful. Further information on the

caching experiences would also be helpful, such as better

understanding the importance of the hunt, factors influencing

positive experiences, and duration of experiences. Similarly

of interest is determining what percent of geocachers

are new outdoor recreationists, and whether new use of

technology in the outdoors may result in visitor conflicts. 

Further, the fact that geocachers typically go off trail at

some point may result in negative feelings toward them. 

Subsequently, the impact of this new experience opportunity

on visitor conflict levels deserves attention.

Motivations for geocaching are similar to other outdoor

recreation activities, and hold promise for physical activity

opportunities. O’Hara’s (2008) interviews with English

geocachers indicated that this activity motivated respondents
58

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional)

Hvenegaard and Manaloor 2007, Romero and Stangel 1996). 

Methods

This paper reviews the growth, economic impacts, and

conservation orientation of wildlife festivals. Data were

obtained from a comprehensive literature review, analysis

of Internet sites, and personal participation in some studies

(e.g., Hvenegaard and Manaloor 2007).

Results

Recently, wildlife festivals have grown rapidly in number. 

In North America, from 1992 to 2002, the number of

known festivals grew from 10 to 240 (Decray and others

1998, DiGregorio 2002, Lawton 2009). In Canada, over

80 wildlife festivals were offered in 2009. Wildlife festival

tourists are generally older, more educated, and more

affluent than the general population (Lawton 2009). 

Table 4.14 summarizes the expenditures generated by

visitors within a given local area of several North American

wildlife festivals. While formal economic impact studies

should include only new spending in a local area by nonresidents (see Kim and others (1998), and Chambliss and

others (2009) for good models), a number of the studies

used data and methods inconsistent with this standard. 

Regardless, total local expenditures per festival ranged

from about $10,000 to more than $1 million USD. Average

expenditures per person per trip ranged from $8 to $761

USD. Significant drivers of local economic impact include

the number of participants, need to stay overnight, length of

stay, affluence of participants, types of activities, and ability

of local communities to meet visitor needs (Hvenegaard and

Manaloor 2004).

A few studies have expanded economic analyses. Rockport,

Texas hosts the Hummer/Bird Celebration each year in

September. The 4,500 festival visitors spend an average of

$383.70 USD per person, for a total of $1,276,548 USD

in the local county (Kim and others 1998). Of visitors, 71

percent were non-residents (spending $344.94 USD per

person) and 29 percent were residents (spending $133.69

USD per person). Using a regional input-output model, Kim

and others (1998) estimated a total economic multiplier

(the number of times that money is spent over again in the

local area) of 2.28. Thus, the county received an additional

$144,638 USD in indirect expenditures (businesses

(Scott and Johnson 2003).

Our research indicates that geocaching takes several forms,

is linked to technology (e.g., Internet, GPS), is of growing

interest, gets people outdoors and active, and has the

potential to change how lands are used by members of the

recreating public. As such, geocaching provides challenges

and opportunities to those managing lands the geocachers

use. A number of research opportunities similarly exist to

better understand the activity, the geocachers, and offer

advice to the resource managers who provide the lands for

this technology dependent activity. 

End Invited Paper

Invited Paper

Wildlife Festivals in North America: 

Growth and Economic Importance 

by Glen T. Hvenegaard8

Introduction

Festivals are annual public celebrations of local features of

interest lasting a short time (Getz 1997). Wildlife festivals

can focus on all wildlife or on particular groups or species

(e.g., birds, mammals, fish, and invertebrates). Festivals

attract mostly local and regional visitors, are facilitated by

volunteers, and offer a variety of social, recreational, and

educational activities. Organizers host wildlife festivals

for a number of reasons usually including enhancement

of a community’s image, generation of economic impacts,

providing recreational opportunities, developing a local sense

of community, and helping conserve wildlife (Polson 1993,

Glen T. Hvenegaard

8 Glen T. Hvenegaard, Professor of Environmental Studies and Geography, University of Alberta’s Augustana Campus, Camrose, Alberta T4V2R3 Canada.
59

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional) 

Table 4.14—Local expenditures resulting from wildlife festivals 

Festival name Location Year Days 

Visitors

Local 

expenditures per 

person per visita 

Total local 

expendituresa Reference 

number 

Snow Goose Festival Tofield, AB 2000 2 5,000 $22.48 CAD $98,050 CAD Hvenegaard and Manaloor 

2004 

Brant Wildlife Festival Parksville-Qualicum, BC 2003 3 3,430 $155.73 CAD $534,188 CAD Jenner 2003 British Birdwatching Fair Rutland, UK 2003 3 16,000 – $640,000 U.S. Green 2003 

Hummer/Bird Celebration Rockport, TX 1995 4 4,500 $283.70 U.S. $1,276,548 U.S. Kim and others 1998 

Rio Grande Valley Bird Festival Harlingen, TX 1998 5 – $761.15 U.S. – Eubanks and Stoll 1999 

American River Salmon Festival Rancho Cardova, CA 1999 2 16,000 $33.80 U.S. – Fermata, Inc. 2001 

Kern Valley Bioregions Festival Kern County, CA 1999 2 1,000-1,500 $184.15 U.S. – Fermata, Inc. 2001 

Florida Panhandle Birding & 

Wildflower Festival 

Bay, Gulf, & Franklin Counties, FL 

2002 4 232 $43 U.S. $52,098 U.S. Lynch and others 2003 

Florida Wakulla Springs Birding 

and Wildlife Festival 

Wakulla County, FL 2003 2 258 $14.15 U.S. $22,528 U.S. Lynch and Harrington 2003 

Pelican Island Wildlife Festival Indian River County, FL 2003 2 3,000 $557.54 U.S. for 

non-residents 

$650,000 U.S. 

from nonresidents 

Chambliss and others 2003 

Potholes and Prairie Birding 

Festival 

Jamestown, ND 2004 4 $162 $16,839 U.S. Hodur and others 2004 

Hummingbird Migration 

Celebration 

Holly Springs, MS 2006 4 7,970 $7.95 U.S. $97,654 U.S. Measells and Grado 2007 

Stork and Cork Festival Vicksburg, MS 2006 3 145 $44.69 U.S. $10,031 U.S. Measells and Grado 2007 

Space Coast Birding & Wildlife 

Festival 

Brevard County, FL 2009 5 3,651 $339 U.S. for 

non-residents 

$996,679 U.S. 

from nonresidents 

Chambliss and others 2009 

aNumbers are reported for all visitors since many studies did not differentiate expenditures between residents and non-residents. More properly, economic impact studies should 

report only new expenditures by non-residents. Also, in some cases, total local expenditures were calculated with weighting procedures on other variables, so multiplying number of visitors by local expenditures per person per visit will not produce an accurate estimate of total local expenditures. Missing data indicate that those categories were not reported in the study. 
60

Recreation Participation Trends (National and Regional)

economic impacts by increasing tourist numbers, but the

local carrying capacity must be considered. Alternatively,

organizers can encourage visitors to change their spending

and travel behaviour. First, by providing desired goods and

services (e.g., books, souvenirs, birding equipment), visitors

will increase spending (Hvenegaard and Manaloor 2004). 

Second, visitors will spend more if they stay longer. The low

expenditures per person per visit in table 4.14 for the Snow

Goose Festival, Florida Panhandle Birding Festival, and

Florida Wakulla Springs Birding Festival indicate mostly

day visitors. Other festivals with higher per-day expenditures

involved overnight visitors. Visitors will stay longer only if

there are other suitable attractions. Third, festival organizers

can encourage visitors to return at other times of the year. 

In surveys of festival visitors, many indicated an interest in

returning to the local area within 1 to 3 years (e.g., 57 percent

at the Snow Goose Festival and 87 percent at the Brant

Wildlife Festival) (Hvenegaard and Manaloor 2004). To this

end, organizers should provide information to visitors about

respending money in the local area) and $1,270,788 USD

in induced expenditures (employees of businesses spending

money in the local area). The festival contributed about 73

full-time or part-time jobs to the local community.

Another way to economically analyze wildlife festivals is

in terms of consumer surplus, which is a way to estimate

the dollar value of benefits festival visitors gain. Consumer

surplus is a measure of what they would be willing to spend

beyond their direct expenditures for participating in the

festival. At the Rio Grande Valley Birding Festival, the

average consumer surplus was $205.09 USD per visitor per

birding trip (Eubanks and Stoll 1999). At the American River

Salmon Festival and the Kern Valley Bioregions Festival, the

average consumer surplus per participant was $44.78 USD

and $149.18 USD, respectively (Fermata, Inc. 2001). 

Implications

The significant growth of wildlife festivals reflects increased

participation in recreation activities such as viewing and

photographing natural scenery, wildlife, and plants (Cordell

2008). The economic impacts from wildlife festivals are

significant because they often occur in rural areas with few

economic development options and occur in the tourism

off-seasons. However, a few negative impacts should be

considered. Festival economic benefits are seasonal and

temporary (i.e., occur during a short time period each year)

and often may not accrue to those bearing the festival

costs (e.g., landowners may encounter crop damage from

migrating waterfowl). Moreover, many analyses fail to

consider a festival’s direct costs (e.g., to acquire land and

build facilities), indirect costs (e.g., maintaining a festival

site), and opportunity costs (e.g., foregone harvesting rights).

Communities offering wildlife festivals can enhance local

Wildlife festival

Wildlife festival

Wildlife festival
61

Comparison of Recreation Participation Patterns Across Demographic, Region-of-Country, and Natural Setting Strata

on the role of demographic characteristics, including

gender, race, age, education, income, urban residency, and

immigrant status. The test statistic for comparisons across

strata for these demographic groups is a chi-square goodness

of fit test. The level of significance for the variables is

denoted in the tables by asterisks. These asterisks are placed

following the name of the demographic group.

A second comparison is for difference between our estimate

of the percentage of population participating in activities for

each of the demographic strata and a hypothesized percentage. 

The hypothesized percentage for each demographic strata

is the percentage of the overall U.S. population which

participates in the activities. These comparisons point out

where a particular group participates more or less than the

population at large. Significance levels are similarly denoted

by asterisks for the four regions of the country—North, South,

Rocky Mountains/Great Plains, and Pacific Coast.

The tables also show a ratio of percentage of people in

each demographic strata who participate in an activity to

percentage of population overall in each demographic strata. 

A ratio > 1.0 means that a higher proportion of people in

a particular demographic group or region participate in

the activities than is their proportion of the population. 

Percentages sum down to 100 within each activity group in

the first two columns of numbers. The ratio of these numbers

is shown in the third column of numbers. A similarly

formatted table that compares regions of the country is

presented later with the same pattern of statistical tests.

Participation Differences by Demographic Strata

The population and participation statistics examined below

are for non-institutionalized people ages 16 years and older

across the United States. The population-wide estimate of

percent of people participating in the activities making up

each activity group is shown at the top of last column of

numbers in each table. See appendix table 6 for participation

by demographic strata for the individual activities that make

up each activity group. There are seven additional activity

groups covering a number of other individual activities, in

addition to the seven shown in this section.

Participating in activities at recreation or historic sites—

Activities making up “visiting recreation or historic sites”

include attending outdoor family gatherings, picnicking,

visiting the beach, visiting historic or prehistoric sites, and

camping. Overall, just over three-fourths of Americans

participate in some form of recreation or historic site activity

as defined by the activities listed above. Participation rates

are significantly higher among non-Hispanic Whites, late

local natural history, cultural, and recreational events at other

times during the year. Finally, local economic impact can also

be increased if more local residents participate economically

in the festival and tourism operations (Wunder 2000).

In addition to economic benefits, wildlife festivals also

can generate conservation benefits. A festival’s economic

stimulus may prompt the establishment of a local protected

area to support wildlife viewing (Fennell and Weaver

2005). For example, with the economic boost from the

Whooping Crane Festival and the Great Texas Coastal

Birding Trail, Port Aransas, TX, is planning to designate a

new park with wildlife observation posts (Robbins 2003). 

Wildlife festivals can also generate revenue for wildlife

protection. The 2007 British Birdwatching Fair raised

£225,000 to support bird conservation (Green 2003). In

Pinellas County, FL, the Florida Birding Festival and

Nature Expo (2000) raised $20,000 USD to purchase

critical shorebird nesting habitat. Finally, wildlife festivals

can promote wildlife-friendly management. During the

1980s, the Swallow Festival at Pembroke, Ontario attracted

over 10,000 people per year, producing over $200,000

CAD in local expenditures. Based on a benefit-cost

analysis of the swallow roost, city officials turned down

a $50 million CAD proposal for urban development that

would have eliminated the swallow roost (Clark 1987,

Kingsmill 1988).

Conclusions

North American wildlife festivals have been growing in

popularity, and they have the potential to benefit local

economies and promote nature conservation. Realization

of these benefits requires careful planning and festival

activity administration.

End Invited Paper

5. COMPARISON OF RECREATION 

PARTICIPATION PATTERNS ACROSS 

DEMOGRAPHIC, REGION-OF-COUNTRY, 

AND NATURAL SETTING STRATA

This section focuses on the differences in recreation

participation between demographic groups of the

population, regions of the country, and natural settings

using the seven activity groups described in chapter 4

as the framework. The general approach was to test for

participation differences using standard statistical tests (see

footnotes for tables). The first set of comparisons focuses
62

Comparison of Recreation Participation Patterns Across Demographic, Region-of-Country, and Natural Setting Strata

Table 5.1—Percentage of participants and population, ratios of percentages, and statistical test 

results for the activity group Visiting Recreation and Historic Sites 

Demographic Stratum 

Percent of 

participants 

Percent of 

Nation 

Ratio 

(1)/(2) 

Percent 

participating 

All groups All people ages 16 and older 100.0 100.0 1.00 77.8 

Gender* Male* 47.5 48.2 0.99 76.4 

Female** 52.5 51.8 1.01 79.0 

White, non-Hispanic* 69.3 67.3 1.03 80.1 

Black, non-Hispanic* 12.4 13.9 0.89 68.6 

American Indian, non-Hispanic 0.7 0.8 0.88 83.6 

Asian or Pacific Islander, nonHispanic*** 3.7 3.6 1.03 81.5 

Race/ethnicity* 

Hispanic* 13.9 14.4 0.97 74.8 

16-24* 17.3 15.8 1.09 85.8 

25-34* 16.7 16.2 1.03 81.4 

35-44* 18.0 16.9 1.07 84.6 

45-54* 18.6 17.6 1.06 81.1 

55-64* 13.3 13.6 0.98 74.8 

Age* 

65+* 16.0 20.0 0.80 61.9 

Less than high school* 20.2 24.0 0.84 65.1 

High school graduate* 25.6 26.9 0.95 74.4 

Some college* 28.9 26.8 1.08 84.0 

College degree* 16.4 14.4 1.14 87.1 

Education* 

Postgraduate degree* 9.1 7.9 1.15 88.6 

<$15,000* 12.9 16.5 0.78 62.8 

$15,000-$24,999* 10.2 11.4 0.89 71.8 

$25,000-$49,999 27.0 27.4 0.99 77.4 

$50,000-$74,999* 18.9 18.3 1.03 85.0 

$75,000-$99,999* 13.3 11.1 1.20 89.7 

$100,000-$149,999* 10.8 9.4 1.15 88.9 

Annual family income* 

$150,000+* 6.9 6.0 1.15 89.7 

Place of residence** Non-metro resident** 16.9 17.5 0.97 75.7 

Metro area resident 83.1 82.5 1.01 78.2 

Native born or U.S. citizen 

born abroad 

Residence status 96.3 96.7 1.00 77.6 

Foreign born 3.7 3.3 1.12 80.7 

Note: Test statistic in the 'Demographic' column is chi-square goodness of fit which tests independence of the observed 

proportions in the categories of each demographic group. Test statistic in the 'Stratum' column are binomial tests of 

significance between the stratum participation rate ('Percent participating') and the participation rate for all people age 

16 and older shown in line 1. Significance levels indicated by: *=.01, **=.05, ***=.10. 

Percentages sum down to 100 within each demographic group in the first two columns; may not sum to 100 percent exactly 

due to rounding. In 4th column, compare stratum percent to the percent participating for all respondents in line 1. Sample 

sizes vary by activity because not all activities were asked in every NSRE version. 

Source: USDA Forest Service (2009), Versions 1-4. N=13,022. Interview dates: 1/05 to 4/09. 
63

Comparison of Recreation Participation Patterns Across Demographic, Region-of-Country, and Natural Setting Strata

Table 5.2—Percentage of participants and population, ratios of percentages, and statistical test results 

for the activity group Viewing and Photographing Nature 

Demographic Stratum 

Percent of 

participants 

Percent of 

Nation 

Ratio 

(1)/(2) 

Percent 

participating 

All groups All people ages 16 and older 100.0 100.0 1.00 74.3 

Gender** Male*** 47.5 48.2 0.99 73.5 

Female 52.5 51.8 1.01 74.8 

White, non-Hispanic* 71.1 67.3 1.06 78.3 

Black, non-Hispanic* 10.9 13.9 0.78 58.6 

American Indian, nonHispanic 0.8 0.8 1.00 78.8 

Asian or Pacific Islander, nonHispanic 3.6 3.6 1.00 72.8 

Race/ethnicity* 

Hispanic* 13.7 14.4 0.95 70.5 

16-24** 15.5 15.8 0.98 72.5 

25-34 16.2 16.2 1.00 74.0 

35-44* 18.2 16.9 1.08 79.6 

45-54* 18.9 17.6 1.07 79.8 

55-64 13.7 13.6 1.01 75.4 

Age* 

65+* 17.5 20.0 0.88 65.3 

Less than high school* 19.8 24.0 0.83 60.7 

High school graduate* 25.7 26.9 0.96 71.4 

Some college* 28.9 26.8 1.08 80.7 

College degree* 16.3 14.4 1.13 84.1 

Education* 

Postgraduate degree* 9.2 7.9 1.16 86.6 

<$15,000* 13.4 16.5 0.81 62.6 

$15,000-$24,999* 10.3 11.4 0.90 68.4 

$25,000-$49,999* 27.5 27.4 1.00 76.1 

$50,000-$74,999* 19.6 18.3 1.07 82.4 

$75,000-$99,999* 12.2 11.1 1.10 83.0 

$100,000-$149,999* 10.3 9.4 1.10 85.2 

Annual family income* 

$150,000+* 6.7 6.0 1.12 86.8 

Place of residence Non-metro resident 17.7 17.5 1.01 75.0 

Metro area resident 82.3 82.5 1.00 74.1 

Native born or U.S. citizen 

born abroad 

Residence status* 97.0 96.7 1.00 74.5 

Foreign born* 3.0 3.3 0.91 68.6 

Note: Test statistic in the 'Demographic' column is chi-square goodness of fit which tests independence of the observed 

proportions in the categories of each demographic group. Test statistic in the 'Stratum' column are binomial tests of 

significance between the stratum participation rate ('Percent participating') and the participation rate for all people 

age 16 and older shown in line 1. Significance levels indicated by: *=.01, **=.05, ***=.10. 

Percentages sum down to 100 within each demographic group in the first two columns; may not sum to 100 percent 

exactly due to rounding. In 4th column, compare stratum percent to the percent participating for all respondents in 

line 1. Sample sizes vary by activity because not all activities were asked in every NSRE version. 

Source: USDA Forest Service (2009), Versions 1-4. N=21,754. Interview dates: 1/05 to 4/09. 
64

Comparison of Recreation Participation Patterns Across Demographic, Region-of-Country, and Natural Setting Strata

Table 5.3—Percentage of participants and population, ratios of percentages, and statistical test 

results for the activity group Backcountry Activities 

Demographic Stratum 

Percent of 

participants 

Percent of 

Nation 

Ratio 

(1)/(2) 

Percent 

participating 

All groups All people ages 16 and older 100.0 100.0 1.00 41.3 

Gender* Male* 56.9 48.2 1.18 48.5 

Female* 43.1 51.8 0.83 34.6 

White, non-Hispanic* 74.1 67.3 1.10 45.5 

Black, non-Hispanic* 7.3 13.9 0.53 20.8 

American Indian, nonHispanic* 

1.0 0.8 1.25 60.4 

Asian or Pacific Islander, 

non-Hispanic* 

2.9 3.6 0.81 34.2 

Race/ethnicity* 

Hispanic 14.7 14.4 1.02 42.6 

16-24* 17.7 15.8 1.12 46.5 

25-34* 18.1 16.2 1.12 46.9 

35-44* 20.2 16.9 1.20 50.9 

45-54 20.6 17.6 1.17 47.8 

55-64* 12.4 13.6 0.91 36.8 

Age* 

65+* 11.0 20.0 0.55 22.4 

Less than high school* 17.9 24.0 0.75 30.6 

High school graduate*** 25.4 26.9 0.94 39.1 

Some college* 28.9 26.8 1.08 44.7 

College degree* 17.7 14.4 1.23 50.6 

Education* 

Postgraduate degree* 10.2 7.9 1.29 53.2 

<$15,000* 11.2 16.5 0.68 30.0 

$15,000-$24,999* 8.1 11.4 0.71 31.4 

$25,000-$49,999 26.4 27.4 0.96 42.2 

$50,000-$74,999* 19.9 18.3 1.09 49.9 

$75,000-$99,999* 14.7 11.1 1.32 55.8 

$100,000-$149,999* 11.8 9.4 1.26 53.6 

Annual family income* 

$150,000+* 7.9 6.0 1.32 55.7 

Place of residence* Non-metro resident* 18.7 17.5 1.07 44.7 

Metro area resident 81.3 82.5 0.99 40.6 

Native born or U.S. citizen 

born abroad 

Residence status* 96.2 96.7 0.99 41.3 

Foreign born 3.8 3.3 1.15 43.8 

Note: Test statistic in the 'Demographic' column is chi-square goodness of fit which tests independence of the observed 

proportions in the categories of each demographic group. Test statistic in the 'Stratum' column are binomial tests of 

significance between the stratum participation rate ('Percent participating') and the participation rate for all people 

age 16 and older shown in line 1. Significance levels indicated by: *=.01, **=.05, ***=.10. 

Percentages sum down to 100 within each demographic group in the first two columns; may not sum to 100 percent exactly 

due to rounding. In 4th column, compare stratum percent to the percent participating for all respondents in line 1. Sample 

sizes vary by activity because not all activities were asked in every NSRE version. 

Source: USDA Forest Service (2009), Versions 1-4. N=14,072. Interview dates: 1/05 to 4/09. 
65

Comparison of Recreation Participation Patterns Across Demographic, Region-of-Country, and Natural Setting Strata

Participating in hunting or fishing activities—Hunting

and fishing outdoor activities include anadromous fishing

(salt to fresh water migratory fish, e.g., salmon), coldwater

fishing (e.g., trout), warmwater fishing, saltwater fishing,

big game hunting, and small game hunting. Overall, about

one-third of Americans reported participating in some form

of hunting or fishing as defined above; 34 percent indicated

participation in one or more activities in 2005-2009. 

Participation rates are higher among males, non-Hispanic

Whites, late teenagers to middle-aged people, people with

high school to some college education, middle-to-high

income people, and rural residents (table 5.5). Less likely

to participate in hunting and fishing are females, Blacks,

Asians, people 55 or older, people with post graduate

degrees, and the foreign born.

Participating in non-motorized boating activities—Nonmotorized boating activities include canoeing, kayaking,

rafting, rowing, and sailing. Generally, just over 20 percent

of Americans participated in some form of non-motorized

boating in 2005-2009. Participation rates are high relative

to the general population for males, non-Hispanic Whites,

people ages 16 to 44, people with some college to

postgraduate education, and high-middle to high income

people (table 5.6). Urban residents and native born people

are just slightly more likely to participate. Less likely than

the population to participate in non-motorized boating are

females, Blacks or Hispanics, people 55 or older, the lower

income groups, rural residents, and people with no college

education.

Participating in snow skiing and boarding activities—

Snow skiing and snowboarding activities include crosscountry skiing, downhill skiing, and snowboarding. 

Across the demography of Americans generally, just

over 11 percent participated in some form of snow skiing

or boarding in 2005-2009. Participation rates are high

relative to the general population for males, non-Hispanic

Whites, people ages 16 to 34 (especially those under age

25), people with college to postgraduate education, people

earning more than $75,000 annually, and urban residents

(table 5.7). Less likely than the population to participate

in snow skiing or boarding are females, Blacks, Native

Americans, people over 55 years of age, those lacking

college degrees, people with low incomes, and rural

residents.

As the above analyses show, participation differs across the

demography of the United States population. The following

paper examines some of the reasons for differences in

participation among different demographic groups.

teenagers, middle-aged people, people with some college

to completed advanced degrees, higher income people, and

the foreign born (table 5.1). Less likely to participate in

recreation or historic site activities are Blacks, people 65 or

older, people with less than a college education, and people

with the lowest incomes (under $25,000).

Viewing and photographing nature—Overall, almost

three-fourths of Americans participate in one or more of the

activities making up this activity group. People with higher

education and incomes have higher participation rates than

the general population. Non-Hispanic Whites, people ages 35

to 54, those having some college to post graduate education,

and those earning more than $25,000 per year participate in

nature viewing and photography at higher rates than others

(table 5.2). Participation rises consistently with income. There

is little difference in participation rates between males and

females or between urban and rural residents. Less likely to

participate are Black or Hispanic people, people ages 65 and

older, people with a high school education or less, and people

earning under $25,000 per year.

Participating in backcountry activities—Backcountry

activities include backpacking, day hiking, horseback riding

on trails, mountain climbing, and visiting a wilderness or

other primitive area. Generally, more modest percentages of

Americans participate in this group of activities—41 percent

indicated participation in one or more of them in 2005-

2009. Participation rates (percentage of the demographic

group) are highest among males, Whites, Native Americans,

people under 55 years of age, people well educated with

higher incomes, and rural residents (table 5.3). Less likely to

participate in these more physically demanding nature-based

activities relative to their numbers are females, Blacks,

Asians, people 55 or older, urban residents, and people with

low incomes and education.

Participating in motorized outdoor activities—

Motorized outdoor activities include motor boating, offhighway vehicle driving, snowmobiling, using personal

watercraft, and waterskiing. Overall, about 36 percent of

the U.S. population participated in one or more of this

group of activities in 2005-2009. Participation rates are

highest among males, non-Hispanic Whites, people under

the age of 55 years (especially younger people), people

with some college or a college degree, middle-to-high

income people, and rural residents (table 5.4). Less likely

to participate in these outdoor activities relative to their

numbers are females, Blacks, Asians, people ages 55 and

older, urban residents, and people with lower education

and income.
66

Comparison of Recreation Participation Patterns Across Demographic, Region-of-Country, and Natural Setting Strata

Table 5.4—Percentage of participants and population, ratios of percentages, and statistical test 

results for the activity group Motorized Outdoor Activities 

Demographic Stratum 

Percent of 

participants 

Percent of 

Nation 

Ratio 

(1)/(2) 

Percent 

participating 

All groups All people ages 16 and older 100.0 100.0 1.00. 35.7 

Gender* Male* 56.4 48.2 1.17 41.4 

Female* 43.6 51.8 0.84 30.3 

White, non-Hispanic* 76.8 67.3 1.14 41.2 

Black, non-Hispanic* 6.2 13.9 0.45 15.4 

American Indian, nonHispanic 

0.8 0.8 1.00 41.6 

Asian or Pacific Islander, 

non-Hispanic* 

2.3 3.6 0.64 23.7 

Race/ethnicity* 

Hispanic 13.9 14.4 0.97 35.2 

16-24* 22.0 15.8 1.39 50.2 

25-34* 19.5 16.2 1.20 43.9 

35-44* 19.9 16.9 1.18 43.5 

45-54 18.3 17.6 1.04 37.0 

55-64* 10.6 13.6 0.78 27.3 

Age* 

65+* 9.7 20.0 0.49 17.3 

Less than high school* 19.6 24.0 0.82 29.0 

High school graduate*** 25.7 26.9 0.96 34.2 

Some college* 29.9 26.8 1.12 40.0 

College degree* 16.7 14.4 1.16 41.3 

Education* 

Postgraduate degree 8.0 7.9 1.01 36.3 

<$15,000* 8.5 16.5 0.52 19.3 

$15,000-$24,999* 7.0 11.4 0.61 22.8 

$25,000-$49,999 26.2 27.4 0.96 35.2 

$50,000-$74,999* 20.2 18.3 1.10 42.5 

$75,000-$99,999* 15.9 11.1 1.43 50.7 

$100,000-$149,999* 13.2 9.4 1.40 50.5 

Annual family income* 

$150,000+* 9.0 6.0 1.50 53.7 

Place of residence* Non-metro resident* 19.5 17.5 1.11 40.3 

Metro area resident** 80.5 82.5 0.98 34.7 

Native born or U.S. citizen 

born abroad 

Residence status* 97.1 96.7 1.00 36.0 

Foreign born* 2.9 3.3 0.88 29.6 

Note: Test statistic in the 'Demographic' column is chi-square goodness of fit which tests independence of the observed 

proportions in the categories of each demographic group. Test statistic in the 'Stratum' column are binomial tests of 

significance between the stratum participation rate ('Percent participating') and the participation rate for all people 

age 16 and older shown in line 1. Significance levels indicated by: *=.01, **=.05, ***=.10. 

Percentages sum down to 100 within each demographic group in the first two columns; may not sum to 100 percent exactly 

due to rounding. In 4th column, compare stratum percent to the percent participating for all respondents in line 1. Sample 

sizes vary by activity because not all activities were asked in every NSRE version. 

Source: USDA Forest Service (2009), Versions 1-4. N=14,071. Interview dates: 1/05 to 4/09. 
67

Comparison of Recreation Participation Patterns Across Demographic, Region-of-Country, and Natural Setting Strata

Table 5.5—Percentage of participants and population, ratios of percentages, and statistical test 

results for the activity group Hunting and Fishing 

Demographic Stratum 

Percent of 

participants 

Percent of 

Nation 

Ratio 

(1)/(2) 

Percent 

participating 

All groups All people ages 16 and older 100.0 100.0 1.00 34.0 

Gender* Male* 65.3 48.2 1.35 46.1 

Female* 34.7 51.8 0.67 22.8 

White, non-Hispanic* 75.2 67.3 1.12 38.1 

Black, non-Hispanic* 8.3 13.9 0.60 20.5 

American Indian, nonHispanic 0.8 0.8 1.00 37.5 

Asian or Pacific Islander, 

non-Hispanic* 

2.0 3.6 0.56 19.0 

Race/ethnicity* 

Hispanic** 13.6 14.4 0.94 32.3 

16-24* 18.8 15.8 1.19 40.7 

25-34* 19.1 16.2 1.18 40.3 

35-44* 19.8 16.9 1.17 40.2 

45-54* 19.4 17.6 1.10 37.9 

55-64* 11.5 13.6 0.85 29.0 

Age* 

65+* 11.5 20.0 0.58 19.6 

Less than high school* 22.3 24.0 0.93 31.6 

High school graduate* 29.0 26.9 1.08 36.6 

Some college** 27.9 26.8 1.04 35.4 

College degree 14.3 14.4 0.99 33.8 

Education* 

Postgraduate degree* 6.5 7.9 0.82 27.8 

<$15,000* 11.4 16.5 0.69 25.0 

$15,000-$24,999* 9.0 11.4 0.79 28.2 

$25,000-$49,999* 27.9 27.4 1.02 36.7 

$50,000-$74,999* 20.1 18.3 1.10 39.5 

$75,000-$99,999* 13.5 11.1 1.22 43.9 

$100,000-$149,999* 11.1 9.4 1.18 42.7 

Annual family income* 

$150,000+* 7.0 6.0 1.17 41.8 

Place of residence* Non-metro resident* 21.9 17.5 1.25 42.5 

Metro area resident* 78.1 82.5 0.95 32.2 

Native born or U.S. citizen 

born abroad 

Residence status* 98.0 96.7 1.01 34.4 

Foreign born* 2.0 3.3 0.61 21.1 

Note: Test statistic in the 'Demographic' column is chi-square goodness of fit which tests independence of the observed 

proportions in the categories of each demographic group. Test statistic in the 'Stratum' column are binomial tests of 

significance between the stratum participation rate ('Percent participating') and the participation rate for all people 

age 16 and older shown in line 1. Significance levels indicated by: *=.01, **=.05, ***=.10. 

Percentages sum down to 100 within each demographic group in the first two columns; may not sum to 100 percent exactly 

due to rounding. In 4th column, compare stratum percent to the percent participating for all respondents in line 1. Sample 

sizes vary by activity because not all activities were asked in every NSRE version. 

Source: USDA Forest Service (2009), Versions 1-4. N=24,073. Interview dates: 1/05 to 4/09.
68

Comparison of Recreation Participation Patterns Across Demographic, Region-of-Country, and Natural Setting Strata

Table 5.6—Percentage of participants and population, ratios of percentages, and statistical test 

results for the activity group Non-motorized Boating 

Demographic Stratum 

Percent of 

participants 

Percent of 

Nation 

Ratio 

(1)/(2) 

Percent 

participating 

All groups All people ages 16 and older 100.0 100.0 1.00 20.8 

Gender* Male* 53.1 48.2 1.10 22.9 

Female* 46.9 51.8 0.91 18.8 

White, non-Hispanic* 78.0 67.3 1.16 24.1 

Black, non-Hispanic* 4.9 13.9 0.35 7.3 

American Indian, nonHispanic 0.8 0.8 1.00 21.1 

Asian or Pacific Islander, 

non-Hispanic 

3.6 3.6 1.00 20.8 

Race/ethnicity* 

Hispanic* 12.8 14.4 0.89 18.5 

16-24* 25.6 15.8 1.62 33.8 

25-34* 19.9 16.2 1.23 25.6 

35-44* 20.3 16.9 1.20 25.1 

45-54 18.2 17.6 1.03 21.6 

55-64* 9.7 13.6 0.71 14.9 

Age* 

65+* 6.3 20.0 0.32 6.5 

Less than high school* 16.4 24.0 0.68 14.2 

High school graduate* 21.2 26.9 0.79 16.4 

Some college* 28.7 26.8 1.07 22.3 

College degree* 20.9 14.4 1.45 30.3 

Education* 

Postgraduate degree* 12.7 7.9 1.61 33.6 

<$15,000* 8.7 16.5 0.53 11.7 

$15,000-$24,999* 7.2 11.4 0.63 13.8 

$25,000-$49,999* 23.2 27.4 0.85 18.7 

$50,000-$74,999* 21.2 18.3 1.16 25.6 

$75,000-$99,999* 15.7 11.1 1.41 31.1 

$100,000-$149,999* 13.3 9.4 1.41 31.4 

Annual family income* 

$150,000+* 10.7 6.0 1.78 39.4 

Place of residence* Non-metro resident* 15.3 17.5 0.87 18.1 

Metro area resident** 84.7 82.5 1.03 21.4 

Native born or U.S. citizen 

born abroad 

Residence status* 97.9 96.7 1.01 21.0 

Foreign born* 2.1 3.3 0.64 13.6 

Note: Test statistic in the 'Demographic' column is chi-square goodness of fit which tests independence of the observed 

proportions in the categories of each demographic group. Test statistic in the 'Stratum' column are binomial tests of 

significance between the stratum participation rate ('Percent participating') and the participation rate for all people 

age 16 and older shown in line 1. Significance levels indicated by: *=.01, **=.05, ***=.10. 

Percentages sum down to 100 within each demographic group in the first two columns; may not sum to 100 percent exactly 

due to rounding. In 4th column, compare stratum percent to the percent participating for all respondents in line 1. Sample 

sizes vary by activity because not all activities were asked in every NSRE version. 

Source: USDA Forest Service (2009), Versions 1-4. N=24,073. Interview dates: 1/05 to 4/09.
69

Comparison of Recreation Participation Patterns Across Demographic, Region-of-Country, and Natural Setting Strata

Table 5.7—Percentage of participants and population, ratios of percentages, and statistical test 

results for the activity group Snow Skiing or Boarding

Demographic Stratum 

Percent of 

participants 

Percent of 

Nation 

Ratio 

(1)/(2) 

Percent 

participating 

All groups All people ages 16 and older 100.0 100.0 1.00 11.2 

Gender* Male* 63.0 48.2 1.31 14.5 

Female* 37.0 51.8 0.71 8.1 

White, non-Hispanic* 75.9 67.3 1.13 12.7 

Black, non-Hispanic* 5.5 13.9 0.40 4.2 

American Indian, nonHispanic 0.4 0.8 0.50 6.5 

Asian or Pacific Islander, nonHispanic 3.6 3.6 1.00 11.3 

Race/ethnicity* 

Hispanic 14.6 14.4 1.01 11.5 

16-24* 38.8 15.8 2.46 27.6 

25-34* 18.6 16.2 1.15 13.0 

35-44 17.7 16.9 1.05 12.1 

45-54 16.5 17.6 0.94 10.4 

55-64* 5.7 13.6 0.42 4.6 

Age* 

65+* 2.7 20.0 0.14 1.5 

Less than high school** 21.3 24.0 0.89 9.9 

High school graduate* 19.4 26.9 0.72 8.1 

Some college*** 24.6 26.8 0.92 10.3 

College degree* 21.5 14.4 1.49 16.7 

Education* 

Postgraduate degree* 13.2 7.9 1.67 18.7 

<$15,000* 9.3 16.5 0.56 6.6 

$15,000-$24,999* 5.7 11.4 0.50 5.8 

$25,000-$49,999* 18.7 27.4 0.68 7.9 

$50,000-$74,999*** 19.0 18.3 1.04 12.5 

$75,000-$99,999* 14.5 11.1 1.31 14.5 

$100,000-$149,999* 18.0 9.4 1.91 21.5 

Annual family income* 

$150,000+* 14.8 6.0 2.47 27.6 

Place of residence* Non-metro resident* 13.0 17.5 0.74 8.4 

Metro area resident** 87.0 82.5 1.05 11.8 

Native born or U.S. citizen 

born abroad 

Residence status 96.3 96.7 1.00 11.2 

Foreign born 3.7 3.3 1.12 11.7 

Note: Test statistic in the 'Demographic' column is chi-square goodness of fit which tests independence of the observed 

proportions in the categories of each demographic group. Test statistic in the 'Stratum' column are binomial tests of 

significance between the stratum participation rate ('Percent participating') and the participation rate for all people 

age 16 and older shown in line 1. Significance levels indicated by: *=.01, **=.05, ***=.10. 

Percentages sum down to 100 within each demographic group in the first two columns; may not sum to 100 percent exactly 

due to rounding. In 4th column, compare stratum percent to the percent participating for all respondents in line 1. Sample 

sizes vary by activity because not all activities were asked in every NSRE version. 

Source: USDA Forest Service (2009), Versions 1-4. N=14,070. Interview dates: 1/05 to 4/09.
70

Comparison of Recreation Participation Patterns Across Demographic, Region-of-Country, and Natural Setting Strata

less-educated populations. It was hypothesized that

members of these groups were more likely than the rest of

society to perceive their participation in outdoor recreation

as being constrained. Eighteen specific constraints, grouped

into three general categories—personal, structural, and

psychological—were examined. This study focuses on

perceived constraints to participation in the respondent’s

favorite outdoor recreation activities. 

Approach

Data for this study came from the National Survey on

Recreation and the Environment (NSRE). The constraints

questions to NSRE respondents were preceded by

questions about their favorite outdoor recreation activities. 

Respondents were read a list of reasons people might not

participate in favorite outdoor activities and asked for each

reason if it had kept them from participating as often as

they wanted.

To statistically test whether respondents in each of the

minority groups felt more (or less) constrained in pursuit

of their favorite outdoor activity, logistic regression

equations were developed for each of the constraints. 

Included in each of these models were age, household

income, immigrant status, ethnicity (e.g., Black, Hispanic,

Asian/Pacific Islander), gender, region (e.g., South,

Central, West), education (e.g., less than high school,

bachelor’s degree or more), residency (e.g., urban), and

setting for favorite activity (e.g., winter, water, dispersed). 

A statistically significant positive (negative) coefficient

on any of these variables indicated that the probability the

respective group felt constrained in their participation was

higher than (less than) that of the rest of society.

Results

Analysis revealed that all eighteen constraint models were

statistically significant (p< 0.05) based on likelihood ratio

tests (table 5.8). Results for each population classification

variable are presented below.

Age—Age was a significant factor in nine of the constraints,

but often in opposite directions. Increasing age reduced some

constraints (e.g., time and money), while increasing age

amplified other constraints (e.g., physical limitations, safety,

and health).

Generally, across the seven activity groups, we found that

participation rates for outdoor activities are visiting recreation

significantly higher among males, non-Hispanic Whites,

young to middle-aged people, people with college education,

middle to higher income people, and rural residents. 

Invited Paper

A National Study of Constraints to Participation in 

Outdoor Recreational Activities 

by Gary T. Green, J.M. Bowker, Xiongfei Wang, H. Ken

Cordell, and Cassandra Y. Johnson9

Introduction

A number of studies have shown that certain groups in

American society (e.g., Blacks, women, urban dwellers) can

encounter barriers or perceived constraints to participation

in outdoor recreation. Early research on constraints focused

on racial or gender differences. More recent research has

examined the effects of income, education, age, and place

of residence (Arnold and Shinew 1998). However, despite

the growth of research on constraints, few studies have

examined how social factors (e.g., access, services, health)

may constrain participation in outdoor recreation.

This paper extends research of an earlier study (Johnson

and others 2001). While this study includes traditionally

marginalized groups such as Blacks, women, and rural

dwellers, it broadens the focus to include immigrant,

Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, low-income and

Gary T. Green

9 Gary T. Green, Associate Professor, Warnell School of Forest and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Warnell School of Forest Resources, Athens, GA;

J.M. Bowker, Research Social Scientist, Xiongfei Wang, Former Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Statistics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA,

H. Ken Cordell, Pioneering Senior Scientist, and Cassandra Y. Johnson, Research Social Scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern

Research Station, Athens, GA.
71

Comparison of Recreation Participation Patterns Across Demographic, Region-of-Country, and Natural Setting Strata

Blacks—Blacks felt more hindered from participating in

their favorite recreation activities than Whites for the “all

of the reasons” except “having no one with whom to do

activities.”

Asian/Pacific Islanders (API)—Crowded activity areas

was the only factor where API felt less constrained than

Whites from participating in their favorite recreation

activities. API felt more constrained than Whites for these

reasons: “don’t have enough time because of my job,”

“inadequate transportation,” “facilities and information,”

“safety problems,” “feel unwelcome or uncomfortable,” and

“feel afraid in forests.”

Hispanics—The results indicated that Hispanics felt more

constrained from participating in their favorite recreation

activities than Whites for the following reasons: “not

enough time because of my job,” “safety problems,” “can’t

understand the language,” and “feel afraid in forests.” It is

important to note this study’s findings for API and Hispanics

because previous constraints research has focused on Blacks

in comparison to Whites. In comparing the results of Blacks,

API, and Hispanics, considerable overlap appears to exist in

their perceived constraints to recreation. 

Rural residence—Results by urban or rural residence

revealed that urban dwellers felt less constrained by reasons

of “don’t have enough time because of my job and family”

and “outdoor pest” than rural dwellers. Urban dwellers were

more likely to feel constrained by “inadequate transport,”

“crowded areas,” and “safety problems” than were rural

dwellers. 

Regions—In eight cases (e.g., “don’t have enough time,”

“health reasons,” “no one to do activities with,” “safety

problems,” “inadequate facilities,” “outdoor pests,” “can’t

understand the language,” and “feel afraid in a forest”),

Southerners felt more constrained from participating in their

favorite recreation activities than Northerners felt. However,

in the case of inadequate transportation, Southerners felt

less constrained than Northerners. Conversely, people who

resided in the Central region felt more constrained than

Northerners for reasons of “don’t have enough money”

and “crowded activity areas.” They felt less constrained

by reasons of “don’t have enough time because of family,”

“poorly maintained activities,” “pollution problems,”

and “outdoor pests.” Westerners felt more constrained

by “health reasons” and “physically limiting condition”

than Northerners. Westerners felt less constrained than

Northerners for reasons of “outdoor pests” and “can’t

understand the language.”

Gender—Generally, women felt more constrained from

participating in their favorite recreation activities than

men across all possible reasons. The exception was time

constraints, where men reported feeling more constrained

than women. 

Immigrants—Except for not understanding the language,

immigrants felt less constrained than people born in

the United States for the following reasons: “don’t

have enough money,” “inadequate transportation and

information,” “crowded activity areas,” “safety and

pollution problems,” “outdoor pests,” “feel unwelcome or

uncomfortable,” and “household member has disability.”

Stodolska (1998) found that immigrants often experienced

constraints unlike the general populace (e.g., language

barriers) and that many constraints were less important

to immigrants because they normally worked more and

consumed less of their income, while often confining their

leisure engagements to their ethnic communities. 

Income—Results indicated that lower income households

felt more constrained for the following reasons: “don’t

have enough money,” “health reasons,” “inadequate

transportation,” “no one to do activities with,” “feel

afraid in forests,” “pollution problems,” “outdoor pests,”

“feel unwelcome or uncomfortable,” “can’t understand

the language,” “physically limiting condition,” and

“household member has a disability.” These results

support previous studies’ findings that people with lower

incomes feel more constrained than others. 

Education—People with less than a high school education

felt less time constrained than people with a high school

education, and less constrained by inadequate information. 

The fact that inadequate information was not perceived

as a constraint by this group could indicate this group has

found a way to circumnavigate this problem, or that they

are using facilities and resources close to home of which

they are already fully aware. 

People with less than a high school education felt more

constrained than people who completed high school

from participating in their favorite recreation activities

because of “inadequate transportation and information,”

“health,” “lack of money,” “feel afraid in forests,”

“feel unwelcome or uncomfortable,” “can’t understand

the language,” “physically limiting condition,” and

“household member has a disability.” In general, people

with low education and income levels usually have low

participation rates and often encounter multiple barriers

to participation. 
72

Comparison of Recreation Participation Patterns Across Demographic, Region-of-Country, and Natural Setting Strata Table 5.8—Summary of significant likelihood ratio test results for perceived constraints to favorite outdoor recreation activities Population and setting factors Constraints Age Gender Immigration Income Low education B.S./ Grad Education Black Asian/ Pacific Islander Hispanic Urban South Central West Winter Water Dispersed Personal Not enough time because of work and long hours -X X -X X X -X X X Not enough time because of family, etc -X -X -X -X X -X -X Personal health reasons X -X -X X -X X X I have a physically limiting condition without equipment X -X -X X -X X X A member of my household has a disability X -X -X -X X -X X Not enough money -X -X -X -X X -X X Inadequate transportation -X -X -X -X X -X X X X -X No one to do activities with -X -X -X -X X -X Structural Poorly maintained activity areas -X -X X -X Inadequate facilities in activity areas -X -X -X X X X Crowded activity areas -X -X -X X X Pollution problems in activity areas -X -X -X X -X X (continued)
73

Comparison of Recreation Participation Patterns Across Demographic, Region-of-Country, and Natural Setting Strata

Population and setting factors 

Constraints Age Gender Immigration Income 

Low education 

B.S./ Grad Education Black 

Asian/ Pacific Islander Hispanic Urban South Central West Winter Water Dispersed 

Inadequate information on places to do activities 

-X -X -X -X X X -X 

I canʼt understand 

language on signs or spoken at many outdoor recreation areas 

X X -X X X X -X 

PsychologicalI am uncomfortable b/c sometimes I feel afraid in forest or other natural settings 

X -X -X X X X X X 

Personal safety problems in activity areas 

X -X -X X X X X X 

I feel unwelcome/ uncomfortable at many outdoor recreation areas b/c of who I am 

-X -X X X X 

Outdoor pests, e.g., 

mosquitos, chiggers, or ticks 

-X -X -X X -X X -X -X 

Note: X = significant (p<.05). 

Appendix table 5.8 (continued)

Source: USDA Forest Service (2009).
74

Comparison of Recreation Participation Patterns Across Demographic, Region-of-Country, and Natural Setting Strata

Invited Paper

Latinos and Outdoor Recreation 

by Deborah J. Chavez10

The research reported here includes a number of studies

conducted in southern California. It was aimed at better

understanding the recreation needs and desires of Latino

populations. Generally, the findings indicate that Latinos

have many of the same recreation needs as other groups,

such as places to recreate and reasonable accommodations. 

But it also indicates they have some unique preferences.

The ethnic and racial profile of the United States is

undergoing a major shift. In the decades ahead, people

of color will constitute a majority of the population

(Shinew and others 2006). Over the last 100 years, few

racial or ethnic groups have had as great an impact on the

demography of the United States as Latinos (Saenz 2004). 

Note that “Hispanic” is a term developed by the U.S. 

Census Bureau, while “Latino” is the term used for this

paper, unless referring to Census data. Latinos are measured

by the U.S. Census as having Hispanic origins (including

Mexican, Central and South American, Puerto Rican, or

Cuban heritages). Latinos may be White, African American,

or of other races. 

The number of Latinos in the United States more than

doubled between 1980 and 2000, accounting for 40 percent

of the growth in the country’s population during that period

(Saenz 2004). While in 1900 there were approximately

500,000 Latinos in the United States, today there are

more than 35 million. In 2000, people of Mexican origin

were the largest Hispanic group in the United States,

followed by Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central American,

Activity settings—In general, the activity setting category

(e.g., developed, winter, water, dispersed) had little

influence on a respondent’s perceived constraints. Overall,

regardless of setting, the most prevalent constraints to

participants were: “not enough time because of my job,”

“inadequate transportation,” “safety problems,” “physically

limiting condition,” “outdoor pests,” “can’t understand the

language,” and “feel afraid of a forest.” The least mentioned

constraints were “poorly maintained areas” and “crowded

activity areas.” Overall, results supported the hypotheses

that minorities, women, rural residents, lower income

people, and less educated people had higher probabilities

of feeling constrained in their participation. Contrary

to expectations, results also indicated that immigrants

perceived fewer constraints, except for language, than

people born in the United States.

Discussion

Public lands, natural resources, and recreational facilities are

there, in part, for the enjoyment, benefit, and recreational

participation of all. However, this research has shown that

some segments of our society feel more constrained than

others from participating in outdoor recreation. Past images

of our parks have featured a particular genre of signage,

pictures, displays, facilities, programs, services offered,

management personnel, and languages spoken. These past

images may play a large role in how people today perceive

their freedom or feeling of welcome to use those parks. This

historic context might partly explain why immigrants, who

are often new to this country, perceive fewer constraints to

outdoor recreation.

End Invited Paper

Deborah Chavez

10 Deborah J. Chavez, Supervisory Research Social Scientist, Pacific Southwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Riverside,

CA. 
75

Comparison of Recreation Participation Patterns Across Demographic, Region-of-Country, and Natural Setting Strata

Latinos have reported they have one day off from work

per week, and as a result are primarily day-use visitors

(Chavez 2003). In addition, some Latinos feel that

local city parks are unsafe, and thus prefer to visit more

distant recreation sites, such as national parks and forests

(Chavez 2003). These findings may differ from the usual

reasons to go to natural resource sites (e.g., get away

from it all). 

(2) For Latinos, there is a strong emphasis on spending

time with family (Chavez 2001, 2003; Chavez and Olson

2009). Often, “family” for Latinos includes the nuclear

family (e.g., father, mother, and children) and extended

family members (e.g., aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc.). 

This can result in larger sized groups at outdoor recreation

sites. Our studies indicate that the average size of a Latino

group is 8 to 15, but that it can number > 100 (Chavez

2001; Chavez and Olson 2009). A survey of MexicanAmericans at national forests sites in southern California

showed that they consider leisure activity important and

think it contributes to family bonding (Chavez 2003). 

The Latino visitors responding to this survey placed

particular importance on recreational activities in natural

areas, citing a sense of place that helps them feel safe. 

Several also said that these natural places remind them

of their homeland and represent an opportunity to pass

on their love of the land to their children. In addition, we

have found evidence of repeat use of sites over time by

Latino families and plans to return multiple times per year

(Chavez 2001, Chavez and Olson 2009). 

(3) Latinos approach “picnicking” differently from other

groups. Rather than an opportunity to have a prepared

meal, for Latinos, picnicking is often an all-day activity. 

They may cook several meals onsite, often from scratch. 

They spend 6 to 10 hours with other family members,

often using much of that time to play with children. 

Consequently, there is little turnover at some sites. We

have found that although we may be conducting studies

at picnic areas, Latinos might indicate their primary

activity is “family gathering” instead of “picnicking”

(Chavez and Olson 2009).

Constraints to Participation

There are two consistent results across our studies related to

constraints to outdoor recreation participation by Latinos:

(1) 	Research on Latino visitors to southern California

national forest day use areas indicated a large percentage

of Spanish speakers and Spanish readers (Chavez

2001). The same studies found a preference for getting

South American, and other origins (U.S. Department of

Commerce 2004). The same Census data indicated that the

median age of Hispanics to be 26 years, that 75 percent

of Hispanics spoke a language other than English at

home, and that 81 percent resided in family households. 

It is important to note that there are vast within-group

differences and the use of “Latino” in this document is not

meant to ignore those differences.

When it comes to outdoor recreation sites, there are many

influences from Latinos. Several studies have indicated

that Latino groups may have different use patterns and

expectations about recreation areas, different constraints for

participation, and different site development preferences

than other groups. Development or changes at resource sites

to suit Latino visitors can also serve other groups to those

places. For example, Chavez (2002) found that Korean

American visitors began frequenting an area developed for

use by Latinos.

The information provided in this article is based on one

qualitative study (Chavez 2003) and 17 quantitative

research projects over a 15-year period conducted mostly

in southern California. Owing to this emphasis on

southern California, the applicability of these studies in

other regions may be limited. Some of this research was

previously reported in Chavez (2001) and in Chavez and

Olson (2009).

Data collection from Latinos can differ from other groups. 

For our studies, bilingual field teams collected data from

recreation visitors at day use sites on summer weekends. 

Field team members approached a group of visitors, spent

some time getting acquainted, then described the purpose of

the study and requested their participation. Often field team

members became members of the “family” and shared food

or non-alcoholic beverages with the visitors before data

collection could take place. We have found that Latinos

value outdoor recreation opportunities and appreciate

efforts to serve their needs. Most are quite willing to share

their opinions about site management once connections

between the interviewers and visitors have been made.

Use Patterns and Expectations 

about Outdoor Recreation Areas

There are three consistent results across the studies related

to Latino use patterns and Latino expectations about

outdoor recreation areas:

(1) Due to cultural and social factors, Latinos may use

recreational sites for different reasons than Whites. Many
76

Comparison of Recreation Participation Patterns Across Demographic, Region-of-Country, and Natural Setting Strata

recreation needs as other groups, such as needing places to

recreate and reasonable accommodations. But Latinos also

have some unique preferences. Understanding changing use

patterns is a critical challenge for managers as they work

to keep recreation sites appealing and useful to the Latino

populations of the United States. 

The findings reported here from studies conducted in

southern California over 15 years suggest how managers in

southern California might go about serving the needs and

desires of Latino populations. Many Latino respondents

reported they have one day off from work per week, thus they

are primarily day-use visitors (Chavez 2003). This knowledge

is critical in determining when use will be heaviest and what

sites may require concentration of resources. Managers also

should consider the strong desire for family time and family

bonding when Latinos are recreating outdoors and might

offer programming to suit that desire. It is also important to

consider what constitutes “family” for Latinos, which often

means larger groups on site. 

Communication is a key to serving Latinos at outdoor

recreation sites. Translating materials into Spanish is

suggested, and even better would be to provide materials

that have been back-translated (where a message is

translated to Spanish and then translated back to English by

a second translator). This way, the two English statements

can be compared (Marin and Marin 1991) and are culturally

correct and appropriate. It appears that traditional use

of brochures at the site entrance, signs along the road,

and notes on bulletin boards are acceptable. Alternate

communication strategies, such as onsite bilingual hosts

and interpretations, also can be helpful. When considering

the types on information to provide, managers will need to

survey their visitors.

Meeting the development needs of Latino visitors may

require renovation or equipment upgrades, such as

installing larger picnic tables, placing groups of tables

together, and providing several trash receptacles to

accommodate larger visitor groups. In places where people

are visiting, but where there are no picnic tables, trash cans

could be placed closer to areas where Latinos reported they

most commonly recreate, such as near streambeds. Some

consideration should be made for the longer period Latinos

tend to stay at sites, perhaps by having services/facilities

that fit their preferences (such as group play areas that could

be used for volleyball or soccer, drinking water, and toilets). 

The level of development depends on visitor desires and

upon the management goals of an area. For example,

picnic areas can be highly developed since they serve a

information about these areas by word of mouth,

particularly from family and friends. It was found that

once on site, visitors preferred to receive information

through a brochure at the site entrance, signs along

the road, and notes on bulletin boards. Preferred was

information that is site-specific. For example, at one

open space (or dispersed use area), preferences were for

information on streamside areas, things to see and do,

rules and regulations, and rare types of plants and animals. 

At a picnic site, the preferences were for the best times to

visit the area to avoid crowds, safety in the area, picnic/

barbecue area, and camping in the area. 

(2) In a study of Los Angeles County residents (Tierney

and others 1998), we learned that some of the constraints

most strongly experienced by Latinos who found time

to recreate in outdoor areas (such as forests) included

being uncomfortable in the outdoors, finding travel

and recreation in natural areas too much trouble, and

being discriminated against while traveling to or when

recreating in natural areas. Respondents also reported

that they encountered too few Latino employees at the

national forest. The perception of discrimination has a

powerful effect on people. In one study at two outdoor

recreation areas in southern California, we found that

Latinos perceived much more discrimination than other

racial and ethnic groups (Chavez 1993). Among all

respondents, about 13 percent believed they had been

victims of discrimination, whereas 32 percent of Latinos

felt they had been discriminated against. 

Site Development

There is one consistent result across the studies related

to site development. These studies indicated a general

preference for development of sites, even those managed as

dispersed use sites (Chavez 2001, 2003; Chavez and Olson

2009). Specific site preferences for amenities and facilities

were also found (Chavez 2001; Chavez and Olson 2009). 

For example, at one site the strongest preferences expressed

by Latinos were for trash cans, water faucets, cooking

grills, picnic tables, and restrooms (Chavez 2002). This

was a function of the site being a picnic area. At another

site, which is managed for dispersed or open space use, the

preferences were for trash cans, telephones, water faucets,

and parking areas (Chavez 2001). 

Conclusions

Meeting the needs of our changing population likely will

require changes in recreation management on national

forests and other lands. Latinos have many of the same
77

Comparison of Recreation Participation Patterns Across Demographic, Region-of-Country, and Natural Setting Strata

Visiting recreation and historic sites—Generally, regional

differences are modest with participation in activities at

recreation and historic sites slightly greater in the North

Region and slightly lower in the South.

Viewing and photographing nature—Participation in

this activity group also shows modest regional differences. 

Participation rates are a few percentage points higher in the

two western regions and a few points lower in the South.

Backcountry activities—The participation rate in

backcountry activities is substantially higher in the Rocky

Mountain and Pacific Coast Regions than the nation overall,

and especially higher than in the South.

Motorized activities—Participation in motorized activities

is higher in the Rocky Mountain Region than in any other

of the three regions. The Rocky Mountains is the only

region more than a few percentage points different from the

national participation rate.

Hunting and fishing—Participation in hunting and fishing

activities is highest in the South and Rocky Mountain

Regions, which are both higher than the national rate, and

lowest in the Pacific Coast Region.

Non-motorized boating activities—Participation in nonmotor boating is disproportionately higher in the North and

Pacific Coast Regions, but lower in the South.

Snow skiing and boarding—Participation in snow

skiing is highest in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific

Coast Regions, is next highest in the North, and by far is

the lowest in the South. All but the South are above the

national rate.

Across the seven activity groups, one apparent determining

factor of participation rate is availability of sites and areas

for outdoor activities. Activities requiring large natural

areas are much more abundant in the western regions. 

Areas with snowfall sufficient for skiing occur in the

western mountains and in the northern states. Hunting

and fishing occur in all regions, but they are very much

traditional activities for the forests and waters of the

South and thus have relatively high participation rates

in that region. Generally, all regions have their own

species of birds, wildlife and trees to support viewing and

photographing activities.

particular need, but managers will probably exercise more

caution for development of dispersed sites. At dispersed

sites, managers might want to consider providing portable

restrooms and trash dumpsters.

End Invited Paper 

Participation Differences by Region

Results from comparison of percentages of participants with

percentages of population across the seven activity groups

and among regions of the country are shown in table 5.9. 

The data source is the NSRE. Each activity group is listed in

turn in column one. Regions are listed one after the other for

each activity group in column two. Regions and inclusive

States include:

North: Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois,

Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,

Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New

York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West

Virginia, Wisconsin

South: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South

Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia

Rocky Mountains: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas,

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,

South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming

Pacific Coast: Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon,

Washington

The regional distribution of population (column 4) and

observations about regional differences are shown in

table 5.9. Each of the seven activity groups is covered. 

An asterisk in the Activity Group column of this table

indicates the chi-square goodness of fit statistic, which

tests independence of the observed proportions in the four

regions from the proportions in the nation, as a whole. The

asterisks in the RPA Region column are binomial tests of

significance between the region participation rate (“Percent

participating”) and the participation rate for all people ages

16 and older. This signifies that the participation rate for the

region for the activity group listed is significantly different

from that of the nation as a whole.
78

Comparison of Recreation Participation Patterns Across Demographic, Region-of-Country, and Natural Setting Strata

Table 5.9—Percentage of participants and population, ratios of percentages, and statistical 

test results for seven activity groups and four regions

Activity group RPA region 

Percent of 

participants 

Percent of 

population 

Ratio 

(1)/(2) 

Percent 

participating 

North*** 39.8 38.6 1.03 78.8 

South* 31.9 33.6 0.95 74.5 

Rocky Mountains*** 9.4 9.4 1.00 79.9 

Visiting recreation/ historic 

sites* 

Pacific Coast* 18.9 18.4 1.03 80.4 

North 38.6 38.6 1.00 74.8 

South* 32.7 33.6 0.97 71.6 

Rocky Mountains* 9.8 9.4 1.04 77.0 

Viewing/photographing 

nature* 

Pacific Coast* 18.9 18.4 1.03 76.7 

North*** 38.2 38.6 0.99 40.2 

South* 27.6 33.6 0.82 34.4 

Rocky Mountains* 12.4 9.4 1.32 54.7 

Backcountry activities* 

Pacific Coast* 21.8 18.4 1.18 49.6 

North*** 37.9 38.6 0.98 34.4 

South 32.9 33.6 0.98 35.4 

Rocky Mountains* 10.8 9.4 1.15 41.0 

Motorized activities* 

Pacific Coast 18.4 18.4 1.00 36.1 

North* 37.0 38.6 0.96 32.6 

South* 37.3 33.6 1.11 37.8 

Rocky Mountains* 10.5 9.4 1.12 37.7 

Hunting and fishing* 

Pacific Coast* 15.2 18.4 0.83 28.0 

North* 42.1 38.6 1.09 22.7 

South* 28.7 33.6 0.85 17.7 

Rocky Mountains 9.4 9.4 1.00 20.6 

Non-motor boating* 

Pacific Coast* 19.9 18.4 1.08 22.4 

North* 46.8 38.6 1.21 13.4 

South* 15.4 33.6 0.46 5.2 

Rocky Mountains* 12.5 9.4 1.33 15.0 

Snow skiing and boarding* 

Pacific Coast* 25.3 18.4 1.38 15.6 

Note: Test statistic in the 'Demographic' column is chi-square goodness of fit which tests independence of the 

observed proportions in the categories of each demographic group. Test statistic in the 'Stratum' column are 

binomial tests of significance between the stratum participation rate ('Percent participating') and the participation 

 rate for all people age 16 and older shown in line 1. Significance levels indicated by: *=.01, **=.05, ***=.10. 

Percentages sum down to 100 within each activity group in the first two columns; may not sum to 100 percent exactly 

due to rounding. Activity groups consist of the following activities: Visiting recreation and historic sites: family gatherings, 

picnicking, visiting the beach, visiting historic or prehistoric sites, and camping; Viewing/photographing nature: view/photograph 

birds, natural scenery, other wildlife (besides birds), and wildflowers, trees, etc.; Backcountry activities: backpacking, day hiking, 

horseback riding on trails, mountain climbing, and visiting a wilderness or primitive area; Motorized activities: motorboating, 

off-highway vehicle driving, snowmobiling, using personal watercraft, and waterskiing; Hunting and fishing: (anadromous, coldwater, 

warmwater, and saltwater fishing), (big game, small game, and migratory bird hunting); Non-motor boating: canoeing, kayaking, 

rafting, rowing, and sailing; Snow skiing and boarding: cross-country skiing, downhill skiing, and snowboarding. 

Source: USDA Forest Service (2009), Versions 1-4. N=24,073. Interview dates: 1/05 to 4/09.
79

Comparison of Recreation Participation Patterns Across Demographic, Region-of-Country, and Natural Setting Strata

covered specific outdoor recreational activities, settings, and

motivations. Respondents were asked to identify their main

outdoor recreation activity and to then choose the settings where

their main activity had taken place. The respondents were also

asked to rate importance of a list of 13 motivations for choosing

a particular setting and activity combination. The focus of this

paper is on four main activities, settings for each activity, and

importance of motivations for choosing the combination of

setting and activity (table 5.10). In addition to the recreation

activity questions, demographic data were obtained.

Thirteen motivations were tested across seven settings (coastal

waters, inland freshwater, forest, open grassland, urban park,

desert, and mountain) to see if motivations for choosing

settings were different for each of four activities. The four

activities included hiking, sightseeing, camping in developed

campgrounds, and walking (table 5.11; only the walking table

is shown in this report). The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

was run separately for each main activity to identify whether

the importance of each motivation was significantly different

in choosing among the seven settings. Hiking, sightseeing,

camping in developed campgrounds, and walking were the

selected activities because they could occur in a variety of

outdoor settings. Where appropriate, post-hoc tests were

conducted to identify which of the 13 motivations were

significantly different across the seven settings for each activity. 

Results

Hiking and camping—Significant differences were found

between importance scores of two motivations for hiking. 

These motivations were to be near my home and for

physical exercise or training. The most popular motivations

for hiking, regardless of setting, were to be outdoors,

experience nature, and get away from the demands of

life. Like hiking, importance scores for motivations

for camping differed across settings, but only for the

motivation to experience nature. To experience nature

was the fourth most popular motivation for camping in

developed areas. The first three most popular motivations

were to get away from the demands of life, be with family,

and be outdoors. The fifth and sixth most popular camping

motivations were to be with friends and view wildlife.

Unfortunately, post-hoc analysis was not possible for the

activities of hiking and camping due to a lack of sufficient

cell counts of campers and hikers for each different setting. 

Invited Paper

Examining Motivations for Outdoor Recreational 

Activity Across Multiple Setting Choices: 

A National Study 

by Gary T. Green, Rudy M. Schuster, David A. Graefe, and

H. Ken Cordell11

Introduction

In outdoor recreation, participants engage in a particular

recreation activity in an outdoor setting of choice for a desired

experience. Desired experiences, and the benefits from

them, are fundamentally the motivations to participate in an

activity in a particular setting. This study was undertaken to

examine potential differences in motivations to participate

in selected outdoor activities across various settings. For

example, does a hiker in a desert have a different motivation

than a hiker in a forest, or do hikers in general have similar

motivations regardless of setting? This study was designed

to identify motivations for activities in certain settings,

and to identify if any activities are dependent upon setting. 

Unlike previous research, this paper specifically examines

changes in motivation across physical settings by employing

an alternative method of conceptualizing the term setting. 

Settings were defined by the physical attributes of the location

where the activity took place. For example, an individual may

walk in a forest, desert, or coastal waterway setting. 

Methods

The national data for this research were obtained through

the NSRE (described earlier). The NSRE questions used

Gary Green

11Gary T. Green, Assistant Professor, University of Georgia, Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources, Athens, GA; Rudy M. Schuster (R.M. Schuster's

affiliation during this research was SUNY ESF. His current affiliation is with the United States Geological Survey, Fort Collins, CO) and David A. Graefe,

Associate Professor/Master’s Student, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY USA; and H. Ken Cordell, Pioneering Research

Scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Athens, GA.
80

Comparison of Recreation Participation Patterns Across Demographic, Region-of-Country, and Natural Setting Strata

Summary and Discussion

A very important point about this research is that it is

national in scope covering the adult population of people

ages 16 and older in the United States. For this population,

this research offers two general observations based on the

ANOVA results. The first is that motivations can be different

for choosing a setting for different activities. Referring to

the four activities selected, existence of such differences can

be seen. For hiking, being near home and health differed in

importance as motivations for setting selection. For camping

in developed campgrounds, experiencing nature differed in

importance as a motivation for setting selection. There were

no significant differences in the importance of any of the 13

motivations as reasons for selecting a setting for sightseeing. 

The importance of being near home, experiencing nature,

seeing new wildlife, being with friends, viewing wildlife, and

having a challenge each varied significantly in importance as

reasons for selecting setting for the activity of walking. 

Consequently, while significant differences across settings

existed between specific motivations of hikers and campers,

which settings were significantly different from the others

could not be identified. 

Sightseeing—Results showed that none of the mean

importance scores of motivations for participating in

sightseeing were significantly different across settings. 

These results suggest that the importance of individual

motivations for participation in sightseeing does not vary

significantly across settings. Regardless of setting, the top

three motivations for sightseeing are to be with family, be

outdoors, and get away from the demands of life. 

Walking—For walkers, reported importance scores for the

motivation to be near my home was significantly different

across settings. Significant differences also existed across

settings for the motivations to experience nature, to see

wildlife not seen before, to be with friends, to view wildlife

generally, and to have a challenging outdoor experience.

Table 5.10—Survey questions pertaining to peopleʼs participation in their main outdoor recreational activity 

in relation to their specific choice of settings and motivations 

1. Of all the outdoor recreation activities you participated in during the last 12 months, which do you consider to be 

your main activity? 

2. In which of the following settings did you mainly do this activity? 

 1. Coastal waters including bays, beaches, or the ocean 

 2. Inland freshwater lakes, rivers, streams, or ponds 

 3. A forest 

 4. Open grasslands or meadows with few or no trees 

 5. An urban or suburban park 

 6. Desert 

 7. Mountains 

 8. Other 

 9. Donʼt know 

 10. Refused 

3. From the following list of motivations or reasons, would you please tell me on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being 

'Not At All Important' and 5 being 'Very Important', how important was each motivation or reason in choosing 

[setting] to [activity]? 

 1. Near my home 

 2. To experience nature 

 3. To get away from the demands of life 

 4. To see wildlife I have not seen before 

 5. To be with family 

 6. To be alone 

 7. To be with friends 

 8. To be outdoors 

 9. For health reasons 

 10. For physical exercise or training 

 11. To view wildlife 

 12. To improve outdoor skills and abilities 

 13. To have a challenging outdoor experience 

Source: USDA Forest Service (2009).
81

Comparison of Recreation Participation Patterns Across Demographic, Region-of-Country, and Natural Setting Strata

outdoors, health, physical exercise or training, and to get

away from the everyday demands of life.

In addition to knowing how activity participation is trending,

knowing more about motivations for participating in

activities and for selecting particular settings for activities

is important. Local, State, and Federal agencies have been

struggling to maintain both the dispersed and developed

portions of their recreation opportunities. Cordell and others

(2008) and others have shown that outdoor recreation is

evolving from the traditional activity mixes that Americans

chose in previous generations. Numbers of people

participating in some activities are decreasing somewhat,

while others are growing. The current recession, resulting

tight budgets, and other factors are forcing both public and

The second general observation from this national study

concerns identification of which motivations are most

important overall to each of the four activities. This means

looking only at motivations having a mean value of 4.0 or

larger (important to very important). For hiking, the most

important motivations for the activity, in descending order

of importance, are to be outdoors, to experience nature,

to get away from the demands of everyday life, and to

have physical exercise or training. For camping, the most

important motivations, in descending order of importance,

are to be outdoors, to get away from the everyday demands

of life, and to experience nature. For sightseeing, the most

important motivation is to be with family, and the other

two are to be outdoors and to get away from the everyday

demands of life. For walking, the motivations are to be

Table 5.11—Post-hoc analysis to identify specific differences in mean motivational scores across different 

types of settings, for the activity of walking 

Setting 

Motivation 

(a) 

Coastal 

waters 

(b) 

Inland 

freshwater 

(c) 

Forest 

(d) 

Grass 

lands 

(e) (Sub) 

Urban 

park 

(f) 

Desert 

(g) 

Mtns 

(h) 

Other 

1. Near my home 3.1eh 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.9ag 3.7 3.1eh 3.9ag

2. Experience nature* 4.4eh 4.3h 4.6eh 4.0 3.8ac 3.4 3.9 3.2abc

3. Get away from the 

demands of life 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.6h

 3.6 

4. See wildlife I have not 

seen before 3.5eh 3.4eh 3.4eh 3.6eh 2.7abcd 3.1 3.5h

 2.5abcdg

5. Be with family 3.9 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.4 

6. Be alone 2.6 2.4 3.1 3.1 2.4 3.1 2.2 2.6 

7. Be with friends 3.6dh 3.4d

 3.1 2.6abeg 3.3dh 2.5 3.6d 2.8ae

8. Be outdoors 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.7 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.3 

9. For health reasons 4.2 4.4 4.1 4.3 4.4 3.9 4.3 4.5 

10. Physical exercise or 

training 3.9 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.2 3.7 4.1 4.4 

11. View wildlife 3.6eh 3.7eh 3.5eh 3.5eh 3.0abcd 3.7h

 3.2 2.7abcdf

12. Improve outdoor 

skills and abilities 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.3 2.8 3.3 3.5 3.2 

13. Have a challenging 

outdoor experience* 3.1f

 3.1f 2.6f 3.0f 2.7f 1.3abcdegh 3.0f 3.0f

Note: *Tanhaneʼs T2 used due to unequal variances; LSD used for all other post hoc analyses. Setting is the independent variable 

and motivation is the dependent variable. Motivations were measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ʻNot at all importantʼ to 

ʻVery important.ʼ

For those motivation means that were significantly different across settings, superscript letters identify the setting groups (columns) 

between which differences in mean motivation scores existed (rows). For example, the cell value 3.1eh, indicates that the mean of 

3.1 was significantly different than the mean scores reported in the urban park (column e) and other (column h) setting categories. 

Source: USDA Forest Service (2009).
82

Youth Time and Activities Outdoors

occurred in non-natural settings, which could include urban

areas and other developed areas.

Table 5.12 shows estimates of land-based activity days for

the United States. Generally, more than half of all activity

days, 54 percent, were reported to have occurred in forested

settings across all activity groups. This was especially so

for backcountry, hunting, and snow skiing activities. The

activity group with the greatest number of days over all

settings was viewing and photographing nature, and this was

true even in non-natural setting (those in a more developed

state). Eighty-two percent of all activity days for these six

activity groups were spent viewing and photographing

nature. Hunting and snow skiing produced a very small

fraction of the total activity days. Next highest, but not very

close, in total activity days were backcountry activities,

and visiting recreation and historic sites. Non-forest natural

settings may include range, grass, shrub, or other open lands. 

Non-natural other settings may include developed sites,

parks, urban areas, or other places. See appendix table 7 for

activity days by setting and region for individual activities.

6. YOUTH TIME AND ACTIVITIES 

OUTDOORS

Time Youth Spend Outdoors

The National Kids Survey was conducted from late 2007

through early 2009. As part of this survey, questions were

asked of respondent households concerning amount of

time youth 6 to 19 years old spent outdoors, regardless

of activity (such as hanging out with friends or organized

sports activities). The first general area of inquiry concerned

private recreation providers to adjust, and perhaps to reduce,

some of the resources they provide. Knowing the importance

of various motivations, or reasons, for choosing activities

and settings can greatly aid those adjustments. For example,

knowing that being outdoors and experiencing nature are

important motivations for the activities we studied may

indicate that one activity may be a substitute for another

(or others) if they meet some of the same needs. Also,

knowing that activity motivations are important in some

choices of outdoor settings may help in identifying setting

complementarity, where different settings for the same

activity seem to meet the same need (motivation). Greater

understanding of people’s motivations, especially how these

could be changing over time, could help natural resource

managers to better plan and tailor the opportunities and

programs they are currently providing to their users to better

meet their needs and expectations.

End Invited Paper

Participation Differences by Type of Setting

In addition to the previous two studies by Green and by

Chavez, we estimated total days of participation in activities

within the activity groups earlier described that occurred in

natural forest, unforested natural areas (including range),

and developed settings across all participants in each activity

group. The source of data was the NSRE. Estimation of days

of participation by setting was possible because respondents

to the NSRE were asked how many activity days had

occurred in settings that were mostly in natural forest cover

(tree-dominated) or in non-forest natural cover. Activity days

not in forest or non-forest natural cover were assumed to have

Table 5.12—Millions of activity days for six groups of land-based activities that occurred in 

natural forest, non-forest natural, and developed or other settings 

Type of setting 

Land-based activity group 

Natural 

forest 

Non-forest 

natural 

Developed or 

other settings 

Total activity 

days 

Viewing/photographing nature 18,732.9 10,627.9 6,455.7 35,816.5 

Backcountry activities 2,106.6 572.7 440.1 3,119.4 

Visiting recreation and historic sites 1,580.1 923.8 456.3 2,960.2 

Motorized activities 682.4 350.9 92.3 1,125.6 

Hunting 408.6 83.8 18.9 511.3 

Snow skiing 27.1 6.4 2.4 35.9 

Note: Non-natural other settings include the remainder of days that were not reported in natural forests or on nonforest natural lands. Snow skiing includes cross-country skiing only; no other snow-based activity collected forest 

setting data. 

Source: USDA Forest Service (2009), n=30,394. 
83

Youth Time and Activities Outdoors

weekend days, respectively. As one might expect, school and

other activities likely compete more for youths’ time during

weekdays than during weekends.

Next, percentages of youth indicating spending less, the

same, or more time outdoors at the time of the interview

relative to a year ago were examined. Across the entire

sample of both boys and girls, only 15 percent reported

spending less time, 44 percent reported spending the same,

and 41 percent estimated spending more time outdoors

this year than last (table 6.2). See appendix table 8 for

percentages by gender and age group.

Demographics Associated with 

Time Youth Spend Outdoors

Next examined is whether the demographics of respondents

are associated with time spent outdoors. The demographics

used include gender, age, race, and household income. 

Table 6.1—Percent of youth ages 6 to 19 (with 95 percent confidence intervals) who spent different 

amounts of time outdoors on typical weekdays and weekend days during the week just preceding 

the interview 

Weekday Weekend day 

Amount of time 

95 percent 

c.i. lower 

bound Percent 

95 percent 

c.i. upper 

bound 

95 percent 

c.i. lower 

bound Percent 

95 percent 

c.i. upper 

bound 

None 1.4 2.3 3.1 2.9 4.0 5.1 

< 1/2 hour a day 3.2 4.3 5.5 1.3 2.1 2.9 

About 1/2 hour a day 6.0 7.5 9.0 2.5 3.5 4.6 

About 1 hour 19.1 21.5 23.8 10.7 12.6 14.5 

2-3 hours 29.3 32.0 34.6 23.4 25.9 28.4 

4 or more hours 29.8 32.4 35.1 49.1 52.0 54.8 

c.i. = confidence interval. 

Note: Percent may not sum down to 100.0 exactly due to rounding. 

Source: NSRE National Kids Survey, 2007 to 2009, N=1,201. 

amount of time spent outdoors. This included time on a

typical weekday, amount of time on a typical weekend day,

and time outdoors at the time of surveying relative to the

previous year. 

Estimated percentages of youth spending various amounts

of time outdoors daily on weekdays and weekends are

shown in table 6.1. Also shown are 95 percent confidence

intervals. The estimates shown represent reported (not

directly observed) time spent outdoors. The data indicate

that 64 percent of youth ages 6 to 19 reported spending 2

or more hours outdoors on a typical weekday during the

week preceding the household interview (table 6.1). Over

three-fourths (about 78 percent) spent more than 2 hours

outdoors on a typical weekend day. More than one half

of the youth spent 4 or more hours outdoors on a typical

weekend day. Less than 5 percent spent no time outdoors

on either weekdays or weekend days. Twenty-two and

12 percent spent about 1 hour outdoors on weekdays and

Table 6.2— Percent of youth ages 6 to 19 (with 95 percent confidence intervals) reporting 

spending less, about the same, or more time outdoors this year than last 

 Less time About the same More time 

95 

percent 

c.i. lower 

bound Percent 

95 

 percent 

c.i. upper 

bound 

95 

percent 

c.i. lower 

bound Percent 

95 percent 

c.i. upper 

bound 

95 

percent 

c.i. lower 

bound Percent 

95 percent 

c.i. upper 

bound 

13.0 15.1 17.1 41.2 44.0 46.8 38.1 41.0 43.8 

c.i. = confidence interval. 

Note: Percent does not sum across to 100.0 exactly due to rounding. 

Source: NSRE National Kids Survey, 2007 to 2009, N=1,201. 
84

Youth Time and Activities Outdoors

increased from about 26 on weekdays to 46 percent on

weekend days. Around 82 percent of males and 74 percent of

females spent 2 or more hours outdoors on weekend days.

Percentages of youth of different ages by amount of time

per day outdoors are shown in table 6.4. Higher percentages

of children ages 6 to 15 spent 2 or more hours outdoors,

compared with those ages 16 to 19. This difference between

children under 16 years and those ages 16 to 19 is especially

pronounced when comparing percentages spending 4 or

more hours per day on weekends. Consistent with these

comparisons is that a larger percentage of youth ages 16 to

19 reported spending no time outdoors on weekends—about

6 percent. The percentages spending < 1⁄2 hour and up to an

hour per day decrease across all ages on weekends compared

Percentages of male and female youth spending various

amounts of time outdoors on weekdays and weekends are

shown in table 6.3. 

Generally, somewhat higher percentages of both male and

female youth spent no time outdoors on weekends, relative

to weekdays (about 4 percent versus 2 percent, respectively). 

However, smaller percentages of both males and females

spent an hour or less outdoors on weekends, as compared

with weekdays. The most significant time difference in time

outdoors between weekdays and weekends, for both males

and females, was in percentages of youth spending 4 or more

hours outdoors. For males, that percentage went from 39

percent on weekdays up to 58 percent on weekend days. For

females, the percentage spending 4 or more hours outdoors

Table 6.3—Amount of time youth spent outdoors on a typical weekday and weekend day 

during the past week, by gender 

Male Female Total 

Time outdoors 

Weekday Weekend 

day 

Weekday Weekend 

day 

Weekday Weekend 

day 

percent 

None 2.1 3.8 2.3 4.1 2.2 3.9 

< 1/2 hour a day 3.8 1.2 5.2 3.0 4.5 2.1 

About 1/2 hour a day 6.3 2.6 8.3 4.2 7.3 3.4 

About 1 hour 19.1 10.6 24.4 14.8 21.7 12.7 

2-3 hours 29.4 23.6 34.1 28.0 31.7 25.8 

4 or more hours 39.2 58.2 25.7 45.8 32.5 52.0 

Note: Percent may not sum down to 100.0 exactly due to rounding. Chi-square: Weekday (x= 34.72, 

p(x)<.0001), Weekend (x= 30.53 , p(x)<.0001). 

Source: NSRE National Kids Survey, 2007 to 2009. Gender sample sizes: Male (n=611), Female (n=572), 

Total (n=1,183). 

Table 6.4—Amount of time youth spent outdoors on a typical weekday and weekend day during the past 

week, by age group 

6-9 10-12 13-15 16-19 Total 

Time outdoors 

Weekday 

Weekend 

day 

Weekday 

Weekend 

day 

Weekday 

Weekend 

day 

Weekday 

Weekend 

day 

Weekday 

Weekend 

day 

percent 

None 2.3 2.7 3.0 4.0 1.9 3.2 1.9 6.1 2.3 4.0 

< 1/2 hour a day 3.0 1.3 2.7 1.1 4.8 0.9 7.5 4.8 4.5 2.1 

About 1/2 hour a day 8.0 1.7 6.1 4.1 7.5 3.8 7.7 4.7 7.4 3.5 

About 1 hour 23.6 9.4 22.2 5.8 15.8 13.0 23.5 22.0 21.7 12.7 

2-3 hours 34.8 27.6 27.3 26.4 35.0 28.6 28.8 21.2 31.6 25.8 

4 or more hours 28.4 57.3 38.7 58.5 35.0 50.5 30.6 41.0 32.5 51.9 

Note: Percent may not sum down to 100.0 exactly due to rounding. Chi-square: Weekday (x= 36.6, p(x)=0.00145), Weekend 

(x= 103.72, p(x)<.0001). 

Source: NSRE National Kids Survey, 2007 to 2009. Age group sample sizes: Age 6–9 (n=368), Age 10–12 (n=284), Age 13–15 

(n=313), Age 16–19 (n=218), Total (n=1,183). 
85

Youth Time and Activities Outdoors

of children in families with incomes from $25,000 to

$99,000 USD spent 4 or more hours outdoors on weekends

relative to those in households with both the lowest and

the highest incomes. The shift in percentage spending 4 or

more hours on weekend days relative to weekdays is more

pronounced for households with incomes above $50,000

USD, and it is especially pronounced for incomes of

$75,000 to $99,000 USD. 

Outdoor Activities

Figure 6.1 shows the top five outdoor activities of youth

ages 6 to 19. These are really groups of similar activities,

but tailored to youth respondents. Of these, the one

outdoor activity with the highest participation rate (82

percent) was that of “just playing or hanging out outdoors.”

Second, with 80 percent participation, was biking, jogging,

walking, skate boarding, or similar activity. Listening to

music or using other electronic devices outdoors was third,

followed by playing or practicing team sports and reading/

studying outdoors.

Table 6.7 compares outdoor activity participation rates

(percentages) between male and female youth. Just over

87 percent of boys and 77 percent of girls indicated they

had been outdoors playing or hanging out as an activity

during the previous week. In comparison, the activity of

biking/jogging/walking/skate boarding or a similar activity

was basically even among girls and boys, with 80 percent

participating. Listening to music or using a screen or

other electronic device outdoors, the third most popular

activity, was more popular with girls at about 62 percent

participation, while for boys participation was 48 percent. 

with weekdays. The largest difference between weekdays

and weekends is in percentages spending 4 or more hours

outdoors for all age groups. For children 6 to 9 years old,

the percentage more than doubles from 28 to 57 percent (29

percent greater on weekends), and for children ages 10 to

12 the shift is from 39 to 59 percent (20 percent greater on

weekends). Across all age groups, percentages spending 2 to

3 hours per day drop somewhat on weekends. 

A higher percentage of Hispanic youth (63 percent) spent 4 or

more hours per day outdoors on weekends than either White

or Black youth (table 6.5). A somewhat higher percentage of

Whites spent 4 or more hours per day on weekends relative to

Black youth. A smaller percentage of Hispanics spent no time

outdoors on weekends as compared to Black youth. Relative

to Whites, higher percentages of Hispanic and Black youth

spent 4 or more hours outdoors on weekdays.

The greatest shifts in hours per day from weekdays to

weekends are for Hispanic youth spending about 1 hour

outdoors (from 18 on weekdays down to 6 percent on

weekends); for White youth spending 4 or more hours (28 up

to 51 percent); and for Hispanic youth spending 4 or more

hours per day (47 up to 63 percent). The percentage of Black

youth spending no time outdoors moves from just under 3

percent on weekdays to over 6 percent on weekend days. 

Time outdoors was also compared across households with

different income levels. Somewhat lower percentages

of youth in the highest income category spent no time

outdoors (table 6.6). Interestingly, the percentage spending

4 or more hours outdoors on weekdays generally trended

downward with greater family incomes. Higher percentages

Table 6.5—Amount of time youth spend outdoors on a typical weekday and weekend day during the past 

week, by race/ethnicity 

White Black Hispanic Other Total 

Time outdoors 

Weekday 

Weekend 

day 

Weekday 

Weekend 

day 

Weekday 

Weekend 

day 

Weekday 

Weekend 

day 

Weekday 

Weekend 

day 

percent

None 1.9 3.7 2.8 6.6 1.7 1.9 7.8 9.0 2.3 3.9 

< 1/2 hour a day 5.3 2.5 2.0 2.2 4.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 4.5 2.1 

About 1/2 hour a day 8.8 3.9 9.4 4.2 2.6 1.6 7.4 6.7 7.5 3.6 

About 1 hour 21.7 13.7 22.9 11.3 17.7 6.2 34.0 29.4 21.6 12.6 

2-3 hours 34.4 24.9 29.3 30.9 26.2 26.3 26.8 23.6 31.7 25.8 

4 or more hours 27.9 51.3 33.6 44.8 47.3 62.8 24.1 31.3 32.4 51.9 

Note: Percent may not sum down to 100.0 exactly due to rounding. Chi-square: Weekday (x= 76.78, p(x)<.0001), Weekend (x= 

67.80, p(x)<.0001). 

Source: NSRE National Kids Survey, 2007 to 2009. Race/ethnicity sample sizes: White (n=953), Black (n=100), Hispanic (n=77), 

Other (n=38), Total (n=1,168). 'Other' races include American Indians and Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders. 
86

Youth Time and Activities Outdoors

Table 6.6—Amount of time youth spend outdoors on a typical weekday and weekend day during the past week, by 

annual family income 

<$25,000 

$25,000- 

$49,999 

$50,000- 

$74,999 

$75,000- 

$99,999 

$100,000- 

$149,999 $150,000+ Total 

Time outdoors 

Weekday 

Weekend 

day 

Weekday 

Weekend 

day 

Weekday 

Weekend 

day 

Weekday 

Weekend 

day 

Weekday 

Weekend 

day 

Weekday 

Weekend 

day 

Weekday 

Weekend 

day 

percent 

None 1.9 5.5 2.6 2.8 1.8 4.1 1.7 2.8 4.1 2.1 0.8 1.1 2.2 3.4

< 1/2 hour 

a day 5.6 1.4 4.5 0.9 4.6 1.6 3.3 2.0 1.4 0.5 9.6 6.6 4.5 1.7

About 1/2 hour 

a day 10.1 4.8 4.1 2.6 6.5 2.2 8.7 3.0 8.9 6.4 13.1 3.4 7.9 3.6 

About 1 hour 14.2 14.0 19.7 9.6 22.8 12.1 21.5 8.4 33.1 10.4 21.1 12.6 21.3 11.0 

2-3 hours 28.9 27.8 27.9 25.8 34.6 28.1 29.6 18.8 29.7 34.5 35.5 34.1 30.5 27.0 

4 or more hours 39.4 46.5 41.2 58.2 29.7 51.8 35.3 64.9 22.8 46.1 19.9 42.3 33.6 53.2 

Note: Percent may not sum down to 100.0 exactly due to rounding. Chi-square: Weekday (x= 66.34, p(x)<0.0001 ), Weekend (x= 

58.89 , p(x)=0.00015 ). 

Source: NSRE National Kids Survey, 2007 to 2009. Income category sample sizes (in order, lowest income to highest): 1 (n=132), 2 

(n=188), 3 (n=202), 4 (n=181), 5 (n=182), 6 (n=131), Total (n=1,016). Income is total annual family income before taxes. Imputed 

values for income were substituted for missing values for all NSRE data through 12/31/08. 

Figure 6.1—Five activities with highest participation rates by youth 6 to 19 years of age.

Reading,  studying,  etc. Team  sportsUse  electronic  device Biking,  walking,  etc. Play  or  hang  out

44.5 50.8 55.4 78.8 83

Figure VI.1—Five activities with highest participation rates by youth 6 to 19 years of age. 

0 20 40 60 80 100

Reading, studying,

etc.

Team sports

Use electronic

device

Biking, walking,

etc.

Play or hang out

Activity

Percent

Activity

Percent
87

Youth Time and Activities Outdoors

popular with children ages 6 to 12, while riding ATVs or

motorcycles off road is more popular with youth older than

12 years. 

Included in the category of “Other outdoor activities”

are gardening/landscaping (23 percent of the “other”

responses), equestrian (12 percent), trampoline (11 percent),

band (11 percent), family cook outs (6 percent), attending

sports (6 percent), farm chores (5 percent), cheerleading (5

percent), and a variety of other outdoor activities (falling

below 5 percent).

Reasons for Not Spending More Time Outdoors

Table 6.9 shows comparisons between males and females

concerning reasons for not spending more time outdoors. 

Interest in music, art, reading, and similar uses of time

was the highest percentage reason given by females for

not spending more time outdoors. For males, the highest

percentage reason was video games, watching DVDs

and television. For females, the second highest reason

was interest in the Internet, text messaging, and related

social networking. For males, the second highest reason

was music, art, reading, and related interests. As table 6.9

shows, there are a number of important differences between

males and females. Not having neighborhood access to

outdoor areas, not having a friend to go with, and not having

transportation were cited more frequently by females, while

Playing or practicing team sports was more popular with

boys at 58 percent, while for girls participation was 43

percent. About one-third of youth participated in nonmotorized nature-based activities, such as attending

camps and classes, and bird or wildlife watching. Girls

participated in these activities at a greater rate than boys,

but boys outpaced girls in the motorized activity of riding

off-road vehicles. Hiking, camping, and fishing were

essentially the same for both genders at about 31 percent. 

Table 6.8 compares percentages of youth participating

in different outdoor activities by age. By far, playing

or hanging out outdoors is more popular among 10- to

12-year-olds (95 percent participated in the last week),

followed by 6- to 9-year-olds. Similarly, biking/jogging/

walking/skate boarding and related activities are more

popular as an activity by 10-to 12- and 6-to 9-year-old

youth. Listening to music, watching videos, or using other

electronic devices outdoors was more popular with youth

over age 13, especially those ages 13 to 15, with 75 percent

participation. Percentages playing or practicing team

sports were similar across the two youngest and the oldest

age groups at just under 50 percent, but spiked to over 60

percent in the 13- to 15-year-old age group. Reading or

studying outdoors was more popular with ages 10 to 12

and with ages 16 to 19. Participating in sports, such as golf

or tennis, is most popular with younger children, those

ages 6 to 12. Similarly, bird or wildlife viewing is more

Table 6.7—Percent of youth participating in outdoor activity during the past 

week, by type of activity and gender 

Outdoor activity Male Female Total 

percent 

Just play outdoors or hang out 87.1 77.4 82.3* 

Biking, jogging, walking, skate boarding, etc. 80.0 80.3 80.1 

Listen to music, watch movies, or use electronic device 47.5 61.7 54.8* 

Playing or practicing team sports 57.6 43.4 50.6* 

Reading, studying while sitting outdoors 38.8 53.2 46.0* 

Other sports, e.g., tennis, golf 39.7 37.5 38.6 

Attending camps, field trips, outdoor classes 31.3 38.6 34.9*

Swimming, diving, snorkeling, etc. 33.4 36.6 34.8 

Bird watching, wildlife viewing, etc. 29.3 35.9 32.6*

Hiking, camping, fishing, etc. 31.4 31.2 31.2 

Riding motorcycles, ATVs, other off-road vehicles 22.6 16.8 19.7* 

Snow skiing, snowboarding, cross-country skiing 9.5 7.9 8.6 

Boating, jet skiing, water skiing, etc. 8.9 8.9 8.8 

Rowing, kayaking, canoeing, surfing, etc. 8.7 8.2 8.4 

Other outdoor activities 8.6 10.8 9.6 

Chi-square test of independence, significance levels: *=.01. 

Source: NSRE National Kids Survey, 2007 to 2009. N=1,201. 
88

Youth Time and Activities Outdoors

Table 6.8—Percent of youth participating by type of outdoor activity and age group 

 

 Age group 

Outdoor activity 6 to 9 10 to 12 13 to 15 16 to 19 

Total 

percent 

percent

Just play outdoors or hang out 86.5 94.9 80.9 68.1 82.3* 

Biking, jogging, walking, skate boarding, etc. 84.8 87.2 67.4 78.4 80.1* 

Listen to music, watch movies, or use electronic device 39.4 46.8 74.8 64.5 54.8* 

Playing or practicing team sports 47.2 49.6 61.0 47.3 50.6* 

Reading, studying while sitting outdoors 42.2 52.4 39.1 50.4 46.0* 

Other sports, e.g., tennis, golf 43.9 50.3 29.2 30.1 38.6* 

Attending camps, field trips, outdoor classes 36.4 37.9 37.1 28.8 34.9** 

Swimming, diving, snorkeling, etc. 38.8 39.2 36.9 25.3 34.8* 

Bird watching, wildlife viewing, etc. 41.4 43.6 24.9 18.6 32.6* 

Hiking, camping, fishing, etc. 39.5 23.9 32.3 26.6 31.2* 

Riding motorcycles, ATVs, other off-road vehicles 19.4 15.7 23.1 21.1 19.7 

Boating, jet skiing, water skiing, etc. 3.8 9.3 13.3 11.3 8.8** 

Snow skiing, snowboarding, cross-country skiing 7.0 8.1 9.1 10.7 8.6 

Rowing, kayaking, canoeing, surfing, etc. 8.3 9.5 6.8 8.8 8.4 

Other outdoor activities 9.5 10.9 10.8 8.1 9.6 

Chi-square test of independence, significance levels: *=.01, **= .05.

Source: NSRE National Kids Survey, 2007 to 2009. N=1,201. 

Table 6.9—Percent of youth stating reason for not spending more time 

outdoors by gender 

Reason Male Female Total 

percent

Interested in listening to music, art, reading, etc. 52.4 63.9 58.2*

Interested in Internet, text messaging, etc. 40.7 55.4 47.9*

Interested in video games, DVDs and TV 54.2 38.8 46.6* 

More involved in indoor sports 31.0 40.6 35.6* 

Neighborhood does not have good access 23.0 30.7 26.9* 

Other reason time not spent outdoors 21.9 24.6 23.4 

Donʼt have transportation 19.3 25.5 22.4* 

Spend time at mall, shopping, hanging out 19.0 23.2 21.1** 

Don't have anyone to play outdoors with 16.9 22.5 19.6*

It is not safe to play or do sports outside 16.1 8.6 12.3*

Was injured or developed a health problem 10.5 7.0 8.8*

Chi-square test of independence, significance levels: *=.01, **= .05. 

Source: NSRE National Kids Survey, 2007 to 2009. N=1,201. 
89

Youth Time and Activities Outdoors

Invited Paper

Preserving the Hunting Heritage: 

Rise in Youth Hunting

by Richard Aiken and Anna Harris12

Over the last 2 decades, the number of 16-year-old and older

hunters has declined by 11 percent. Yet programs aimed at

engaging youth hunters seem to be paying off, especially in

the number of young female hunters. An interesting trend

interestingly, not feeling safe was more likely to be given as

a reason for not spending more time outdoors by males. 

Table 6.10 shows differences by age. Much lower

percentages of children ages 6 to 9 indicated not spending

more time outdoors because of internet and text messaging,

indoor sports, hanging out, and lack of transportation. 

Higher percentages of youth ages 10 to 12 indicated music

and art, video games/DVDs/TV, and safety as reasons. Poor

access to outdoor areas was mentioned by often by 13- to

15-year-olds, followed closely by the 10- to 12-year-old age

group. Higher percentages of youth ages 13 to 15 indicated

interest in internet/messaging/networking, and involvement

in indoor sports as reasons. A higher percentage of youth

ages 16 to 19 indicated hanging out the mall or shopping

as reasons, and much lower percentages of this age group

indicated video games/DVDs/TV and safety as reasons. 

Table 6.10—Percent of youth stating reason for not spending more time outdoors by age group

 Age group 

Reason 6 to 9 10 to 12 13 to 15 16 to 19 Total 

percent

Interested in listening to music, art, reading, etc. 55.2 63.8 60.4 55.6 58.2** 

Interested in Internet, text messaging, etc. 24.9 57.7 66.9 53.9 47.9*

Interested in video games, DVDs and tv 44.9 60.3 50.3 34.3 46.6*

More involved in indoor sports 31.4 30.4 44.3 38.9 35.6*

Neighborhood does not have good access 22.2 33.5 35.4 20.3 26.9* 

Other reason time not spent outdoors 19.2 25.3 20.7 28.4 23.4* 

Don't have transportation 13.5 25.3 34.0 21.9 22.4*

Spend time at mall, shopping, hanging out 5.2 11.1 25.6 45.2 21.1* 

Don't have anyone to play outdoors with 20.0 21.6 23.8 14.7 19.6** 

It is not safe to play or do sports outside 8.8 24.7 12.9 5.7 12.3* 

Was injured or developed a health problem 2.6 13.1 15.1 8.1 8.8* 

Chi-square test of independence, significance levels: *=.01, **= .05. 

Source: NSRE National Kids Survey, 2007 to 2009. N=1,201. 

Richard Aiken
90

Recreation Use of Public and Private Properties

respondents’ understanding of the ownership of lands or

water access they had used for recreation activity. These

data are shown for groups of similar activities and for

individual activities for which the ownership questions

were asked. Also included is a short section on recreation

on private forest lands based on the National Woodland

Owners Survey. Public land is defined as any land owned

by a governmental entity at any level from federal to local. 

Private land is any land owned by individuals, families,

corporations, or organizations. Similarly, public water access

is any waters owned by a governmental entity.

In addition, we report on trends in visitation to federal

wildlands for agencies which maintain and report visitation

statistics. Visitation trends are affected by many different

factors. To illustrate this, a short paper by Susan Alexander

and Neil Hagadorn is added that concerns nature-based

tourism visits to Alaska and use of National Forests in

Alaska. Much of tourism in Alaska is drawn by wildland and

ocean scapes on public lands such as national parks, national

forests, and State and Federal wildlife management areas. 

Statistics on visitation to State park systems in the United

States are also reported. These are based on data maintained

by the National Association of State Park Directors.

reveals the number of girls 6 to 15 years old who hunt has

nearly doubled. Another finding shows the number of boy

hunters 6 to 15 years old remained stable from 1991 to 2006

(at the 95 percent level of significance) (fig. 6.2).

13

The National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation has been conducted by the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service since 1955 and is one of the oldest and

most comprehensive continuing recreational surveys in the

United States. In 1991 the survey methodology changed,

making the estimates before 1991 incomparable with those

after 1991. 

End Invited Paper 

7. RECREATION USE OF PUBLIC AND 

PRIVATE PROPERTIES

This section presents several sources of data covering

recreational use of public properties. The first source is

the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment

(NSRE), which included questions asked concerning

12 Richard Aiken, Economist, and Anna Harris, Economist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA. 13A 95-percent confidence interval is used to determine statistical validity. A non-significant change in the number of boy hunters means that for 95 percent of

all possible samples the estimate for one survey year is not different from the estimate for the other survey year.

Figure 6.2—Trends in youth hunting, girls and boys age 6 to 15 years old.

Girls Boys

1991 153 1,200

1996 175 1,200

2001 258 1,300

2006 299 1,300

0	
  

200	
  

400	
  

600	
  

800	
  

1,000	
  

1,200	
  

1,400	
  

1991	
   1996	
   2001	
   2006	
  

Thousands	
  

Year	
  

Girls	
   Boys	
  
91

Recreation Use of Public and Private Properties

higher in the West than in the East (70 versus 60 percent,

respectively).

Land-based activities making up viewing and

photographing nature included viewing and photographing

birds, natural scenery, other wildlife (besides birds),

wildflowers, trees, etc. In the East, days of participation in

these activities on forested lands occurred more on public

land (55 percent) than on private land. In the West, over 61

percent of viewing and photographing nature days occurred

on public land. Because of much larger population numbers

in the East, there were more than three times as many

activity days for this activity group in the East relative to

the West.

Backcountry activity days (backpacking, day hiking,

horseback riding on trails, mountain climbing, and visiting

a wilderness or primitive area) were many fewer than

days of viewing and photographing nature in both sections

of the country. Generally, this grouping of land-based

activities had participation that was less than one-tenth

that of viewing and photographing nature. In both the East

and West, around three-fourths of backcountry activity

days occurred on public lands where access is more easily

gained and where there are typically more miles of trails.

Motorized land activities include off-road vehicle driving

and snowmobiling. Nationally there are an estimated

1,125 million activity days of motorized land activities. An

estimated 46 percent of this occurs on public lands in the

East, and 59 percent occurs on public lands in the West.

Estimated Recreation Activity on Public 

and Private Properties 

Table 7.1 shows percent and millions of recreation activity

days estimated to occur on public and private forest lands

and water activities accessed through public or private

access facilities. The source of these estimates is data from

the NSRE. Respondents indicating participation in one

or more land-based activities from a listing of 26 outdoor

activities were asked if the activity occurred primarily in

forested settings or in other settings. If the activity occurred

in forested settings, the respondents were then asked if the

land where they typically went was publicly or privately

owned. Distinction for public and private ownership

was not asked if the land setting was not forested. NSRE

respondents were also asked if they used public or private

access facilities for a number of water activities, such as

fishing. All the percentages and total annual days were

calculated on the basis of what the activity participant

understood about the settings and ownership of places

where they recreated. See appendix table 9 for annual

recreation activity days for individual activities on public

and private properties by region.

As presented in table 7.1, total days of forest land-based

activities across the Nation at recreation and historic

sites (e.g., family gatherings, picnicking, visiting historic

or prehistoric sites, and camping) are relatively small

as compared with viewing and photographing nature. 

Percentages of days in this activity group that occur on

public land, however, are substantial in both the East

and the West, with the percentage being considerably

Table 7.1—Percent and number of annual activity days on public and private properties, East and West 2005-2009 

Note: Annual days are in millions and include land-based activities only. Percent was calculated before rounding annual days and 

sums across to 100 within each region; may not equal 100 exactly due to rounding. Snow skiing includes cross-country skiing only; 

no other snow-based activity collected forest setting data.

Source: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, 2005-2009, (n=5,374). 

East West Nation 

Public Private Public Private 

Activity group Percent Days Percent Days 

Total 

annual 

days Percent Days Percent Days 

Total 

annual 

days 

Total 

annual 

days 

millions millions millions millions millions millions

Visiting recreation and 

historic sites 60 1,266 40 834 2,101 70 598 30 262 860 2,960 

Viewing/photographing nature 55 15,119 45 12,175 27,294 61 5,239 39 3,332 8,572 35,865 

Backcountry activities 72 1,474 28 580 2,054 78 828 22 237 1,065 3,119 

Motorized activities 46 416 54 488 904 59 131 41 91 222 1,126 

Hunting 43 181 57 242 423 57 51 43 38 89 512 

Snow skiing 57 14 43 11 25 67 7 33 4 11 36
92

Recreation Use of Public and Private Properties

motorized activity (41 percent) was almost as large as the

percentage of hunting on private land (43 percent). As with

activity on public lands, the total number of activity days on

private lands in the East across the six activity groups was

nearly four times the number in the West. 

Invited Paper 

Status and Trends in Hunting and Wildlife 

Watching on Public and Private Lands 

by Anna Harris and Richard Aiken14

America’s public lands are a timeless treasure comprised

of vast natural resources and iconic cultural entities. The

management of and care for our public lands are primarily

the responsibility of the Federal government. The Federal

government owns 3 out of every 10 acres of land in the

United States. The availability of public land varies widely

by region, with most located in the West. The 2006 National

Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated

Recreation (U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service; U.S. Department of Commerce, Census

Bureau 2007) addressed questions about the recreational

activities occurring on public lands. The Survey provided

estimates of the number of hunters who used public and

private land and their days of hunting. It also captured the

number of wildlife watchers who visited public areas to

observe, feed, or photograph wildlife. The data represent

outings where hunting or wildlife watching activity was the

primary reason for the outing.

Hunting on Public Lands

In 2006, 12.5 million hunters 16 years old or older hunted

on public land, private land, or both. Of this number, 39

percent, or 4.9 million, hunted on publicly owned lands

while 82 percent, or 10.2 million, hunted on either public

and private land or on privately owned land only. 

Hunting only on public lands accounts for 1.9 million, or

15 percent, of all hunters, as compared to 7.2 million, or 58

percent, hunting only on private land (fig. 7.1). Slightly over

3 million hunters, or 24 percent, hunted on both public and

private lands. 

Hunters spent 54 million days pursuing game on public

lands, which is 25 percent of all hunting days. As for what

The hunting activity group includes big game and small

game hunting. Nationally, the estimate for activity days

of hunting is about 512 million. This is between 1 and

2 percent of the number of activity days of viewing and

photographing nature. In the East, close to 43 percent of

hunting occurs on public forest lands; in the West almost 57

percent occurs on public lands. 

Finally, snow skiing (only cross-country) is small in

numbers of activity days relative to other activity groups. 

But like most of the other activity groups, the estimated

days of participation indicate the importance of public lands

as a resource for recreation activity. In the East and West,

57 percent and 67 percent, respectively, of cross-country

skiing is estimated to occur on public lands. As earlier

stated, public lands as referenced here include all public

lands at all levels of government.

Private lands, as referenced in table 7.1, include any

privately-owned forest lands (nongovernmental) where

survey respondents participated in the types of activities

listed. These could be corporation, nongovernmental

organization, or family ownerships. In the East, days of

activity on private land across the six activity groups ranges

from a low of 28 percent for backcountry activities to a high

of 57 percent for hunting. The estimates show that over half

of motorized land activities also occur on private lands. In

the West, where there is proportionately less private land

relative to public land, between 22 percent and 43 percent

(backcountry and hunting activities, respectively) of days

of activity occurred on private lands. The percentage of

Viewing and photographing nature has become more and more 

popular across the country. (Photo of waterfall in municipal park in 

Greenville, SC, courtesy of Ken Cordell)

14Anna Harris, Economist, and Richard Aiken, Economist, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S Department of the Interior, Arlington, VA.
93

Recreation Use of Public and Private Properties

Wildlife Watching on Public Lands

Nearly a third of the U.S. population ages 16 years old and

older enjoyed wildlife watching as the primary activity in

2006.16 These activities are categorized as around the home

(within a mile of home) or away from home (at least 1 mile

from home). In 2006, publicly owned lands were the most

popular destination for people taking trips to observe, feed,

or photograph wildlife. Approximately 80 percent of all

away-from-home wildlife watchers went to public areas or

some combination of public and private areas, while just

38 percent visited only private areas (table 7.3). About 27

percent of trip-taking wildlife watchers visited both public

and private land. 

About 12.2 million, or 53 percent, of people visited only

public areas to engage in their activities, as compared to 2.5

million, or 11 percent, of people who visited only private

areas (fig. 7.2). Furthermore, approximately 20 percent (13.3

million) of around-the-home wildlife watchers visited a

public area within a mile from their home. 

kind of game public land hunters were seeking, 35 percent

of big game hunters (3.8 million) spent 37 million days

hunting on public lands (table. 7.2). Thirty-five percent of

small game hunters (1.7 million) pursued small game on

public land for 13 million days. Nearly 800,000 migratory

bird hunters, or 35 percent, hunted migratory birds on

public lands for 6 million days. Twenty-eight percent, or

311,000, of other animal hunters pursued game on public

land for 3 million days. Over the past 25 years, hunting in

the United States has seen a shift toward using more private

land mostly because of where big game hunters have

chosen to hunt.

15

One explanation for this trend may be the “walk-in”

hunting programs being promoted by State fish and game

agencies. Walk-in hunting programs allow hunters to hunt

on private land where the State pays landowners for access

and for enhancement of hunting opportunities and wildlife

habitat. Another explanation for this shift may be due to the

increased availability of paid access. Paid access generally

involves a contractual agreement directly between the

landowner and the hunter or hunting group.

15 For technical reasons (primarily changes in the respondents’ recall period), the 1980 and 1985 Survey participation estimates are not directly comparable to

the 1991-2006 survey estimates, but the proportion of participants can be compared. 16Wildlife watching is defined here as closely observing, feeding, and photographing wildlife, visiting pubic parks around the home because of wildlife, and

maintaining plantings and natural areas around the home for the benefit of wildlife.

Figure 7.1—Percent of hunters by land ownership where hunting occurs.

Public and private

24 percent

Public only

15 percent

Undetermined 

3 percent

Private only

58 percent
94

Recreation Use of Public and Private Properties

as primary purposes for their outdoor activity. The survey

defines public land as land owned by local governments

(e.g., municipal, county), State governments, or the Federal

government (e.g., national wildlife refuges). Together,

these public lands support large populations of wildlife,

providing continual recreational opportunities for present

and future generations of Americans.

End Invited Paper

Public land is by far the most popular destination for

Americans for observing, feeding, or photographing

wildlife away from the home. More than three fourths of all

trip-takers observe, feed, or photograph wildlife on public

lands. Table 7.3 displays this continual trend over the last

20 years.

The National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation reports results from interviews with

U.S. residents about fishing, hunting, and wildlife watching

Table 7.3—Percent of away-from-home wildlife watching 

participants by ownership of area visited 

Land ownership 1985 1991 1996 2001 2006 

percent

Public only 58 51 51 49 53 

Private only 11 12 10 12 11 

Public and private 28 33 34 28 27 

Not reported 3 4 5 12 9 

Note: Percent sums down to 100; may not equal 100 exactly due to rounding. 

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Census Bureau (2007).

Table 7.2—Percent of public land hunters by type of game hunted 

Type of game 1980 1985 1991 1996 2001 2006 

 percent

Total Hunting 45 47 44 47 40 39 

Big game 47 47 43 44 37 35 

Small game 33 34 34 38 36 35 

Migratory bird 32 32 29 36 35 35 

Other animals 21 20 21 26 27 28 

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Census Bureau (2007).
95

Recreation Use of Public and Private Properties

general public is a common, if not primary, activity across

much of the public lands, this is not the case for most of

the private lands. To understand the full extent of forest

recreation in the United States, it is important to understand

what is occurring, and not occurring, on private lands.

There are over 10 million family forest owners who

collectively control 264 million acres (106.8 million ha)

of forest across the United States. (Butler 2008). This

includes families, individuals, and unincorporated groups

with at least 1 acre of forest land. More than 60 percent of

the family forest owners own < 10 acres (4 ha), but nearly

70 percent of the family forest land is in ownerships of

50 acres (20.2 ha) or more (fig. 7.3). This has important

implications for recreation. The large number of owners

means that many people have ready access to land and the

recreational opportunities that it provides. On the other

hand, the increasing number of small parcels means that

recreational activities may be limited and that the general

public desiring to access the resource may have a more

difficult time doing so.

The reasons landowners own land are, in general, not in

conflict with recreation. Privacy and protection of natural

biodiversity rank among the top objectives (fig. 7.4). 

Recreation on Private Individual and Family-owned 

Forest Lands

The Northern Research Station of the Forest Service

periodically conducts the National Woodland Owners

Survey (NWOS) to assess the status and trends with family

and individually owned forest lands in the United States

(Butler 2008). In comparison with the previous section

examining all public and private lands, this section focuses

on recreation on family and individually owned forest lands. 

The following is based on findings from the NWOS survey

regarding what owners reported as the recreation use status

of their forest lands.

Invited Paper

Recreation on Private Forest land in the 

United States 

by Brett J. Butler17

Of the forest land in the United States, over half is privately

owned and of this, nearly two-thirds is owned by families

and individuals (Butler 2008). While recreation by the

17Brett J. Butler, Research Forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Amherst, MA. The data discussed here come

from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service’s National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS). For more information on the NWOS visit: www.fia.

fs.fed.us/nwos.

Figure 7.2—Percent of away-from-home wildlife watchers by land ownership where activity occurs.

Public and private

27 percent

Private only

11 percent

Not reported 

9 percent

Public only

53 percent
96

Recreation Use of Public and Private Properties

Days of Participation for Individual Activities on 

Public Lands

In table 7.5, days of participation in 26 outdoor activities

on public lands are reported. In the East, the activities with

70 percent or more of activity days occurring on public

lands included day hiking, visiting outdoor nature centers,

visiting a wilderness or primitive area, backpacking, visiting

prehistoric sites, mountain climbing, and rock climbing. 

Activities in the East with the smallest percentages of

activity days on public lands (< 50 percent) included offhighway vehicle driving, gathering mushrooms/berries or

other natural products, horseback riding on trails, big game

hunting, and small game hunting.

In the West where public lands are more prevalent, there are

more activities than in the East, with 70 or greater percent

of days occurring on public lands. Activities include day

hiking, visiting a wilderness or primitive area, visiting nature

centers, picnicking, developed camping, primitive camping,

backpacking, visiting prehistoric sites, mountain climbing,

Indeed, one in three owners state that passive recreation,

such as hiking and bird watching, is an important

ownership objective. A similar proportion, many of whom

are the same owners, states that hunting and fishing are

important as an objective.

When asked specifically about recreation, a third of the

owners, who control just over half of the family forest

land, reported that they, their family, and/or friends have

recently—within the past 5 years—recreated on their land

(table 7.4). A far smaller percentage of this land was open to

the general public—about 7 percent or just 1 in 14 owners

who owned about 15 percent of the private forest land. 

Posting land to prevent public access occurred on 43 percent

of the land. Leasing land, particularly for hunting, is a

common activity in many parts of the country and can result

in significant revenues for owners.

End Invited Paper

Figure 7.3—Family-owned forests by percent of owners and size of area. Note: Excludes interior 

Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada, western Oklahoma, and western Texas. Percent for area (blue) and 

owners (red) each sum to 100 across the eight forest size categories; may not equal 100 exactly 

due to rounding.

Size Area Owners Figure VII.3—Family owned forests by percent of owners and size of area. N

0.4-­‐3 8% 61%

4-­‐7 7% 14%

8-­‐19 16% 14%

20-­‐39 16% 6%

40-­‐79 15% 3%

80-­‐199 16% 2%

200-­‐399 7% 0%

400+ 14% 0%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.4-­‐3 4-­‐7 8-­‐19 20-­‐39 40-­‐79 80-­‐199 200-­‐399 400+

Size	
  of	
  Forest	
  Holdings	
  (ha)

Area Owners

Percent

Size of Forest Holdings (ha)
97

Recreation Use of Public and Private Properties

g 

Land	
  invest 47% 38%

Part	
  of	
  home 52% 66%

Biodiversity 52% 54%

Privacy 54% 63%

Family	
  legacy 61% 49%

Aesthe.cs 64% 71%

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

Non-­‐.mber	
  forest	
  products	
  

Firewood	
  produc.on	
  

Timber	
  prodcu.n	
  

Other	
  recrea.on	
  

Part	
  of	
  farm	
  

Hun.ng	
  

Land	
  invest	
  

Part	
  of	
  home	
  

Biodiversity	
  

Privacy	
  

Family	
  legacy	
  

Aesthe.cs	
  

Owners	
   Area	
  

Figure 7.4—Reasons landowners own land by percent of owners and area. Note: excludes interior 

Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada, western Oklahoma, and western Texas.

Table 7.4—Percent of family forest land and owners in the United 

States by selected recent (past 5 years) activities 

Activity 

Family forest 

land 

Family forest 

owners 

percent

Private recreation 54 33 

Public recreation 15 7 

Leasing for hunting 7 1 

Leasing for other recreation 3 <1 

Note: Excludes interior Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada, western Oklahoma, and 

western Texas. 

Source: Butler (2008).

Percent
98

Recreation Use of Public and Private Properties

Table 7.5—Percent and millions of annual activity days on public lands by region for 26 land 

based activities in forest settings, in descending order of national total annual activity days, 

public and private 

 East West Nation 

Activity Percent 

Annual 

days Percent 

Annual 

days 

Total 

annual 

days 

----millions---- ----millions-- ----millions---

Walk for pleasure 52 8,228 57 2,995 20,928 

View/photograph natural scenery 60 5,207 67 2,004 11,609 

View/photograph wildflowers, trees, etc. 55 4,306 57 1,556 10,532 

View/photograph birds 50 3,284 55 916 8,215 

View/photograph other wildlife 54 2,321 62 763 5,510 

Day hiking 74 873 79 508 1,826 

Family gathering 53 458 62 193 1,179 

Off-highway driving 46 385 59 120 1,048 

Mountain biking 59 359 63 138 826 

Gather mushrooms, berries, etc. 44 273 59 103 799 

Picnicking 68 368 74 164 762 

Visit nature centers, etc. 77 408 73 151 736 

Visit a wilderness or primitive area 74 384 81 175 736 

Visit historic sites 57 181 65 80 440 

Developed camping 68 184 81 124 422 

Big game hunting 42 108 58 26 301 

Horseback riding on trails 46 79 58 52 262 

Primitive camping 69 105 82 80 250 

Backpacking 78 112 78 72 236 

Small game hunting 44 73 55 25 211 

Visit prehistoric/archeological sites 70 75 74 38 158 

Snowmobiling 52 31 61 11 77 

Mountain climbing 81 25 77 22 60 

Rock climbing 70 14 71 17 45 

Cross country skiing 57 14 67 7 36 

Snowshoeing 53 7 68 5 21 

Note: Total annual days for the Nation include the sum of activity days on public and private land. 

Source: USDA Forest Service (2009), (n=5,374). 
99

Recreation Use of Public and Private Properties

values. Since their establishment, the various systems of

federal properties, such as the National Park System (NPS)

and National Forest System, have drawn many millions of

visitors. Five of the Federal agencies which manage these

land or water systems routinely estimate and report visitation

to their areas on an annual basis (table 7.6). Visitation to the

properties of the agencies listed starts with 1996.

Visits to various units of the NPS have been relatively stable

over the 13 years shown. Lowest visitation was in 1996

and 2003. Highest visitation for the NPS was in the years

1998 through 2000 and again in 2009 at around 286 to 287

million annual visits. Visitation at National Wildlife Refuges

and other U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service areas has shown

fairly steady growth over these same years, 1996 to 2009,

and rock climbing. There are no activities with < 50 percent

of activity days occurring on public lands in the West. 

Recreation Visitation on Public Lands (Federal 

and State)

There has been much interest in recent times concerning the

trend in visitation to public lands. Reported below are trends

in visitation to Federal and State park lands. The emphasis is

on total number of visits regardless of the number of people

visiting. The emphasis of recent other research has been on

per capita visitation.

Federal land visitation—Federal lands, especially national

parks, are highly esteemed for both their use and non-use

Table 7.6—Millions of recreation visits to Federal agency sites by year, 1996 to 2009 

Year 

National Park 

Service 

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife 

Service 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

 U.S. Forest 

Service 

U.S. Army 

Corps of 

Engineers 

1996 266 30 57 – 372 

1997 275 30 61 – 378 

1998 287 32 61 – 381 

1999 287 35 55 – 379 

2000 286 37 54 – – 

2001 280 39 52 214 – 

2002 277 38 53 – 358 

2003 266 40 53 – 349 

2004 277 40 54 205 359 

2005 274 38 56 196 362 

2006 273 38 55 180 371 

2007 276 40 58 179 363 

2008 275 41 57 176 357 

2009 286 43 57 174 370 

Note: Missing data indicate that visitation statistics are not available for those agency and years. Bureau of 

Reclamation and the Tennessee Valley Authority (not shown in table) do not annually collect agency-wide 

data on visitation at recreation areas. The U.S. Forest Service released the first visitation figures from its 

National Visitor Use Monitoring Program in 2001 and began releasing numbers on an annual basis in 2004. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers operated the Natural Resources Management System from 1994 to 

1999 and in 2000 switched to the Operations and Maintenance Business Information Link, beginning 

data collection in 2002 and continuing through 2009. The 2000 and 2001 data are incomplete. 

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, USDA (2009). 2009 visitation statistics are from: National Park Service 

(http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/viewReport.cfm, select ʻ2009ʼ), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Kevin Kilcullen, Chief of Visitor 

Services, Kevin_Kilcullen@fws.gov), BLM (Recreation Management Information System Reports, Fiscal Year 2009), U.S. Forest 

Service (National Visitor Use Monitoring Results, USDA Forest Service, National Summary Report, Data collected FY 2005 through 

FY 2009. http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/nvum_national_summary_fy2009.pdf), U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Wen-Huei Chang, Institute of Water Resources, Wen-Huei.Chang@usace.army.mil). 
100

Recreation Use of Public and Private Properties

and State recreation areas have been level since the early to

mid-1990s. Visitation increased for the NPS, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from

2008 to 2009, perhaps signaling a rebound in Federal land

visitation in the coming years. State park visitation increased

between 2007 and 2008 before falling in 2009. These very

recent visitation trends are highly significant because they

are occurring in the face of one of the strongest recessions in

U.S. history. 

with some flattening in the early and mid-2000s. From a low

of 30 million in 1996 to 43 million in 2009, annual growth

has averaged approximately 1 million visitors per year.

Visitation at Bureau of Land Management areas has been

relatively stable over the years shown. Visitation in 1996

was generally the same as in 2009. Highest years for

reported visitation were 1997 and 1998. The lowest years

were between 2001 and 2003. The Forest Service changed

its visitation sampling and reporting system in 2000. Thus,

estimates developed prior to 2000 were not comparable

and could not be used to show a long-term visitation trend. 

Generally, visitation at national forests appears to have

been declining over the years that estimates were available. 

In 2001, there were an estimated 214 million visits; in

2009 there were an estimated 174 million. Both the Bureau

of Land Management and the Forest Service manage

extensive acreages and thus much of the recreation use of

their lands occurs on sites with very little development. 

Some of this land is in the National Wilderness

Preservation System, which by definition is not developed,

except for maintained trails.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers manages a number

of reservoir and lock and dam systems. Total visitation at

Corps projects has fallen slightly over the period shown, but

not by much. The highest years were 1997 through 1999. 

Like the Forest Service, the Corps changed estimation and

reporting systems and thus for 2 years visitation estimates

were missing. The lowest year for visitation was 2003.

State park visitation—State park visitation is over 80

percent of the level of visitation to all federal lands on which

visitation is recorded. It is nearly three times the visitation

received by national parks. Table 7.7 shows estimated

visitation at State parks from 1992 to 2009. This visitation

grew pretty steadily from 1992 up through 2000. It then

declined from about 787 million annually to 711 million in

2005. Since 2005, State park visitation grew back to 748

million in 2008 before declining again to 727 million in

2009. Current and historic levels of visitation vary greatly

by region of the country. Nearly half of the most recent

(2009) State park visitation occurred in parks in the North

Region. Trend patterns have differed among regions of

the country. Next largest visitation of State parks is in the

Pacific Coast Region, followed by the South.

Figure 7.5 is a broad summary of Federal and State

visitation trends for the United States. The Federal trend

line is the sum across Federal agencies from table 7.6 and

the State trend line is the national total from table 7.7. These

trend lines demonstrate clearly that visitation to both Federal

Table 7.7—Millions of visits to state park system sites by 

region, 1992 to 2009 

Year North South 

Rocky 

Mountains 

Pacific 

Coast 

U.S. 

total 

1992 312.2 162.9 49.0 179.6 703.8 

1993 325.6 164.1 52.6 182.5 724.8 

1994 329.3 167.7 54.3 174.3 725.5 

1995 351.3 169.0 58.9 173.1 752.3 

1996 358.5 152.3 58.8 176.0 745.6 

1997 355.5 147.6 57.2 223.1 783.4 

1998 354.7 153.1 59.9 193.1 760.8 

1999 375.0 152.9 56.4 182.6 766.8 

2000 370.6 151.5 58.9 205.6 786.6 

2001 367.9 149.0 59.0 190.2 766.0 

2002 367.7 145.0 60.9 184.6 758.2 

2003 351.6 143.5 61.1 178.8 735.0 

2004 340.2 135.6 62.2 180.8 718.8 

2005 342.6 130.7 62.9 175.2 711.5 

2006 373.7 131.3 61.7 173.5 740.2 

2007 371.4 135.6 57.1 168.9 732.8 

2008 370.6 134.5 63.7 179.2 748.0 

2009 357.0 133.5 64.3 172.2 727.1 

Source: National Association of State Park Directors, Annual Information 

Exchange annual reports. 

The time period covered by each report is the previous 12-month period 

of July 1 to June 30. For example, the 2009 report covers July 1, 2008 

through June 30, 2009. In a few cases, some States did not report 

visitation statistics for certain years. Previous year statistics were 

used in place of missing data. States and years include: Idaho in 

2007 and 2006 (used 2005 data), Hawaii in 2006 (used 2005 data), 

New Hampshire in 2005 and 2006 (both used 2004 data), Illinois in 

2004 (used 2003 data), Rhode Island in 2004 (used 2003 data).
101

Recreation Use of Public and Private Properties

million acres of State land also available for public access. 

These lands provide residents and nonresidents tremendous

opportunities for nature-based recreation and tourism. In

2006 and 2007, Alaska residents were asked a number of

questions about where and what kind of outdoor recreation

activities in which they participate. This was done through

a statewide survey of recreation behavior and attitudes. The

top five activities for residents included hiking, camping,

wildlife viewing, fishing, and food gathering (Fix 2009). 

Hall and others (2009) found that per capita participation

in outdoor recreation is much higher in Alaska than in

other western States. They found that the first six of the top

ten activities in 2004 were nonconsumptive, among them

driving for pleasure, walking, hiking, wildlife viewing and

picnicking. Sport fishing and berry picking were the seventh

and eighth most common outdoor activities, followed by

backpacking and clamming. Hall and others (2009) found

that major issues for residents are adequate public access

to outdoor recreation areas and crowding in areas that are

easily accessible. Dugan and others (2006) indicated that

non-resident tourism in Alaska is primarily focused on

nature-based activities. Alaska’s vast public land base offers

unparalleled opportunities to residents and nonresidents

alike for a wide variety of primarily nature-based outdoor

recreation activities.

Invited Paper 

Tourism in Alaska: Past, Present, and Future 

by Susan Alexander and Neil Hagadorn18

Introduction

Alaska is the largest State in the United States. With a total

of 586,412 square miles, it is two-and-a-half times larger

than Texas. Most of Alaska is in public land ownership. 

There are 228 million acres of Federal public lands and 95

96-­‐2009   visits,  1992-­‐2009

0

45

09

17

44

26

08

39

71

45

37

36

38

91

79

32

79

11

Figure VII.5.—Indexed federal and state visitation trends for the U. S., 1996 – 2008. Note: These data are the same as in Tables VII.6 and VII

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Visitation index (first year equal to 0)

Federal rec. visits, 1996-2009 State rec. visits, 1992-2009

Year

Figure 7.5—Indexed Federal and State visitation trends for the United States, 1996-2009. 

Susan Alexander

18Susan Alexander, Regional Economist, and Neil Hagadorn, Assistant Director, Recreation, Heritage, Wilderness, and Tourism Resources, U.S. Department of

Agriculture Forest Service, Alaska Region, Juneau, AK. 

Neil Hagadorn
102

Recreation Use of Public and Private Properties

creates other jobs in sectors such as real estate, banking,

communications, freight transport and warehousing, and

many others. The ATIA (2007) estimates the total economic

impact of the Alaska travel and tourism industry at $3.4

billion. Visitors contribute to State and local government

services through taxes and fees. Taxes on lodging, car rental,

and cruise passengers, in addition to dockage and moorage

fees, corporate profits taxes, sales taxes, and transportation

fees and licenses help pay for infrastructure construction

and maintenance, emergency services, and the many

other structural and services needs generated by visitors. 

Travel and tourism constitutes about 13.7 percent of all

employment in the State, generating $1.15 billion in wages

and benefits. The vast majority of travel-related businesses

are small. Most companies have fewer than 50 employees,

and many have fewer than 5 (ATIA 2007).

Cruise Ship Visitation

Cruise ship visitation began in Alaska more than 100

years ago, and came to many people’s attention with the

publishing of John Muir’s naturalist diaries “Travels in

Alaska,” documenting his travels in the late 1890s. In the

1970s, larger cruise ships began to popularize the Inside

Passage tours to Alaska, and enjoyed steady growth every

year for over three decades. Over the past decade, much

of the growth in the tourism industry in Alaska has been

due to increased cruise travel. As can be seen in figure 7.7,

cruise ship visitors almost tripled in number from 1994

to 2009. Cruise ship visitation has leveled off since 2007. 

Opinions vary as to why, but include market saturation,

Between May 2008 and April 2009, 1,949,900 people

visited Alaska, a State with a total resident population of

626,932. Figure 7.6 illustrates the total number of visitors to

Alaska counted by how they depart the State. Because some

cruise ship visitors exit the State by airplane, the actual

number of incoming cruise ship passengers is higher than

exiting traffic. In 2008, total cruise ship visitor numbers

were 1,033,100, more than half of the full-year visitors to

the State (McDowell Group 2009). One in three visitors are

repeat travelers, and many independent travelers made their

first trip north on a cruise ship (ATIA 2007). Tourism in

Alaska consists of cruise ship visitation, packaged tours, and

independent travelers (Cerveny 2005). Independent travelers

plan their own itineraries and rely on local accommodations

and visitor services.

Economic Impacts of Tourism in Alaska

The Alaska Travel Industry Association (ATIA 2008)

estimated that visitors to Alaska in 2009 spent about $1.87

billion, generating over $152 million in State and local taxes

and fees. Tourism is the leading industry sector in southcentral, southeast, and interior Alaska, providing one in eight

private sector jobs. The ATIA (2007) reports that the tourism

industry is one of Alaska’s most significant economic

drivers. Spending by visitors has increased dramatically

in the past 10 years due to increasing visitation and longer

visits with the resulting expansion of tours, attractions,

and retail stores. Summer visitors spend more than $1.5

billion in State, not including the cost of land-based cruises

and tours, and transportation to and from Alaska. Tourism

Air

1.031,900

Highway/Ferry

81,500

Cruise ship

836,500

Figure 7.6—Alaska visitor volume, May 2008-April 2009, by exit mode.
103

Recreation Use of Public and Private Properties

in tension between different users, such as between charter,

recreational, subsistence, and commercial fishing as the

number of charters has increased. Where visitor volumes are

high, local residents report increased congestion in town,

a quickened pace of life, growing commercialization, and

social frictions among key stakeholders (Cerveny 2005). 

Locals in small communities with cruise ship visitation

express concerns that outside corporations can eventually

dominate local tourism. Locally-owned enterprises are

more prevalent in smaller communities, but in larger more

developed cruise ports, there is a tendency toward outside

investment. Corporate decisions by the international

cruise corporations to change docking schedules have

repercussions throughout local economies (Cerveny 2005). 

There is a complex and highly competitive system for

pre-booking cruise ship shore excursions. Businesses with

exclusive cruise contracts make price and tour information

available only to cruise passengers, and often agree not to

sell tours without going through the cruise line. Competition

exists between companies in a community and with other

ports (Dugan and others 2006). Cerveny (2005) asserts that

the ability of community leaders to participate in tourism

development is central to the creation of a sustainable

tourism industry. She found that tribal officials see benefits

in promoting the sharing and learning of cultural traditions,

particularly as young people learn stories, songs, dances,

and aesthetic traditions. 

While large cruise ships have significant impacts on

communities and the economy, it can also be argued that

having such large volumes of visitors concentrated on selfcontained vessels may actually have less environmental

full use of existing infrastructure, and the downturn in the

economy. The passage of the 2006 state cruise ship initiative

resulted in wide ranging requirements for the cruise ship

industry, including a $50/person head tax, very strict water

quality standards, and corporate income taxes. Citing

these requirements, several major cruise lines have made

the decision to redeploy their ships to other international

destinations, which will result in significant reductions in

the number of ships and passengers visiting Alaska ports of

call. The cruise industry is a full-year, international business

with very mobile assets. Changes in destinations and

redeployment from one international destination to another

are not unusual. 

Hall and others (2009) state that tourism is not evenly

dispersed throughout the State. Cruise destinations and

timing determine where and when cruise ship passengers

recreate. Shore excursions take place over 4 to 10 hours,

and vary from a tour of a visitor center to dog sledding

on glaciers. Cruise lines expanded their capacity to meet

surging demand in the past two decades by increasing the

size and quantity of ships. Larger ships translate into larger

impacts, both to the environment and to host communities. 

Cruise ship visitation has significant social and economic

impacts in southeast and south-central Alaska, with localized

impacts extending into places such as Denali National

Park where excursions take place. The increase in visitor

volume, particularly in southeast Alaska, has resulted in an

escalation in the frequency and intensity of use of natural

areas with special scenic qualities and wildlife viewing

opportunities. The increased numbers of visitors has resulted

2004 884

2005 953

2006 959

2007 1,030

2008 1,033

2009 1,030

0	
  

200	
  

400	
  

600	
  

800	
  

1000	
  

1200	
  

Visitors	
  (thousands)	
  

Year	
  

Figure 7.7— Alaska cruise ship visitation, 1994 to 2009, in thousands.
104

Recreation Use of Public and Private Properties

are significant concerns of residents. Winter sports

are projected to increase, whereas they have declined

elsewhere. South-central and southeast Alaska is the most

populated and receive the heaviest recreation use from both

residents and visitors.

Cruise lines are expected to dominate Alaska tourism and

visitation for the next decade as the largest market segment

of visitation. As a result, the global changes in the industry

will impact visitation to the national forests in Alaska. The

Cruise Line Agencies of Alaska, an industry group that

serves cruise lines visiting Alaska, has reported that Alaska

is a long-haul destination, which means that ships have to

travel a long distance (Seattle or Vancouver) to the first

port of call. As a result, Alaska is in direct competition with

other destinations such as the Canadian Maritime Provinces,

which have a shorter run from such population centers as

New York City and Boston. 

In the short term, cruise ship visitation is projected to

decrease. Projections for 2010 and 2011 are for fewer

dockings and fewer ships coming to Alaska ports. Holland

America and Princess Cruise Lines have reported a

projected decrease in visitation to both Southeast and

South Central Alaska destinations of 10 to 30 percent due

to the increased costs of the Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative. 

Since these are the largest cruise lines with multiple ships

and visits, it will likely result in a 10 percent reduction

to communities like Juneau and Ketchikan, and as much

as 30 percent in south-central Alaska ports. At the same

time, Disney Cruises and some others have indicated that

they will join the Alaska market in 2011, which may have

some moderating impacts, but the number of new ships

is a fraction of the number which has been announced to

be removed from the Alaska market. As Cerveny (2005)

found in her studies of small southeast Alaska communities,

the impacts on small communities from shifts in docking

schedules from one community to another, and the removal

of ships from the system entirely, will be disparate, and in

some cases, significant. 

End Invited Paper

impact than many more, smaller vessels, or independent

travelers and the associated flights, rental cars, and local

impacts. These large ships now carry as many as 2,500

passengers; it would take as many as 25 smaller ships to

accommodate as many visitors.

National Forest Recreation and Tourism in Alaska

Cruise ship visitors constitute the majority of visitors

to national forests in Alaska. As in the rest of the State,

estimates indicate that the number of independent visitors

to Alaska national forests has remained fairly constant

in the past decade. The Chugach National Forest has

numerous campgrounds, 42 public recreation cabins, and

one visitor center. The Tongass National Forest also has

numerous campgrounds, in addition to 148 recreation

cabins, four wildlife viewing areas, and two visitor centers. 

Most cruise ship passengers on excursions, other nonresidents, and even many residents visit national forests

with commercial recreation guides and outfitters. There are

currently 398 special use permits for outfitters and guides

in the Alaska Region. Outfitters and guides offer many

different adventures, including sea kayaking, fly fishing,

hunting, heli-skiing, wilderness tours, and helicopter

flightseeing and landings on the Juneau ice field, complete

with dog sled rides. These outfitters and guides provide

unique opportunities to educate and inform visitors of

national forest ecosystems and management. National

forests are the cornerstone of their business.

Projecting Tourism and Recreation in Alaska

Hall and others (2009) examined tourism and recreation

forecasting in Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. They

found that literature on forecasting suggests that the best

guide for predicting short-term trends in outdoor recreation

activities may be the prior years’ numbers. A great deal of

variation can occur at the local scale. Alaska’s population

is increasing, so demand for recreation by residents will

also increase, assuming newcomers have the same desires

to participate as do current residents. Further crowding

at popular sites and growing conflict among different

users may be an issue. Facility condition and maintenance
105

U.S. Outdoor Recreation Participation Projections to 2060

numbers of participants, provide the broadest measure of

a recreation market.

Past outdoor recreation trends, as well as recent ones, are

important indicators of what may happen with outdoor

recreation in the near future (Hall and others 2009). 

However, simple descriptive statistics or trends do not

formally explore underlying factors and associations

which may be driving these trends. Thus a trend may be

of limited value if the time horizon is long and factors

driving the trend are expected to deviate substantially

from their historic levels. Trend analysis can therefore

be supplemented by development of projection models

which attempt to relate recreation participation directly to

factors known to influence this behavior. The projection

models can then be used to simulate future participation

by combining external projections of relevant factors,

including population growth, with estimated model

parameters. Such modeling allows changes in recreation

participation over time to be assessed in light of previously

unseen changes in factors driving this participation, e.g.,

large changes in social demographics. 

Previous research (Bowker and others 1999, Bowker

and others 2006, Cicchetti 1973, Hof and Kaiser 1983b,

Leeworthy and others 2005) has established that factors

including race, ethnicity, gender, age, income, and supply or

proximity to settings affect outdoor recreation participation

as well as participation intensity or consumption. Reliable

information about these factors is often available from

external sources, like the U.S. Census or parallel research

efforts aimed at modeling and simulating exogenous

variables into the future. Such information is thus available

long before recreation survey results can be obtained. 

A two-step approach was used to develop projections for

individual participation in 17 outdoor recreation activities,

or activity composites (table 8.1). The first step, or model

estimation step, focused on the development of statistical

models of per capita participation for each of the activities. 

The statistical models represent the probability that one

participated in an activity. This information is important as

it allows a better understanding of the factors that influence

individual recreation choices or behavior. As well, it allows

one to examine how, under the assumption of static tastes

and preferences, average individual behavior changes over

time as underlying factors change.

8. U.S. Outdoor Recreation

Participation Projections to 2060

By J.M. Bowker and Ashley Askew19

In this chapter, we develop and present national outdoor

recreation participation projections for 17 recreation

activities or activity composites through 2060. (The

projections are for the population of Americans age 16

and older, referred to hereafter in this section as “adults.”)

This charge is consistent with the Forest and Rangeland

Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974, which

mandates periodic assessments of the condition and trends

of the Nation's renewable resources. The RPA Assessment

provides a snapshot of current U.S. forest and rangeland

conditions and trends on all ownerships, identifies drivers

of change, and projects 50 years into the future, including

analyses of the status and trends for recreation, water, fish,

wildlife, biodiversity, forest and range resources, as well

as land use change, climate change, and urban forestry. 

An individual is said to have participated in an outdoor

recreation activity if he reported engaging in that activity

at least once in the preceding 12 months. Participation

is a general indicator of the size of a given market and

also can be indicative of relative public interest. For

example, if over 80 percent of the population visits day

use developed sites, whereas only 4 percent participate

in snowmobiling, public resource management agencies

may be more concerned with providing developed

recreation sites rather than snowmobiling opportunities. 

It is important, therefore, for managers and legislators to

know how many people participate in a given recreation

activity, and how this measure could change over time. 

Measures of participation, either per capita or absolute

J.M. Bowker

19 J.M. Bowker, Research Social Scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Athens, GA; and Ashley Askew, Doctoral

Candidate, Department of Statistics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. 

Ashley Askew
106

U.S. Outdoor Recreation Participation Projections to 2060

1991; Cordell and others 1990; Englin and Shonkwiler

1995; English and others 1993).

In this chapter, we employ national cross-sectional

population-level logistic models to describe the probability

of adult participation in activities as:

	 	 	 (4)

where

Pij = probability that the jth individual claims to have

participated in the ith recreation activity in the preceding

year

X ij = socio-demographic characteristics unique to activity

i for individual j and relevant supply variables for activity

i pertaining to individual j’s location (table 8.2)

B = vector of parameters which are estimated using SAS

Institute Inc. (2004)

The models for each activity, based on National Survey on

Recreation and the Environment (NSRE) data from 1999

to 2009, were combined with baseline population-weighted

sample means for the explanatory variables to create an initial

predicted per capita participation rate for each activity. The

per capita participation rates were recalculated at 10-year

intervals using projected external data. Indices were then

created for the participation rates by which the NSRE 2005-

09 average population-weighted participation frequencies

were scaled, leading to indexed per capita participation rates

for each of the 17 activities with 2008 as a baseline. Indexing

the 2005-09 averages by changes in model-predicted rates

was judged to be superior in terms of mitigating potential

non-linearity biases associated with complete reliance on

logistic predicted values (Souter and Bowker 1996). The

indexed participation rate estimates were then combined with

projected changes in population, according to each of the

three 2010 RPAAssessment scenarios, to yield indexed values

for total adult participants across the 17 activities. 

2010 RPA Assessment Scenarios—Future renewable

resource conditions are influenced by common driving

forces such as population change, economic growth, and

land use change, while other drivers of change are unique

to individual resources. The purpose of scenarios in the

2010 RPAAssessment is to characterize the common

demographic, socioeconomic, and technological driving

forces underlying changes in resource conditions in order

to evaluate the sensitivity of resource trends to a feasible

future range of these driving forces. The use of scenarios

links underlying assumptions of the individual analyses and

frames the future uncertainty in these driving forces within

The second step, or simulation step, combines the estimated

models with external projections of relevant explanatory

variables to generate estimated per capita participation

probabilities for each activity at 10-year intervals to 2060. 

Per capita estimates are in turn combined with population

projections to derive national estimates of adult participants

for each activity. These estimates are then used to create

indices by which 2008 baseline estimates of participants for

the various activities found in table 8.1 are scaled. Indices of

estimated adult participants for each of the 17 activities are

presented across the three 2010 RPAAssessment Scenarios

described below. For discussion, the activities are grouped

into the broader categories as follows: visiting developed

sites; viewing and photographing nature; backcountry

activities; motorized activities; hunting and fishing; nonmotorized winter activities; and non-motorized water

activities (table 8.1).

The chapter proceeds as follows. First, we present a brief

discussion of the statistical methods and previous research

upon which our per capita participation models are based. 

Next we describe the data used in the estimation step

including projections of covariates for the three assessment

scenarios. We then present the results of our estimation

and simulation steps with indexed participation projections

by activity and assessment scenario to 2060. Finally,

we discuss some of the key findings within and across

categories as well as with respect to demographics. 

Methods and Data

Modeling—Models used to assess recreation demand

decisions can be grouped into three basic categories: sitespecific user models, site-specific aggregate models, and

population-level models (Cicchetti 1973). Available data

necessitates population-level modeling for this study. 

Cicchetti (1973) pioneered the use of cross-sectional

population-level models with the household-based 1965

National Survey of Recreation to estimate annual participation

and use nationally for many outdoor recreation activities. 

Estimated models and U.S. Census Bureau projections were

then used to estimate participation and use to 2000.

The cross-sectional population-level approach has

subsequently been used to estimate and project participation

and use for recreation activities at national and regional

levels (Bowker 2001; Bowker and others 1999; Hof

and Kaiser 1983a, 1983b; Leeworthy and others 2005;

Walsh and others 1992). Alternative approaches, wherein

population data were combined with individual site-level

data to project participation or consumption have also been

used (Bowker and others 2006; Cordell and Bergstrom

Pij = [1 + exp(–XijB)]

1
107

U.S. Outdoor Recreation Participation Projections to 2060

Table 8.1—Base year 2008 number of participants used in outdoor recreation participation projection 

models, by activity category

Category and activity Participants 

Participation 

rate 

 

 thousands percent

Visiting Developed Sites 

 

 Developed Site Use – family gatherings, picnicking, developed 

camping 192,739 81.9 

 Visiting Interpretive Sites – nature centers, zoos, historic sites, 

prehistoric sites 157,403 66.9 

Viewing and Photographing Nature 

 

 Birding 81,449 34.6 

 Viewing – viewing, photography, study, or nature gathering related to 

fauna, flora, or natural settings 189,418 80.5 

Backcountry Activities 

 

 Challenge Activities – caving, mountain biking, mountain climbing, rock 

climbing 25,134 10.7 

 Equestrian – horseback riding on trails 16,393 7.0 

 Hiking – day hiking 78,256 33.3 

 Visiting Primitive Areas – backpacking, primitive camping, wilderness 90,164 38.3 

Motorized Activities 

 

 Motorized off-road use – off-road driving 47,937 20.4 

 Motorized snow use – snowmobiling 9,440 4.0 

 Motorized water use – motorboating, waterskiing, or using personal 

watercraft 61,960 26.3 

Hunting and Fishing 

 

 Hunting – small game, big game, migratory bird, other 27,909 11.9 

 Fishing – anadromous, coldwater, saltwater, warmwater 72,714 30.9 

Non-Motorized Winter Activities 

 

 Downhill Skiing – downhill skiing, snowboarding 23,729 10.1 

 Winter Activities – cross-country skiing, snowshoeing 7,778 3.3 

Non-Motorized Water Activities 

 

 Swimming – swimming, snorkeling, surfing, diving, visiting beaches or 

watersides 143,204 60.9 

 Floating – canoeing, kayaking, rafting 39,800 16.9 

Note: Activities are individual or activity composites derived from the NSRE. Participants are determined by the product of the 

average weighted frequency of participation by activity for NSRE data from 2005-2009 and the adult (>16) population in the 

United States during 2008 (235.4 million). The 2008 Census population estimate corresponds to the A1B scenario. 

Source: USDA Forest Service (2009). 
108

U.S. Outdoor Recreation Participation Projections to 2060

Table 8.2—Socioeconomic and supply variables used in outdoor recreation participation 

projection models 

Variable Description 

Gender 1=male 

American Indian 1=Am. Indian, non-Hispanic, 0=otherwise 

Asian/Pacific Islander 1=Asian/Pac Islander, 0=otherwise 

Hispanic 1=Hispanic, 0=otherwise 

Black 1=Black, non-Hispanic, 0=otherwise 

Bachelorʼs 1=Bachelorʼs degree, 0=otherwise 

Below High School 1=Less than high school, 0=otherwise 

Post Graduate 1=Post-graduate degree, 0=otherwise 

Some College 1=Some college or technical school, 0=otherwise 

Age Respondent age in years 

Age Squared Respondent age squared 

Income Respondent household income (2007 dollars) 

Population Density County area divided by population. Base 1997. 

Coastal 1=County on coast, 0 otherwise 

for_ran_pcap Sum of forest land acres and rangeland acres divided by population at county level 

and at 50, 100, 200-mile radii. Base 1997. 

water_pcap Water acres divided by population at county level and at 50, 100, 200-mile radii. 

Base 1997. 

mtns_pcap Acres in mountainous divided by population. Base 1997. 

pct_mtns_pcap Percentage of county acres in mountains divided by population (x100,000). 

Base 1997. 

natpark_pcap Number of nature parks and similar institutions divided by population (x100,000). 

Base 1997 

fed_land Sum USFS, NPS, USFWS, BLM, USBR, TVA, and USACE acreage. 

Base 1997. 

fed_land_pcap Sum USFS, NPS, USFWS, BLM, USBR, TVA, and USACE acreage divided by 

population. Base 1997. 

days_snow Mean number snow days depth >=1.0 inch (per station). Base 2000. 

med_days_snow Mean number snow days depth >=1.0 inch (per station). Base 2000. 

nwps_pcap National Wilderness Preservation System acres divided by population (x1,000). Base 

2005. 

avg_elev Average elevation in meters at county level and 50, 100, 200-mile radii. Base 1997. 

USFS=U.S. Forest Service; NPS=National Park Service; USFWS=U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; BLM=Bureau of Land 

Management; USBR=U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; TVA=Tennessee Valley Authority; USACE=U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.	
  
109

U.S. Outdoor Recreation Participation Projections to 2060

and the lowest projected average personal and household

income, around $50,000 and $97,000, respectively. Scenario

B2 projects the lowest population growth and mid-level

personal income, predicting a population of 397 million

people (329 million adults) with average personal income

around $54,000 and household income around $108,000.

In accordance with the assessment scenarios A1B, A2, and

B2, projected land use changes are incorporated from Wear

(2011) to develop supply variables listed in table 8.2. In

general, Wear’s projections indicate an increase in urban

area of 1 to 1.4 million acres per year nationally between

1997 and 2060; a decline in forest area of 24 to 37 million

acres, and a decline in cropland of 19 to 28 million acres by

2060. Wear also projects that about 90 percent of forecasted

forest land losses are found in the Eastern United States

with more than half in the South. Federal lands, water areas,

weather conditions (snow days), and county elevations are

assumed static throughout the projection period.

Results

Estimation results for all models and simulation results

for the three 2010 RPAAssessment scenarios are reported

in electronic appendix A, retrievable in read-only format

at Web site link for appendix A. Reported results include

model estimates for each activity, values for explanatory

variables by scenario and year, odds ratios which indicate

the odds of participation occurring in one group to the odds

of it occurring in another group, and graphics of overall

participant growth by activity and assessment scenario. 

Throughout the remainder of this section, we present the

the integrated modeling and analysis framework of the 2010

RPAAssessment. 

Three scenarios, considered equally likely, were

chosen that are linked to globally consistent and welldocumented scenarios used in the 4th Assessment by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

(IPCC 2007). The scenarios include a range of future

global and U.S. socioeconomic and climate conditions that

are likely to have different effects on future U.S. resource

conditions and trends. The IPCC scenario “names” have

been maintained in the RPAAssessment documentation for

continuity: A1B, A2, and B2. The IPCC global data were

scaled to the U.S. national and subnational levels to facilitate

the resource analyses for the 2010 RPAAssessment. U.S. 

gross domestic product and population projections used in

IPCC analyses were updated, and the updated U.S. population

and disposable personal income data were then downscaled to

the U.S. county level (Zarnoch and others 2010). In addition,

the associated climate scenario output from several global

circulation models were downscaled to the county scale;

however, these climate data are not used in this chapter. 

As shown in figure 8.1 and figure 8.2, A1B corresponds

to mid-range population growth and the highest average

personal and household income level of the three IPCC

scenarios. Under this scenario, the United States can expect

to see about 447 million people (370 million adults),

an average personal income of around $73,000, and an

average household income of $137,000 by 2060. Scenario

A2 projects the highest population growth, reaching more

than 505 million people (418 million adults) by 2060,

Scenario 2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2060 Value

A1B 1.0 1.026 1.139 1.267 1.376 1.475 1.572 370,073,884

A2 1.0 1.028 1.155 1.3 1.435 1.578 1.746 418,134,792

B2 1.0 1.025 1.136 1.233 1.29 1.343 1.4 328,726,781

Category	
  4 2.8 5

0.0	
  

0.5	
  

1.0	
  

1.5	
  

2.0	
  

2008	
   2010	
   2020	
   2030	
   2040	
   2050	
   2060	
  

Index	
  of	
  popula-on	
  growth	
  

Year	
  

A1B	
  

A2	
  

B2	
  

Figure 8.1—Adult population growth from 2008 to 2060 by RPA Assessment scenario.
110

U.S. Outdoor Recreation Participation Projections to 2060

156 million adults, or about 67 percent, of all those over the

age of 16 participated in at least one activity in this outdoor

recreation category annually from 2005 to 2009. Visiting

interpretive sites showed more expected 50-year growth in

per capita participation than developed site use, with a range

of from just over 5 percent in B2 and A2 to nearly 9 percent

under A1B (table 8.4). The somewhat greater participation

rate growth relative to developed site use may be due to the

facts that developed site use is negatively correlated with

population age which is expected to rise out to 2060, and

that it is positively correlated with available federal land per

capita which is expected to decline over the same period as

the population grows but federal land holdings are assumed

to be constant. 

As per capita participation is expected to rise between 5 and

9 percent, the number of participants will exceed the rate of

population growth, with A2 showing 84 percent growth to at

least 295 million participants by 2060. Assessment scenario

B2, having the lowest projected population growth, still

showed an increase in visiting interpretive sites to over 230

million participants per year over the next 50 years.

Viewing and photographing nature—The category

is comprised of birding, which includes viewing and/or

photographing birds, and a more general activity aggregate

called viewing. The latter consists of a number of NSRE

activities including anything wherein viewing, photography,

study, or gathering is involved related to fauna, flora, or

natural settings. From 2005 to 2009, an average of 35

percent of all adults, or 82 million people, participated

results for per capita and overall changes in participation by

activity and assessment scenario at 10-year intervals from

2010 to 2060. 

Visiting developed sites—This popular outdoor recreation

activity category includes two composite activities. First

is developed site use, which includes NSRE activities such

as family gatherings, picnicking, and developed camping. 

Hence, anyone who reported engaging in any of these

three activities in the previous 12 months was considered

a participant in developed site use. On average between

2005 and 2009, this included about 82 percent of adults

or more than 192 million people. Moreover, because our

projections only relate to adults and many kids participate

in these activities, participation including all age groups

might be much higher. As table 8.3 indicates, per capita

participation growth in this activity is expected to be

static over the next 50 years across each of the assessment

scenarios, with A1B showing the most change at less

than a 3 percent change from 2008. However, as this

composite activity is highly popular to begin with, the

static participation rate means that overall participants

in this activity grow by the rate at which the population

increases for each scenario (table 8.3). Thus A2, which

has the greatest expected population growth, demonstrated

an increase in participants of nearly 77 percent to

approximately 340 million adults per year.

Another popular activity composite is visiting interpretive

sites which include NSRE activities such as visiting nature

centers, zoos, historic sites, and prehistoric sites. More than

Scenario 2008 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

A1B 1.0 1.064 1.274 1.45 1.658 1.91 2.213

A2 1.0 1.011 1.145 1.242 1.34 1.461 1.61

B2 1.0 1.12 1.249 1.296 1.395 1.536 1.606

0.0	
  

0.5	
  

1.0	
  

1.5	
  

2.0	
  

2.5	
  

2008	
   2010	
   2020	
   2030	
   2040	
   2050	
   2060	
  

Index	
  of	
  household	
  income	
  growth	
  

Year	
  

A1B	
  

A2	
  

B2	
  

Figure 8.2—NSRE average household income growth from 2008 to 2060 by RPA Assessment 

scenario.
111

U.S. Outdoor Recreation Participation Projections to 2060

Table 8.3—Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 to 

2060: Developed site use—family gatherings, picnicking, or developed camping

Participation rate Indexed per capita participation 

2008 Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

0.819 A1B 1.001 1.005 1.007 1.012 1.019 1.026 

0.819 A2 1.000 1.002 1.002 1.004 1.008 1.012 

0.819 B2 1.002 1.004 1.004 1.007 1.011 1.014 

Annual participants Indexed mumber of participants 

2008 (x1,000) Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

192,739 A1B 1.027 1.145 1.276 1.393 1.502 1.613 

196,067 A2 1.028 1.157 1.303 1.441 1.591 1.767 

192,238 B2 1.028 1.141 1.238 1.298 1.358 1.419 

Note: Base year participant numbers in 2008 vary according to projected population for 2008 under each of the 2010 RPA 

Assessment scenarios. 

Source: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 1999-2009. 

Table 8.4—Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 

to 2060: Visiting interpretive sites—nature centers, prehistoric sites, historic sites, etc. 

Participation rate Indexed per capita participation 

2008 Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

0.669 A1B 1.004 1.019 1.032 1.048 1.067 1.089 

0.669 A2 1.000 1.011 1.018 1.028 1.040 1.054 

0.669 B2 1.008 1.018 1.022 1.032 1.046 1.055 

Annual participants Indexed number of participants 

2008 (x1,000) Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

157,403 A1B 1.030 1.161 1.307 1.442 1.574 1.711 

160,121 A2 1.029 1.167 1.323 1.475 1.642 1.840 

156,994 B2 1.033 1.157 1.260 1.331 1.405 1.477 

Note: Base year participant numbers in 2008 vary according to projected population for 2008 under each of the 

2010 RPA Assessment scenarios. 

Source: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 1999-2009.
112

U.S. Outdoor Recreation Participation Projections to 2060

Backcountry activities—In this chapter, the general

category backcountry activities encompasses a number

of activities that are most often pursued in undeveloped

but accessible lands. Four activities, or composites, are

included: Challenge activities, equestrian activities, hiking,

and visiting primitive areas. Challenge activities include

the NSRE activities of caving, mountain climbing, and

rock climbing. These activities are typically associated with

youth. Presently, challenge activities are engaged in by just

under 11 percent of adults. This rate is expected to increase

under all of the assessment scenarios by at least 6 percent

over the next 50 years, with the biggest participation rate

increase, nearly 18 percent, coming under scenario A1B

(table 8.7). The higher rate of participation under A1B

is probably due to the higher projected income relative

to A2 and B2, given the positive association of income

with participation (see appendix A). Challenge activity

participation is projected to grow from about 25 million

people currently to about 47 million under both A1B and A2,

while reaching around 37 million annual adult participants

by 2060 under B2. 

Equestrian activities, or horseback riding on trails, claimed 7

percent of the adult population annually as participants. This

percentage is expected to increase to nearly 19 percent by

2060 under scenario A1B, while increasing by 3 percent or

less for scenarios A2 and B2 (table 8.8). The difference can

mostly be attributed to the higher income associated with

A1B for the next 50 years, despite the fact that scenario B2

is less susceptible to forest and rangeland loss over the same

annually in birding. In the more broadly defined viewing

aggregate, which would include birding, nearly 81 percent

of the adult population, or about 190 million people,

participated annually during the same period.

Per capita growth in birding is expected to increase by

between 4 and 7 percent over the next 50 years to more than

36 percent of adults or about 82 million people (table 8.5). 

Assessment scenario A1B indicated the greatest per capita

participation rate growth. This is most likely due to income,

a positive influence on birding, increasing more relative

to the other scenarios. Combining the per capita growth

rates with expected population changes led to an 81 percent

increase in birders under the higher population growth

scenario, A2, to over 150 million birding participants by

2060. The B2 and A1B scenarios resulted in participant

increases from 46 to 69 percent, respectively over the next

5 decades.

The broader viewing category will remain essentially

unchanged over the next 50 years in terms of the adult

participation rate. Scenarios A2 and B2 will lead to around

1 percent increases, while A1B will affect just over a 3

percent increase in adult participation rate by 2060 (table

8.6). Despite the larger participation rate increase with

A1B, overall viewing participants will increase the most

under the A2 scenario because of the larger increase in

population growth. By 2060, nearly 340 million adults will

be participating in at least one form of nature viewing, an

increase from the 190 million adults of today.

Table 8.5—Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 

to 2060: Birding—viewing or photographing birds 

Participation rate Indexed per capita participation 

2008 Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

0.346 A1B 1.007 1.025 1.044 1.055 1.063 1.075 

0.346 A2 1.004 1.018 1.032 1.036 1.037 1.039 

0.346 B2 1.01 1.024 1.037 1.041 1.044 1.043 

Annual Participants Indexed number of participants 

2008 (x1,000) Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

81,449 A1B 1.033 1.168 1.323 1.451 1.568 1.69 

82,855 A2 1.033 1.175 1.342 1.487 1.637 1.814 

81,237 B2 1.036 1.163 1.278 1.343 1.402 1.46 

Note: Base year participant numbers in 2008 vary according to projected population for 2008 under each of the 

2010 RPA Assessment scenarios. 

Source: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 1999-2009.
113

U.S. Outdoor Recreation Participation Projections to 2060

Table 8.6—Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 

to 2060: Viewing nature—viewing or photographing birds, other wildlife, natural scenery, 

flowers, etc. or gathering mushrooms, berries, etc. 

Participation rate Indexed per capita participation 

2008 Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

0.805 A1B 1.002 1.008 1.012 1.017 1.025 1.035 

0.805 A2 1 1.002 1.002 1.003 1.006 1.009 

0.805 B2 1.005 1.007 1.006 1.008 1.012 1.012 

Annual participants Indexed number of participants 

2008 (x1,000) Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

189,418 A1B 1.028 1.148 1.281 1.4 1.512 1.627 

192,690 A2 1.028 1.157 1.303 1.44 1.587 1.762 

188,927 B2 1.03 1.144 1.24 1.299 1.359 1.417 

Note: Base year participant numbers in 2008 vary according to projected population for 2008 under each of 

the 2010 RPA Assessment scenarios. 

Source: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 1999-2009.

Table 8.7—Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 to 

2060: Challenge activities—mountain climbing, rock climbing, or caving 

Participation rate Indexed per capita participation 

2008 Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

0.107 A1B 1.005 1.025 1.036 1.069 1.117 1.176 

0.107 A2 0.996 1.004 1.001 1.014 1.038 1.066 

0.107 B2 1.014 1.023 1.013 1.028 1.056 1.073 

Annual participants Indexed number of participants 

2008 (x1,000) Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

25,134 A1B 1.031 1.168 1.313 1.471 1.647 1.848 

25,568 A2 1.025 1.159 1.302 1.456 1.638 1.861 

25,069 B2 1.04 1.162 1.249 1.326 1.419 1.502 

Note: Base year participant numbers in 2008 vary according to projected population for 2008 under each of the 

2010 RPA Assessment scenarios. 

Source: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 1999-2009.
114

U.S. Outdoor Recreation Participation Projections to 2060

decline in participation rate can be attributed to smaller

income growth than A1B, and a larger decline in federal

and private forest and range land than either B2 or A1B (see

appendix A). Despite the static or declining rate of growth

in per capita participation, the number of participants in

off-road driving will increase by 29 to 56 percent under the

assessment scenarios to between almost 60 and 75 million

because the rate of population growth will outstrip any

decline in per capita participation through 2060. 

Motorized water activities including the NSRE activities

of motor boating, waterskiing, and personal watercraft use

has the highest per capita participation rate of the motorized

activities (26 percent) and thus the greatest number of

annual adult participants at over 60 million (table 8.12). 

Under assessment scenario A1B, per capita participation is

expected to grow by 15 percent over the next five decades

to about 30 percent of all adults, while under scenarios A2

and B2 growth will essentially be static. Income growth

under A1B is the biggest factor in causing the greater per

capita growth. Overall, the number of adult participants

in motorized water activities increases faster than the

population under scenario A1B to about 112 million in

2060. With per capita participation constant under both A2

and B2, the number of motorized water activity participants

mirrors population growth, yielding about 107 million and

87 million participants in 2060, respectively.

Motorized snow activity is limited to snowmobiling, an

activity undertaken by 4 percent of the adult population,

or between 9 and 10 million people in 2008. Per capita

participation in snowmobiling is expected to decline under

assessment scenarios A2 and B2 by just over 10 percent,

or about one-half a percentage point over the next 50 years

(table 8.13). Under scenario A1B, the adult snowmobiling

participation rate will rise by almost 3 percent by 2060, the

difference being mostly accounted for by A1B’s income

increase relative to the other two scenarios (see appendix A). 

Overall, by 2060, the number of snowmobiling enthusiasts

will increase to nearly 12 million under scenario B2, and

about 15 million under scenario A1B.

Hunting and fishing—Based on NSRE definitions,

traditional consumptive wildlife pursuits like hunting and

fishing remain popular outdoor activities, with about 28

million and 73 million adult participants annually in 2008. 

However, on a per capita basis, these pursuits are showing

some decline from past decades. Here, hunting consists

of participation in the pursuit of big game, small game, or

migratory birds, as identified by a NSRE hunting screener

question. The annual adult hunting participation rate, nearly

12 percent in 2008, is projected to decline by up to 30

time period (see appendix A). When population growth is

included to derive the number of annual participants, A1B

leads to an increase of nearly 87 percent, from just over 16

million per year to over 30 million annually in 2060. The

high population growth under scenario A2 leads to about 77

percent more equestrian activity participants in 2060 than in

2008. 

Hiking is perhaps the most popular single backcountry

activity. In 2008, about 33 percent of adults nationally

participated in hiking, totaling nearly 80 million people. 

Among the three assessment scenarios, hiking participation

per capita is expected to increase by 7 to 10 percent by 2060,

increasing the most under A1B (table 8.9). A notable model

result for hiking is that it is the only activity for which

Hispanic ethnicity is associated with a higher participation

rate than Whites (see appendix A). As the participation

rates are similar across scenarios, A2’s higher population

growth leads to the greatest increase in hiking participants

over the time span, nearly 88 percent, resulting in about 150

million hikers by 2060. Scenarios B2 and A1B led to hiking

participant increases from 2008 of about 50 percent and 72

percent, respectively.

The final backcountry activity is an aggregate called visiting

primitive areas, which consists of participating in NSRE

activities such as backpacking, primitive camping, and

visiting a wilderness, both designated and undesignated. 

This composite accounted for 90 million participants in

2008, or about 38 percent of all adults. Annual per capita

participation in this category is expected to decline by up

to 5 percent over the next 50 years (table 8.10). Increased

population density and declines in wilderness acres per

capita, and forest and rangeland per capita, appear to

be factors influencing the participation rate decline (see

appendix A). However, overall participation is expected

to increase by between 33 and 65 percent across scenarios

by 2060 because population growth offsets the decline in

participation rates. 

Motorized activities—Three categories of non-roaded

motorized activities are considered in this section, namely,

motorized off-road driving, motorized water activities, and

motorized snow activities. Per capita participation in offroad driving averaged about 20 percent annually for adults

between 2005 and 2009. This participation amounted to

around 48 million adult participants in 2008 (table 8.11). 

Future participation rates in off-road driving are expected

to decline under two of three assessment scenarios, A2

(18 percent) and B2 (8 percent), while the percent of adult

participants under A1B, while declining to 2040, will be

about the same in 2060 as today. A2’s relatively larger
115

U.S. Outdoor Recreation Participation Projections to 2060

Table 8.8—Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 

to 2060: Equestrian activities—horseback riding on trails 

Participation rate Indexed per capita participation 

2008 Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

0.07 A1B 1.005 1.024 1.028 1.06 1.115 1.186 

0.07 A2 0.992 0.99 0.973 0.976 0.992 1.015 

0.07 B2 1.02 1.02 0.992 0.999 1.024 1.031 

Annual participants Indexed number of participants 

2008 (x1,000) Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

16,393 A1B 1.031 1.166 1.302 1.459 1.644 1.865 

16,676 A2 1.02 1.143 1.265 1.401 1.565 1.771 

16,350 B2 1.046 1.158 1.223 1.288 1.376 1.444 

Note: Base year participant numbers in 2008 vary according to projected population for 2008 under each of the 

2010 RPA Assessment scenarios. 

Source: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 1999-2009.

Table 8.9—Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 

to 2060: Day hiking 

Participation rate Indexed per capita participation 

2008 Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

0.333 A1B 1.003 1.017 1.031 1.049 1.072 1.097 

0.333 A2 1.001 1.013 1.023 1.038 1.056 1.076 

0.333 B2 1.006 1.017 1.025 1.039 1.057 1.073 

Annual participants Indexed number of participants 

2008 (x1,000) Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

78,256 A1B 1.029 1.159 1.305 1.444 1.581 1.724 

79,607 A2 1.03 1.169 1.33 1.49 1.667 1.879 

78,053 B2 1.031 1.155 1.264 1.34 1.42 1.501 

Note: Base year participant numbers in 2008 vary according to projected population for 2008 under each of the 

2010 RPA Assessment scenarios. 

Source: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 1999-2009.
116

U.S. Outdoor Recreation Participation Projections to 2060

Table 8.10—Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 

to 2060: Visiting primitive areas—visiting a wilderness, primitive camping, or backpacking 

Participation rate Indexed per capita participation 

2008 Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

0.383 A1B 0.999 0.992 0.979 0.978 0.985 0.995 

0.383 A2 0.994 0.982 0.962 0.953 0.949 0.947 

0.383 B2 1.003 0.991 0.969 0.961 0.96 0.954 

Annual participants Indexed number of participants 

2008 (x1,000) Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

90,164 A1B 1.024 1.13 1.24 1.346 1.452 1.564 

91,721 A2 1.023 1.133 1.251 1.367 1.498 1.653 

89,930 B2 1.028 1.125 1.194 1.239 1.29 1.335 

Note: Base year participant numbers in 2008 vary according to projected population for 2008 under each of the 

2010 RPA Assessment scenarios. 

Source: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 1999-2009.

Table 8.11—Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 

to 2060: Motorized off-road activities—off-road driving 

Participation rate Indexed per capita participation 

2008 Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

0.204 A1B 0.998 0.983 0.952 0.949 0.966 0.995 

0.204 A2 0.985 0.949 0.898 0.866 0.845 0.824 

0.204 B2 1.011 0.98 0.934 0.925 0.931 0.922 

Annual participants Indexed number of participants 

2008 (x1,000) Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

47,937 A1B 1.024 1.119 1.206 1.306 1.424 1.563 

48,764 A2 1.013 1.096 1.167 1.243 1.333 1.439 

47,812 B2 1.036 1.113 1.151 1.193 1.251 1.291 

Note: Base year participant numbers in 2008 vary according to projected population for 2008 under each of the 

2010 RPA Assessment scenarios. 

Source: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 1999-2009.
117

U.S. Outdoor Recreation Participation Projections to 2060

Table 8.12—Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 

to 2060: Motorized water use—motorboating, waterskiing, or using personal watercraft 

Participation rate Indexed per capita participation 

2008 Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

0.263 A1B 1.007 1.022 1.025 1.051 1.094 1.154 

0.263 A2 0.992 0.986 0.966 0.96 0.965 0.976 

0.263 B2 1.022 1.018 0.99 0.991 1.008 1.006 

Annual participants Indexed number of participants 

2008 (x1,000) Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

61,960 A1B 1.032 1.165 1.299 1.446 1.614 1.814 

63,030 A2 1.021 1.139 1.256 1.378 1.523 1.704 

61,799 B2 1.048 1.156 1.221 1.278 1.354 1.408 

Note: Base year participant numbers in 2008 vary according to projected population for 2008 under each of the 

2010 RPA Assessment scenarios. 

Source: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 1999-2009.

Table 8.13—Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 to 

2060: Motorized snow use—snowmobiling 

Participation rate Indexed per capita participation 

2008 Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

0.04 A1B 0.997 0.983 0.952 0.957 0.985 1.026 

0.04 A2 0.984 0.951 0.902 0.881 0.876 0.876 

0.04 B2 1.012 0.979 0.92 0.902 0.905 0.892 

Annual participants Indexed number of participants 

2008 (x1000) Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

9,440 A1B 1.022 1.12 1.206 1.317 1.452 1.613 

9,603 A2 1.012 1.098 1.173 1.265 1.383 1.53 

9,415 B2 1.037 1.112 1.134 1.164 1.216 1.248 

Note: Base year participant numbers in 2008 vary according to projected population for 2008 under each of the 

2010 RPA Assessment scenarios. 

Source: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 1999-2009.
118

U.S. Outdoor Recreation Participation Projections to 2060

downhill skiing and snowboarding, had an average adult

participation rate of 10 percent from 2005 through 2009, or

about 24 million participants annually in 2008 (table 8.16). 

Assuming constant climate conditions, the participation rate

in developed skiing is expected to increase by 20 percent

under assessment scenarios A2 and B2 and by almost 60

percent under scenario A1B. As with a number of other

income dependent activities, the higher growth in household

income associated with scenario A1B relative to A2 and B2

appears to be driving the difference in participation rates

(see appendix A). The increases in per capita participation

rates for all scenarios, combined with the respective

population growth rates, suggest that developed skiing

will grow as much or more than any activity reported in

this chapter. For example, under assessment scenarios B2

and A2, the total number of adult participants is expected

to increase from 24 million in 2008 to between 40 and

50 million in 2060. A bigger increase, from 24 million to

nearly 60 million, of annual developed skiing participants is

projected to occur under scenario A1B.

The second non-motorized winter activity is undeveloped

skiing including NSRE activities of cross-country skiing

and snow shoeing. Like developed skiing, this activity

composite is expected to grow considerably from the

slightly over 3 percent adult participation rate in 2008 and

nearly 8 million participants. The expected growth rate in

participation is close to 10 percent for scenarios A2 and B2,

while it is nearly 31 percent for scenario A1B by 2060 (table

8.17). The differences in the participation growth rates seem

percent across assessment scenarios by 2060 (table 8.14). 

The high population growth of scenario A2 shows the biggest

decrease, leading to an annual participation rate of 8 percent. 

Factors like increased education levels, increased population

density, diminishing availability of private and public land,

and strong negative relationships between growing minority

populations and hunting appear to be influencing the drop

in participation rate (see appendix A). However, the decline

in the rate of annual participation in hunting is offset by

population growth to the extent that hunting participants

should increase between 7 and 23 percent across the

assessment scenarios over the next 50 years. 

Fishing participation includes partaking of any of a number

of NSRE fishing activities such as warm and cold water

fishing, saltwater fishing, and anadromous fishing. Like

hunting, the participation rate for fishing is expected to drop

over the next 5 decades. For example, under scenario A2,

the adult fishing participation rate is projected to fall by

10 percent from 31 percent in 2008 to around 28 percent

by 2060. A similar rate decline is expected for scenario B2,

while the drop associated with A1B is only 3 percent (table

8.15). Similar to hunting, the population growth under

each scenario is enough to induce increases in adult fishing

participants from 28 percent under B2 to over 50 percent via

scenarios A1B and A2. 

Non-motorized winter activities—Non-motorized winter

activities include developed skiing and undeveloped skiing. 

Developed skiing, which includes the NSRE activities of

Table 8.14— Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 

to 2060: Hunting—screener variable for all hunting activities 

Participation rate Indexed per capita participation 

2008 Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

0.119 A1B 0.992 0.942 0.885 0.841 0.808 0.781 

0.119 A2 0.985 0.923 0.854 0.795 0.741 0.69 

0.119 B2 0.999 0.942 0.881 0.841 0.809 0.77 

Annual participants Indexed number of participants 

2008 (x1,000) Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

27,909 A1B 1.017 1.074 1.121 1.157 1.191 1.228 

28,391 A2 1.013 1.066 1.11 1.14 1.17 1.205 

27,836 B2 1.024 1.07 1.086 1.085 1.086 1.078 

Note: Base year participant numbers in 2008 vary according to projected population for 2008 under each of the 

2010 RPA Assessment scenarios. 

Source: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 1999-2009.
119

U.S. Outdoor Recreation Participation Projections to 2060

Table 8.15— Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 

2010 to 2060: Fishing—coldwater fishing, warmwater fishing, saltwater fishing, or 

anadromous fishing 

Participation rate Indexed per capita participation 

2008 Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

0.309 A1B 1 0.991 0.974 0.966 0.965 0.97 

0.309 A2 0.994 0.975 0.948 0.927 0.91 0.896 

0.309 B2 1.007 0.989 0.959 0.942 0.931 0.912 

Annual participants Indexed number of participants 

2008 (x1,000) Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

72,714 A1B 1.026 1.128 1.234 1.329 1.423 1.525 

73,969 A2 1.022 1.126 1.233 1.33 1.437 1.564 

72,525 B2 1.032 1.123 1.183 1.214 1.25 1.277 

Note: Base year participant numbers in 2008 vary according to projected population for 2008 under each of the 

2010 RPA Assessment scenarios. 

Source: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 1999-2009.

Table 8.16—Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 

to 2060: Developed skiing—downhill skiing or snowboarding 

Participation rate Indexed per capita participation 

2008 Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

0.101 A1B 1.012 1.071 1.103 1.204 1.361 1.57 

0.101 A2 0.988 1.009 1.002 1.042 1.113 1.206 

0.101 B2 1.04 1.062 1.031 1.071 1.153 1.202 

Annual participants Indexed number of participants 

2008 (x1,000) Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

23,729 A1B 1.038 1.22 1.397 1.657 2.007 2.468 

24,139 A2 1.016 1.165 1.303 1.496 1.757 2.105 

23,667 B2 1.066 1.207 1.271 1.381 1.549 1.682 

Note: Base year participant numbers in 2008 vary according to projected population for 2008 under each of the 

2010 RPA Assessment scenarios. 

Source: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 1999-2009.
120

U.S. Outdoor Recreation Participation Projections to 2060

the number of total adult participants in swimming will

increase at slightly more than the rate of population growth

for each scenario, with A2 showing the greatest increase to

a total of nearly 270 million by 2060 (table 8.18). Scenario

B2, with the least population growth indicates an increase in

adult swimming participants to about 210 million annually

by 2060.

Floating had an annual adult participation rate of nearly

17 percent from 2005 to 2009, which translated to about

39 million participants in 2008. Across the assessment

scenarios, the participation rate is expected to increase

slightly for A1B to over 17 percent annually by 2060 (table

8.19). For each of the lower income scenarios, the rate of

participation for adults is expected to drop by between 7

and 11 percent over the next five decades, with scenario

A2 dipping to 15 percent participation. With these changes

in participation rates, floating participants under A1B are

projected to increase 62 percent, or slightly more than the

population, while scenarios A2 and B2 will grow slightly

less than their respective population growth rates. By 2060,

approximately 64 million adults will participate in floating

under A1B, with scenario B2 accounting for about 51

million and A2 yielding nearly 63 million participants.

Key Findings

As displayed in the results section above, all 17 outdoor

recreation activities or activity aggregates will grow in the

number of participants over the next five decades. In

to be primarily induced by the higher income growth of

A1B (see appendix A). Overall the participant number for

undeveloped skiing is expected to increase during the next

five decades by at least 50 percent under scenario B2, while

more than doubling to about 16 million adults in 2060 under

scenario A1B. 

Non-motorized water activities—The final outdoor

recreation category in this chapter is non-motorized

water activities. This category consists of a swimming

aggregate which includes participation in any of the

NSRE activities defined by a swimming screener question

(e.g., swimming, snorkeling, surfing, diving, visiting

beaches or watersides) and floating, which is comprised of

participation in the NSRE activities of canoeing, kayaking,

or rafting. Swimming is the fourth most popular outdoor

recreation pursuit examined in this chapter, with a 61

percent adult participation rate from 2005 to 2009, and

approximately 143 million participants in 2008 (table

8.18). Like visiting developed sites and viewing activities,

swimming is a popular family activity with high levels of

youth participation, so the number of total participants in

swimming from all age groups is expected to be much larger

than adult participants. 

Swimming is neither land nor income intensive, so the

narrow band of participation rate increases across the

assessment scenarios to 2060, from 5 percent under B2

to nearly 11 percent under A1B, is not likely to be an

aberration (see appendix A). With these expected changes,

Table 8.17—Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 

to 2060: Undeveloped skiing—cross-country skiing or snow shoeing 

Participation rate Indexed per capita participation 

2008 Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

0.033 A1B 1.012 1.054 1.083 1.135 1.21 1.309 

0.033 A2 0.997 1.014 1.016 1.03 1.055 1.09 

0.033 B2 1.03 1.049 1.038 1.056 1.092 1.106 

Annual participants Indexed number of participants 

2008 (x1,000) Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

7,778 A1B 1.038 1.201 1.371 1.561 1.784 2.058 

7,912 A2 1.025 1.171 1.321 1.478 1.666 1.903 

7,758 B2 1.056 1.192 1.28 1.361 1.467 1.548 

Note: Base year participant numbers in 2008 vary according to projected population for 2008 under each of the 

2010 RPA Assessment scenarios. 

Source: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 1999-2009.
121

U.S. Outdoor Recreation Participation Projections to 2060

Table 8.19—Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 

to 2060: Floating activities—canoeing, kayaking, or rafting 

Participation rate Indexed per capita participation 

2008 Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

0.169 A1B 0.997 0.986 0.96 0.967 0.993 1.031 

0.169 A2 0.986 0.957 0.914 0.896 0.891 0.89 

0.169 B2 1.01 0.983 0.935 0.926 0.935 0.928 

Annual participants Indexed number of participants 

2008 (x1,000) Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

39,800 A1B 1.023 1.123 1.216 1.33 1.464 1.621 

40,487 A2 1.014 1.105 1.188 1.285 1.406 1.553 

39,697 B2 1.035 1.116 1.153 1.194 1.255 1.3 

Note: Base year participant numbers in 2008 vary according to projected population for 2008 under each of the 

2010 RPA Assessment scenarios. 

Source: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 1999-2009.

Table 8.18—Projections of per capita participation rate and number of participants, 2010 

to 2060: Swimming activities—screener variable for swimming activities 

Participation rate Indexed per capita participation 

2008 Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

0.609 A1B 1.004 1.022 1.034 1.055 1.081 1.109 

0.609 A2 0.999 1.009 1.013 1.024 1.04 1.058 

0.609 B2 1.011 1.02 1.018 1.027 1.043 1.052 

Annual participants Indexed number of participants 

2008 (x1,000) Scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 

143,204 A1B 1.03 1.164 1.309 1.451 1.594 1.744 

145,677 A2 1.027 1.165 1.317 1.47 1.641 1.847 

142,832 B2 1.036 1.159 1.255 1.324 1.401 1.472 

Note: Base year participant numbers in 2008 vary according to projected population for 2008 under each of the 

2010 RPA Assessment scenarios. 

Source: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 1999-2009.
122

U.S. Outdoor Recreation Participation Projections to 2060

participation because all activities face the same population

growth rates. The growth in participant numbers for the top

five growth activities (fig. 8.3) are developed skiing (68

to 147 percent), undeveloped skiing (55 to 106 percent),

challenge activities (50 to 86 percent), equestrian activities

(44 to 87 percent), and motorized water activities (41

to 81 percent). Similarly, the lowest rates of participant

numbers growth (fig. 8.4) are visiting primitive areas (33

to 65 percent), motorized off-road activities (29 to 56

percent), motorized snow activities (25 to 61 percent),

hunting (8 to 23 percent), fishing (27 to 56 percent), and

floating activities (30 to 62 percent). As stated above, it is

unlikely that activities with already high participation rates

can demonstrate large percentage increases in participant

numbers. However, it is obvious that smaller percentage

increases in already highly popular activities can mean quite

large increases in the absolute number of adult participants.

Assessment scenarios—The assessment scenarios drive

the activity projections through two avenues. First, as the

number of participants is a product of estimated per capita

participation and population, all estimates are population

driven and in many cases, this means that A2, with the

largest projected population growth, often correlates with

the greatest projected increase in participant numbers. 

Similarly, B2, with the lowest rate of population growth,

generally coincides with the least growth for any given

activity. However, A2’s population growth influences the per

capita participation negatively as most participation models

had negative signs on population density which increases

with population growth. As well, supply variables such as

some cases, the per capita participation growth rate will be

near, or even less than one. However, population growth

will be large enough under each assessment scenario to

ensure that all activities will see growth in the number of

adult participants.

Per capita participation—The five outdoor recreation

activities projected to have the fastest growth in per capita

participation across the three 2010 RPAAssessment

scenarios over the next 50 years are developed skiing

(20 to 50 percent), undeveloped skiing (9 to 31 percent),

challenge activities (6 to 18 percent increase), equestrian

activities (3 to 19 percent), and motorized water activities

(-3 to 15 percent). Alternatively, a number of activities

will experience a decline in adult participation rates. These

include visiting primitive areas (0 to -5 percent), motorized

off-road activities (0 to -18 percent), motorized snow

activities (2 to -11 percent), hunting (-22 to -31 percent),

fishing (-3 to -10 percent), and floating activities (3 to

-11 percent). Growth of per capita participation rates for

the remaining activities will hover around zero or grow

minimally. It should also be noted that in general, activities

with low per capita rates of participation such as developed

skiing, undeveloped skiing, and equestrian activities

have considerable room for growth, while activities with

already high rates such as developed site use, viewing, and

swimming have less room to grow their participation rates. 

Participant numbers—By definition, the activities with

the highest rates of growth in participant numbers are the

same as those with the highest growth rates in per capita

	
   A1B A2 B2

Developed	
  Skiing146.8 110.5 68.5

Undeveloped	
  Skiing105.8 90.3 54.8

Challenge	
  Ac?vi?es84.5 86.1 50.2

Equestrian	
  Ac?vi?es86.5 77.1 44.4

Motorized	
  Water 81.4 70.4 40.8

0	
  

20	
  

40	
  

60	
  

80	
  

100	
  

120	
  

140	
  

160	
  

Developed	
  

Skiing	
  

Undeveloped	
  

Skiing	
  

Challenge	
  

Ac?vi?es	
  

Equestrian	
  

Ac?vi?es	
  

Motorized	
  

Water	
  

Percent	
  growth	
  

Ac-vity	
  

A1B	
   A2	
   B2	
  

Figure 8.3—Top five activities by percent growth in projected number of participants and 

scenario, 2008 to 2060.
123

U.S. Outdoor Recreation Participation Projections to 2060

almost always less likely than Whites to participate in

the various activities examined in this chapter. A notable

exception occurred with hiking, as Hispanics were more

likely than Whites to have participated, assuming all

other factors constant. Respondents claiming American

Indian, non-Hispanic identity were often more likely than

Whites to participate in the remote activities like hunting

and fishing, motorized off-road, motorized snow, hiking,

equestrian, and viewing.

Education beyond high school resulted in higher

participation probability for most activities. However,

the level of education varied somewhat. For example, the

greater the education level, the more likely one would

participate in birding, non-motorized winter activities,

backcountry activities, and viewing activities. However,

for fishing and hunting, motorized off-road, and motorized

snow activities, more than a high school education lowered

the probability of participation.

Income was positively associated with participation across

all activities. However, for some activities such as birding,

hiking, and hunting, the effect was small, while for others

such as developed skiing and motorized water use, the

effect was large. As discussed above, the higher growth rate

of income under assessment scenario A1B was noticeable

across a number of activities.

water area per capita and land per capita, with typically

positive influences on per capita participation, saw declines

as per capita land and water areas declined with population

growth. In most cases, the difference was not enough to

offset population growth’s influence as a product.

Another important difference emerging in the per capita

participation modeling was the effect of income on certain

activities such as developed skiing, challenge activities,

equestrian activities, hunting, and motorized activities. In

virtually all these cases, the growth in income under scenario

A1B was enough to offset the difference in population

growth difference between A2 and A1B, leading to higher

rates of growth in participants for A1B. This effect seemed

consistent across activities that typically require more capital

to effectively participate. 

Factors—An examination of model results and odds ratio

estimates in appendix A reveals stories similar to previous

research into outdoor recreation participation behavior. First,

males are more apt to participate in backcountry activities,

hunting and fishing, motorized activities, non-motorized

winter activities, and floating than are females, while the

latter are more likely to participate in the viewing activities,

swimming, equestrian, and visiting developed sites.

Ethnicity is still an important influence on participation. 

Minorities including Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, were

A1B A2 B2

Hun)ng 22.8 20.5 7.8

Motorized	
  Off-­‐road 56.3 43.9 29.1

Fishing 52.5 56.4 27.8

Motorized	
  Snow 61.3 53 24.8

Floa)ng 62.1 55.3 30

0	
  

10	
  

20	
  

30	
  

40	
  

50	
  

60	
  

70	
  

80	
  

90	
  

100	
  

Hun)ng	
   Motorized	
  

Off-­‐road	
  

Fishing	
   Motorized	
  

Snow	
  

Floa)ng	
  

Percent	
  growth	
  

Ac-vity	
  

A1B	
   A2	
   B2	
  

Figure 8.4—Bottom five activities by percent growth in projected number of participants and 

scenario, 2008 to 2060.
124

Summary

National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE)

which is managed by the Forest Service, U.S. Department

of Agriculture. The former National Recreation Survey

showed that what people did for outdoor recreation had been

very noticeably changing over the years in earlier decades. 

However, in 1960 and since that year, one activity—the

simple activity of walking for pleasure outdoors—remained

at the top in popularity. At the same time, other activities

also were growing. These activities included viewing or

photographing wild birds, attending outdoor sports events,

day hiking, attending outdoor concerts/plays/other events,

and visiting outdoor nature centers. Also growing in terms

of number of participants were swimming in natural waters,

sightseeing, bicycling, running or jogging and picnicking. 

Some of the activities lesser in popularity involved use of

motors, e.g., motor boating, driving for pleasure, and offhighway vehicle driving.

Across the years since the National Recreation Survey

began, one general, overriding trend has been evident. The

mix of outdoor activities and their relative popularity has

been evolving. This evolution included addition of some

activities that were not recognized as significant, or even as

existing in 1960. Examples of added activities are mountain

biking, snowboarding, and geocaching. In the last period of

data examined from NSRE (2005-2009), it was estimated

that over 223 million people ages 16 and older participated

in some form of outdoor recreation. Whereas the first

National Recreation Survey covered only a few recognized

activities, the NSRE now includes 77 activities, including

those that are sport and wildlife related.

The National Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated 

Recreation Survey—The National Fishing, Hunting, and

Wildlife-Associated Recreation Survey is devoted specifically

to fish and wildlife-based outdoor recreation. The National

Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation

Survey focuses on outings where hunting, fishing, or wildlife

watching was the primary reason for an outing. This survey

is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and has

tracked trends since 1955. It is the oldest ongoing national

recreation survey in the United States From the most recent

round of surveying done in 2006, it was reported that more

than 87 million people 16 years of age and older participated

in some form of fish- or wildlife-related recreation as the

primary reason for an outdoor occasion. This is about 4 out

of 10 people in the United States of that age. Like outdoor

recreation generally, wildlife- and fish-based recreation has

been changing. The overall number of hunters in the United

States has declined, except for big game hunting, which has

remained relatively stable. Fishing participation has also

declined. The total number of anglers fell 15 percent from

Relevant land and water availability per capita generally

correlated positively with activity participation. Hence,

declines in overall forest and rangeland per capita, federal

land per capita, and/or in National Wilderness Preservation

System lands per capita induced declines in spatially intensive

activities such as equestrian, hunting, motorized off-road

driving, visiting primitive areas, and viewing. Similarly,

participation in water-based activities such as swimming,

motorized boating, and non-motorized boating were all

positively correlated with the per capita availability of water

area. Fishing was positively correlated with both water

area and forest and rangeland availability. A seemingly

counterintuitive result occurred with the variable indicating

whether the respondent lived in a coastal community. Here,

participation in fishing, hunting, and viewing were negatively

correlated with residence in a coastal county. Such a result

could be driven by the fact that coastal population in the

country is dominated by highly urban areas.

Finally, it should be noted that the model results and

projections in this chapter do not account for factors outside

the range of available data such as climate change, new

technology, changes in costs, and changes in tastes and

preferences.

Acknowledgments

We thank Ross Arnold, Ken Cordell, Linda Langer, Rebecca

Moore, and Eric White for constructive comments and

suggestions on earlier versions of this chapter. We also thank

Carter Betz, Shela Mou, and Stan Zarnoch for valuable

technical assistance. 

9. SUMMARY

This assessment has attempted to describe the status and

trends in outdoor recreation across the United States. These

trends are important to understand because of the large role

outdoor recreation plays in the lifestyle of Americans. They

are also important because of the large investments and

management responsibilities of both the public and private

sectors as providers of recreation opportunities.

Three Sources of Outdoor Recreation 

Participation Trends

National Recreation Survey—Historical context was

provided earlier by looking back at previous surveys and

studies. The primary historical source of data was the

National Recreation Survey, which eventually became the
125

Summary

lifestyles, tastes, information, and technology are shifting. In

terms of total number of days on which people participated

in outdoor recreation, strongest growth was in viewing

and photographing wildlife, birds and nature, walking for

pleasure, and visiting farms or agricultural areas.

Camping, geocaching, and wildlife festivals—Invited

authors examined three outdoor recreation activities in more

detail. In the paper by Garst and others (included earlier),

camping, a very traditional form of outdoor recreation, was

examined. This revealed that comfort and convenience were

important to campers and were associated with access to

campsite amenities such as water, electricity, hot showers,

clean bathrooms, and technologies such as satellite and

cell phone reception. Developed campers identified family

functioning as an important meaning associated with a

camping experience. The second activity, geocaching

(covered by Schneider and Chavez), is a new and growing

outdoor activity that introduces flexibility and inclusivity

to participants, which creates a positive social environment

regardless of type of group involved. The integration of

electronic and remote reception technology represented by

geocaching may dramatically change the outdoor experience

and provide crossovers to generational divides. It was noted

that geocaching gets people outdoors and active, and has

the potential to change how lands are used by the recreating

public. The third activity, examined by Hvenegaard, was

attendance at wildlife festivals, which has shown growth. 

From 1992 to 2002, the number of North American festivals

grew from 10 to 240. In Canada, over 80 wildlife festivals

were offered in 2009. Wildlife festival tourists are generally

older, more educated, and more affluent than the general

public. Growing attendance at wildlife festivals underscores

the increasing interest in nature.

Trends in Types of Similar Outdoor Activities

Following onto this finding that recreational interest in

nature was growing, outdoor activities in the NSRE study

were grouped into seven groups to look more broadly at

trends in number of activity days on which Americans

participated in various forms of nature-based outdoor

recreation. The results showed that while motorized

activities showed growth up to about 2005, these activities,

along with hunting, fishing, and backcountry activities,

ended up toward the end of 2009 at about the same level

of participation as in 2000. Non-motor boating grew

modestly, and visiting recreation and historic sites grew at

a slightly higher rate. Various forms of skiing, including

snowboarding, declined during this decade. The clear

growth area was within the overall group of activities named

“viewing and photographing nature.”

1996 to 2006, with fishing in the Great Lakes experiencing

the greatest downturn. Wildlife watching, however, showed a

13 percent increase from 1996 to 2006. The most popular type

of wildlife watching—around-the-home wildlife watching—

led this overall upward trend.

The Outdoor Foundation Survey—The Outdoor

Foundation also conducts an extensive survey of how

Americans participate in outdoor recreation in the United

States. This survey, in combination with the above two

mentioned, are the primary sources of outdoor recreation

trend data in the United States. According to the most

recent Outdoor Foundation survey data, 48.6 percent of

all Americans participated at least once in 2008 in one or

more of the 40 outdoor activities they track. Among these

40 activities, Americans participated on 11.2 billion days

in 2008. While overall participation in outdoor activities

declined slightly in 2008, participation in nature-based

outdoor activities in many cases increased significantly. 

Activities like backpacking, mountain biking, and trail

running showed double-digit increases. Participation in

outdoor activities was found to be significantly higher

among Whites than among any other ethnicity.

Current Trends in Outdoor Activities

Individual activities—The National Recreation Survey,

under a new name, has continued to be administered beyond

its early years, including the periods 1999 to 2001 and 2005

to 2009. The most popular activities emerging in this first

decade of the 21st century, in terms of number of people

participating, are walking for pleasure, family gatherings

outdoors, gardening or landscaping, viewing/photographing

natural scenery, visiting outdoor nature centers, and

attending outdoor sports events. Following those activities

are sightseeing, picnicking, viewing/photographing flowers

and trees, driving for pleasure, viewing/photographing

wildlife, and visiting historic sites. All of these activities

have shown growth in this decade, but activities oriented

toward viewing and photographing nature (e.g., scenery,

flowers/trees, and wildlife) have been among the fastest

growing of all activities. There were some activities on

the decline, and they include downhill skiing, inline or

rollerblade skating, snowmobiling, ice skating, crosscountry skiing, snowshoeing, and windsurfing.

Viewed over all the activities included in the NSRE survey,

it is very clear that what people in the United States chose

as activities is changing, as it was in previous decades,

but these changes appear to be more dramatic than in past

decades. The activities that dominated in the 1960s, 1970s,

and 1980s in many cases no longer dominate as society,
126

Summary

previous graphic, showing that the total number of people

who participated in these 50 activities grew by 7.1 percent,

and number of activity days grew about 40 percent from an

estimated 37 billion to about 52 billion (fig. 9.1).

Demographic Differences in Nature-based 

Participation

In an examination of demographic differences, we found

that participation rates for visiting recreation or historic sites

were significantly higher among non-Hispanic Whites, late

teenagers, middle-aged people, people with some college

to completed advanced degrees, higher income people, and

the foreign born. For viewing and photographing nature

activities, participation was higher among people with

higher education and incomes, and among non-Hispanic

Whites, people ages 35 to 54, those having some college

to post graduate education, as well as those earning more

than $50,000 per year. For backcountry activities, such as

backpacking or horseback riding on trails, participation

rates were highest among males, Whites, Native Americans,

people under 55 years of age, people well educated with

higher incomes, and rural residents.

Participation in motorized outdoor activities, such as motor

boating and off-highway vehicle driving, is higher among

males, non-Hispanic Whites, people under 55 years of age

(especially younger people), people with some college

or a college degree, middle-to-high income people, and

rural residents. Participation in hunting and fishing is

Overall Trends Across All Activities

To look even more broadly at outdoor recreation trends,

NSRE data were used to examine the overall trend of 60

outdoor activities. Between 2000 and 2009, the total number

of people who participated in one or more of activities

included in this list of 60 grew by 7.5 percent, from an

estimated 208.2 million to 223.9 million. Included in the list

of 60 was a wide range of activities, from visiting beaches

and visiting farms to rock climbing and backpacking. Across

the 60 activities, the number of activity days of participation

increased from 61.3 billion to 81.3 billion, an approximate

32.5 percent increase in 9 years during this decade.

From within the list of 60 outdoor activities, 50 naturedbased activities were examined as a whole. These are

activities associated in some way with nature elements such

as wildlife, birds, streams, lakes, snow and ice areas, trails,

rugged terrain, mountains, caves, and other natural outdoor

settings, features, or resources. Included in the list of 50

were activities such as mountain biking, coldwater fishing,

whitewater rafting, downhill skiing, primitive camping,

backpacking, mountain climbing, visiting prehistoric sites,

saltwater fishing, snorkeling, and a number of others. 

Included was participation at sites near home or at a

travelling distance.

As was the case with more broadly defined outdoor

recreation, nature-based recreation showed a discernible

growth between 2000 and 2009. For emphasis, we repeat a

Figure 9.1—Growth in number of people age 16 and older and number of annual participation 

days in 50 nature-based outdoor recreation activities in the United States, 2000-2009.

2009

52

210

196 210

37

52

100

150

200

250

2000 2009

Millions	
  who	
  par-cipate

20

40

60

Number  Who  Par/cipate  (million)

+40.1%

+7.1%

Year

Number  of  Ac/vity  Days  (billion)

Billions	
  of	
  days

Millions who participate

Number who participate (million)

Number of activity days (billion)

Billions of days
127

Summary

groups. This is especially so for backcountry, hunting/

fishing, and snow skiing activities.

Youth Outdoors

From the National Kids Survey, we estimated that just over

60 percent of youth ages 6 to19 reported spending two or

more hours outdoors on a typical weekday, and over threefourths reported two or more hours outdoors on typical

weekend days (fall 2007 to spring 2009). One half of youth

spent as much as 4 or more hours outdoors on a typical

weekend day. Less than five percent spent no time outdoors

on either weekdays or weekend days. Regarding time spent

relative to last year and across the entire sample of both boys

and girls, only 15 percent reported spending less time, 45

percent reported spending about the same time, and nearly

40 percent estimated spending more time outdoors this year

than last. The most obvious short-term trend between the

two periods was a decrease in percentage of kids indicating

spending about the same amount of time as a year ago (from

49 to 42 percent) and an increase in percentage indicating

spending more time (from 35 to 43 percent).

During time outdoors, the outdoor activity with the highest

participation rate (82 percent) was that of “just playing or

hanging out outdoors.” Second, with 80 percent participation,

was being physically active by participating in biking,

jogging, walking, skate boarding, or similar activity. Playing

music or using other electronic devices outdoors was third,

followed by playing or practicing team sports and reading/

studying outdoors. Of the outdoor activities we asked about as

being favorites, just playing or hanging out (24 percent) and

playing or practicing team sports (21 percent) were ranked at

the top. Next at a not-too-distant third was biking, jogging,

walking, skating, etc., as a group of similar activities. Other

activity groups for which 5 percent or more selected the

activity as their favorite were swimming, diving, snorkeling,

etc.; and riding motorcycles, ATVs, or other off-road vehicles.

Over the last two decades the number of 16 year old and

older hunters has declined by 11 percent. This estimate

of a trend is based on the Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation Survey. Yet programs aimed at

engaging youth hunters may be paying off, especially in the

number of young female hunters. The number of girls 6 to

15 years old who hunt has nearly doubled between 1991 and

2006. The number of boy hunters 6 to 15 years old has stayed

level during this same time period.

The National Kids Survey also showed that interest in

music, art, reading, and similar uses of time was the highest

percentage reason given by females for not spending more

higher among males, non-Hispanic Whites, late teenagers

to middle-aged people, people with high school to some

college education, middle-to-high-income people, and

rural residents.

Participation in non-motorized boating activities was

higher relative to the general population for males, nonHispanic Whites, people ages 16 to 44, people with college

to postgraduate education, high-middle to high income

people, urban residents, and native born. Snow skiing and

snowboarding participation was higher relative to the general

population for males, non-Hispanic Whites, people ages 16

to 34, people with college to post graduate education, people

earning more than $75,000 annually, and urban residents.

From the studies of Latinos in southern California, as

reported above by Chavez, we learned that Latinos have

many of the same recreation needs as other groups. But we

also learned that there are some differences. One difference

is that many Latinos report having only one day off from

work per week, and, as a result, are primarily day use

visitors. Also, there is a strong desire by Latinos for family

time and family bonding when recreating outdoors. In

addition, communication is a key to better serving Latinos

at outdoor recreation sites. Further, development needs of

Latino visitors seem to be somewhat different and include

larger picnic tables, grouping tables, and providing trash

receptacles to accommodate larger groups.

Regional Differences in Nature-based Participation

In addition to comparing percentage of participants and of

population within each demographic strata, percentages of

participants and population within each region strata for the

seven activity groups were compared. These comparisons

showed that for the activity group of visiting recreation and

historic sites, participation was highest in the North Region

and lowest in the South. For backcountry activities, the

participation rate was highest in the Rocky Mountain and

Pacific Coast Regions and lowest in the South. For motorized

activities, participation was highest in the Rocky Mountain

Region. Participation in hunting and fishing activities was

highest in the South and Rocky Mountain Regions and

lowest in the North and Pacific Coast Regions. Participation

in non-motor boating was highest in the North and Pacific

Coast Regions, and lowest in the South. For snow skiing,

participation was highest in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific

Coast Regions, next highest in the North, and by far lowest

in the South. Also compared were participation in natural

forest, non-forest natural, and non-natural other settings. 

Generally, a very high proportion of participation occurs

in forested settings across all of the nature-based activity
128

Summary

percent of the land. Leasing, particularly for hunting, was

common in many parts of the country.

From the Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation

National Survey, estimates were produced concerning hunting

and wildlife watching participation occurring on public and

private lands. These estimates showed that in 2006, 12.5

million hunters 16 years old and older hunted. Of this number,

39 percent, or 4.9 million, hunted on publicly owned lands,

while 82 percent, or 10.2 million, hunted on privately owned

land. (Again, the distinction between the National Fishing,

Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Survey and

NSRE surveys is that the former focuses only on outings where

fishing, hunting, or wildlife watching was the primary reason

for the outings. The NSRE measures participation in activities

whether or not it was the primary motivation.)

Nearly a third of the U.S. population 16 years old and older

enjoyed wildlife watching as a primary activity in 2006. 

These activities are categorized as around the home (within

a mile of home) or away from home (at least one mile

from home). In 2006, publicly owned lands were the most

popular destination for people taking trips away from home

to observe, feed, or photograph wildlife. Approximately

80 percent of all away-from-home wildlife watchers went

to public areas, while just 38 percent visited private areas. 

About 27 percent of trip-taking wildlife watchers visited both

public and private land.

Visits to various units of the National Park System have

been relatively stable over the last several years. The lowest

reported visitation was in 1996 and 2003 (266 million

visits), while the highest reported visitation was between

1998 through 2000 and again in 2009 (286 to 287 million). 

Visitation at National Wildlife Refuges and other areas

managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has shown

fairly steady growth between 1996 and 2009, with some

flattening in the early and mid-2000s. From a low of 30

million in 1996 to 43 million in 2009, annual growth has

averaged approximately 1 million visitors per year. Visitation

at Bureau of Land Management areas has been relatively

stable over the years. Bureau of Land Management visitation

in 1996 was generally the same as in 2009. The Forest

Service reported that visitation to National Forests has been

declining from an estimated 214 million visits in 2001 to 174

million visits in 2009. Both the Bureau of Land Management

and the Forest Service manage extensive acreages and thus

much of the recreation use of their lands occurs on sites with

very little development. State parks are typically much more

developed and are usually closer to where people live. State

park visitation is over 80 percent of the level of visitation to

all Federal lands on which visitation is recorded. State park

time outdoors. Participating in video games, and watching

DVDs and television was the highest percentage reason

for males. For females, the second highest reason was

interest in the Internet, text messaging, and related social

networking, while for males it was music, art, reading, and

related interests. Much lower percentages of youth ages 6

to 9 indicated not spending more time outdoors because of

Internet use, messaging, indoor sports, hanging out, and lack

of transportation. Higher percentages of children ages 10

to 12 indicated music and art, video games/DVDs/TV, poor

access to outdoor areas, and safety as reasons.

Recreation on Public and Private Land

Percentages of days in visiting recreation and historic sites

that occur on public land are substantial in both the East and

the West. In the East, days of participation in these activities

on public land is substantially higher (60 percent) than that

which occurs on private land. In the West, over 60 percent of

days of viewing and photographing nature activity occur on

public land. In both the East and West, around three-fourths

of backcountry activity days occur on public lands, where

access is more easily gained and where there are typically

more miles of trails. An estimated 46 percent of motorized

activities occur on public lands in the East; 59 percent occurs

on public lands in the West. In the East, close to 43 percent

of hunting occurs on public forest lands; in the West, almost

57 percent occurs on public lands. Fifty-seven percent in the

East and 67 percent in the West of cross-country skiing is

estimated to occur on public lands.

In the East, days of activity on private land (all private

ownerships) across the six activity groups ranged from a

low of 28 percent for backcountry activities to a high of 57

percent for hunting. The estimates show that over half of

motorized land activities also occur on private lands. In the

West, where there is proportionately less private land relative

to public land, between 22 percent (backcountry activities)

and 43 percent (hunting) of activity days occurred on private

lands. The percentage of motorized activity in the West (41

percent) was almost as large as the percentage of hunting on

private land in that region. As with activity on public lands in

the West, the total number of activity days on private lands in

the East across the six activity groups was nearly four times

the number in the West. When family or individual owners

were asked specifically about recreation on their own land, a

third of the owners, who control just over half of the family

forest land in the United States, reported that they, their

family, and/or friends had recently, within the past 5 years,

recreated on their land. A far smaller percentage of private

forest land was open to and used by the general public. 

Posting land to prevent public access occurred on over 40
129

Summary

Projections of Future Trends

Results from the analysis of recent trends described in

chapter 4 and other chapters clearly indicated emerging

changes in what the people of the United States chose as

outdoor recreation. Chapter 8 focuses on where future trends

might take us. Generally, all of the 17 outdoor recreation

activities or activity aggregates are projected to grow in the

number of participants out to 2060. Population growth is

projected to push growth in number of adult participants

under each assessment scenario.

Per capita participation—The five outdoor recreation

activities projected to grow fastest in per capita participation

over the next 50 years are developed skiing (20 to 50

percent), undeveloped skiing (9 to 31 percent), challenge

activities (6 to 18 percent), equestrian activities (3 to 19

percent), and motorized water activities (-3 to 15 percent). 

At the same time, a number of activities are projected to

decline in per capita adult participation rates. These include

visiting primitive areas (0 to -5 percent), motorized off-road

activities (0 to -18 percent), motorized snow activities (2 to

-11 percent), hunting (-22 to -31 percent), fishing (-3 to -10

percent), and floating activities (3 to -11 percent). Growth of

per capita participation rates for the remaining activities will

hover around zero or grow minimally.

Participant numbers—The top five activities in terms of

growth of number of participants are developed skiing (68

to 147 percent), undeveloped skiing (55 to 106 percent),

day hiking (50 to 88 percent), equestrian activities (44 to 87

percent), and challenge activities (50 to 86 percent) (table

9.1). Among the lowest rates of participant number growth

are visiting primitive areas (33 to 65 percent), motorized offroad activities (29 to 56 percent), motorized snow activities

(25 to 61 percent), hunting (8 to 23 percent), fishing (27 to

56 percent), and floating activities (30 to 62 percent). It is

unlikely that activities with already high participation levels

(e.g., viewing nature) will show large percentage increases

in participant numbers; however, small percentage increases

in already highly popular activities can mean quite large

increases in participants.

Assessment scenarios—The assessment scenarios drive

activity participation projections in two ways. First, all

estimates are population driven which means that A2, with

the largest projected population growth, often produced

the greatest increase in participant numbers. However,

high population growth in some areas influenced per capita

participation negatively in many of the activity models. As

well, supply variables, such as water area and land area, were

associated with decreases in per capita participation as per

visitation grew pretty steadily from 1992 up through 2000

then declined until 2005. Since 2005, state park visitation

increased through 2008 before dipping again in 2009.

Alaska is a special case regarding visitation to public lands. 

In this state, cruise ship visitors constitute the majority

of visitors to national forests. Estimates indicate that the

number of independent visitors to Alaska national forests has

remained fairly constant in the past decade. Most cruise ship

passengers on excursions, other non-residents, and even many

residents visit national forests with commercial recreation

providers. There are currently 398 permitted outfitters and

guides in the Alaska Region. In the short term, cruise ship

visitation is projected to decrease. Projections for 2010 and

2011 are for fewer dockings and fewer ships coming to

Alaska ports, which will decrease visitation to both southeast

and south-central Alaska destinations by 10 to 30 percent.

Constraints and Motivations

Two other important topics concerning outdoor recreation

were covered in this report.

Constraints—Public lands, natural resources, and

recreational facilities are there, in part, for the enjoyment,

benefit, and recreational participation of all. However, this

national research has shown that some segments of our

society feel more constrained than others from participating

in outdoor recreation. Past images of our parks have featured

a particular genre of signage, pictures, displays, facilities,

programs, services offered, management personnel, and

languages spoken. These past images may play a large role

in how people today perceive their freedom or feeling of

welcome to use those parks. This historic context might

partly explain why immigrants new to this country perceive

fewer constraints to outdoor recreation.

Motivations—From another NSRE national study, we saw

that there are different reasons why people seek different

forms of outdoor recreation. For hiking, the most important

motivations, in order of importance, are to be outdoors, to

experience nature, to get away from the demands of everyday

life, and to have physical exercise or training. For camping

the most important motivations, in order of importance,

are to be outdoors, to get away from the everyday demands

of life, and to experience nature. For sightseeing, the most

important motivation is to be with family, and the other

two are to be outdoors and to get away from the everyday

demands of life. For walking, the motivations are to be

outdoors, contribution to health, physical exercise or training,

and to get away from the demands of everyday life.
130

Summary

including Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians were almost always

less likely than non-Hispanic Whites to participate in the

various activities. Respondents claiming non-Hispanic

American Indian identity were more likely than Whites to

participate in activities such as hunting and fishing, motorized

off-road, motorized snow, hiking, equestrian, and viewing.

Education beyond high school resulted in higher

participation probabilities for most activities. The greater

the education level, the more likely one would participate

in birding, non-motorized winter activities, backcountry

activities, and viewing activities. However, for fishing and

hunting, motorized off-road, and motorized snow activities,

more education lowered the probability of participation. 

Finally, income was positively associated with participation

across all activities. However, for some activities such as

birding, hiking, and hunting the effect was small, while for

others, such as developed skiing and motorized water use,

the effect was large.

capita land and water areas declined with population growth. 

In most cases, the difference was not enough to offset

population growth’s overall influence.

Another important difference emerging in the per capita

participation modeling was the effect of income on certain

activities like developed skiing, challenge activities,

equestrian activities, hunting, and motorized activities. In

virtually all these cases, the growth in income under scenario

A1B was enough to offset the population growth difference

between A2 and A1B, leading to higher rates of growth in

participants for A1B.

Gender, ethnicity, education, and income—Males are

more apt to participate in backcountry activities, hunting

and fishing, motorized activities, non-motorized winter

activities, and floating than females. Females are more likely

to participate in the viewing activities, swimming, equestrian,

and visiting developed sites. As with gender, ethnicity is

important in its influence on participation. Major minorities

Table 9.1—Number of participants in 2008 and projected range of percent growth by 2060 across the 

three RPA scenarios 

Activity 

Number of 

participants in 

2008 

Range of 

percentage 

growth 

thousands 

Developed Skiing - downhill skiing or snowboarding 23,729 68.2-146.8 

Undeveloped Skiing - cross-country skiing or snowshoeing 7,778 54.8-105.8 

Day Hiking 78,256 50.1-87.9 

Equestrian Activities - horseback riding on trails 16,393 44.4-86.5 

Challenge Activities - mountain climbing, rock climbing, or caving 25,134 50.2-86.1 

Swimming Activities - screener variable for swimming activities 143,204 47.2-84.7 

Visiting Interpretive Sites - visiting nature centers, prehistoric sites, historic 

 sites, etc. 157,403 47.7-84.0 

Birding - viewing or photographing birds 81,449 46.0-81.4 

Motorized Water Use - motorboating, waterskiing, or using personal 

watercraft 61,960 40.8-81.4 

Developed Site Use - family gatherings, picnicking, or developed Camping 192,739 41.9-76.7 

Viewing Nature - viewing orphotographing birds, other wildlife, natural 

scenery, flowers, etc. or gathering mushrooms, berries, etc. 189,418 41.7-76.2 

Visiting Primitive Areas - visiting a wilderness, primitive camping, or 

backpacking 90,164 33.5-65.3 

Floating Activities - canoeing, kayaking, or rafting 39,800 30.0-62.1 

Motorized Snow Use - snowmobiling 9,440 24.8-61.3 

Fishing - coldwater fishing, warmwater fishing, saltwater fishing, or 

anadromous fishing 72,714 27.7-56.4 

Motorized Off-Road Activities – off-road driving 47,937 29.1-56.3

Hunting - screener variable for all hunting activities 27,909 7.8-22.8 

Source: Tables 8.3 to 8.19.
131

Aknowledgments / Literature Cited

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author expresses sincere appreciation for the hard

work and diligence of two Southern Research Station

employees. Carter Betz managed data acquisition, statistical

programming and analysis, and provided writing assistance

and technical reviews. He was instrumental in setting up

and executing analysis of data from the National Survey on

Recreation and the Environment and in creating the original

tabulations. Shela Mou assisted with chasing down details

and in setting up the report and its format. Without these

individuals, this report as you see it would not have been

possible. The author would like also to thank reviewers Dr. 

Michelle Haefele with The Wilderness Society, Colorado;

Dr. Jeffrey Hallo with Clemson University, South Carolina;

and Dr. Linda Langner, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service, Washington, DC. Dr. Langner is the overall

Forest Service coordinator for the 2010 RPAAssessment. 

The reviewers’ thorough and thoughtful reviews have

greatly improved this report. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Alaska Travel Industry Association (ATIA). 2007. 2007 annual

report. [Brochure]. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Travel Industry

Association. [Not paged].

Alaska Travel Industry Association (ATIA). 2008. 2008 annual

report. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Travel Industry Association. 19 p.

Arnold, M.L.; Shinew, K.J. 1998. The role of gender, race, and

income on park use constraints. Journal of Park and Recreation

Administration. 16(4): 39-56. 

Bowker, J.M. 2001. Outdoor recreation participation and use

by Alaskans: projections 2000-2020. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-527. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 28 p. 

Bowker, J.M.; English, D.B.K.; Cordell, H.K. 1999. Outdoor

recreation participation and consumption: projections 2000 to

2050. In: Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C.J.; Bowker, J.M. [and others]. 

Outdoor recreation in American life: a national assessment of

demand and supply trends. Champagne, IL: Sagamore Press, Inc.:

323-350. 

Bowker, J.M.; Murphy, D.; Cordell, H.K. [and others]. 2006. 

Wilderness and primitive area recreation participation and

consumption: an examination of demographic and spatial factors. 

Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 38(2): 317-326.

Bryce, J.; Rutter, J. 2003. Gender dynamics and the social and

spatial organization of computer gaming. Leisure Studies. 22(1):

1-15.

Burch, W.R. 1965. The play world of camping: research into

the social meaning of outdoor recreation. American Journal of

Sociology. 70(5): 604-612.

Butler, B.J. 2008. Family forest owners of the United States, 2006. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-27. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 72 p.

Cerveny, L.K. 2005. Tourism and its effects on southeast Alaska

communities and resources: case studies from Haines, Craig, and

Hoonah, Alaska. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-566. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 147 p.

Chambliss, K.; Slotkin, M.H.; Vamosi, A.R. 2003. The economic

impact of the centennial celebration and Pelican Island Wildlife

Festival. Melbourne, FL: Florida Institute of Technology. 16 p.

Chambliss, K.; Slotkin, M.H.; Vamosi, A.R. 2009. The Space

Coast Birding & Wildlife Festival 2009: economic impact report

& demographic profile. Brevard County, FL: The Brevard Nature

Alliance. 41 p.

Chavez, D.J. 1993. Visitor perceptions of crowding and

discrimination at two national forests in southern California. Res. 

Pap. PSW-216. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 17 p.

Chavez, D.J. 2001. Managing outdoor recreation in California:

visitor contact studies 1989-1998. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-180. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service,

Pacific Southwest Research Station. 100 p.

Chavez, D.J. 2002. Adaptive management in outdoor recreation:

serving Hispanics in southern California. Western Journal of

Applied Forestry. 17(3): 129-133.

Chavez, D.J. 2003. Mexican-American recreation: home,

community and natural environments. Proceedings of the

Hawaii international conference on social sciences. [CD ROM]. 

Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii.

Chavez, D.J.; Olson, D.D. 2009. Opinions of Latino outdoor

recreation visitors at four urban national forests. Environmental

Practice. Environmental Practice. 11(4): 263-269.

Chavez, D.J.; Schneider, I.; Powell, T. 2004. The socialpsychology of a technology driven outdoor trend: geocaching in

the USA. In: Hawaii International Conference on Social Sciences. 

http://www.hicsocial.org/SOC04.pdf. [Date accessed: September

10, 2010].

Cicchetti, C.J. 1973. Forecasting recreation in the United States. 

Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company. 200 p.

Clark, W.R. 1987. Economics and marketing of ‘Canada's

Capistrano’. In: Diamond, A.W.; Filion, F.L., eds. The value of

birds. ICBP Tech. Pub. No. 6. Cambridge, UK: International

Council for Bird Preservation: 31-48.

Cordell, H.K. 2008. The latest on trends in nature-based outdoor

recreation. Forest History Today. Spring: 4-10.
132

Literature Cited

Fix, P.J. 2009. Alaska residents statistics program final report. 

Fairbanks, AK: University of Alaska Fairbanks, School of Natural

Resources and Agricultural Sciences, Department of Resources

Management. 287 p.

Florida Birding Festival and Nature Expo. 2000. Birds of a

feather boost county’s economy. American City & County. 

115(4): 76.

Garst, B.A.; Williams, D.R.; Roggenbuck, J.W. 2010. Exploring

modern developed forest camping experiences and meanings: what

difference does 40 years make? Leisure Sciences. 32(1): 90-107.

Getz, D. 1997. Event management & event tourism. New York:

Cognizant Communication Corporation. 439 p.

Godbey, G. 1985. Leisure in your life. State College, PA: Venture

Publishing, Inc. 304 p.

Green, P. 2003. Fair for Fowl: You can see it all at the British

Birdwatching Fair. http://www.birdfair.org.uk/index.

php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56&Itemid=36. 

[Date accessed: September 14, 2010].

Hall, T.E.; Heaton, H.; Kruger, L.E. 2009. Outdoor recreation in

the Pacific Northwest and Alaska: trends in activity participation. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW–778. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

108 p.

Hendee, J.C.; Campbell, F.L. 1969. Social aspects of outdoor

recreation—the developed campground. Trends in Parks and

Recreation. 10: 13-16.

Hendee, J.C.; Harris, R.W. 1970. Forester perception of

wilderness user attitudes and preferences. Journal of Forestry. 68:

759-762.

Hodur, N.M.; Leistritz, F.L.; Wolfe, K. 2004. Characteristics and

expenditures of participants in the potholes and prairie birding

festival. Fargo, ND: Agricultural Experiment Station, North

Dakota State University. 18 p.

Hof, J.G.; Kaiser, H.F. 1983a. Long term outdoor recreation

participation projections for public land management agencies. 

Journal of Leisure Research. 15(1): 1-14.

Hof, J.G.; Kaiser, H.F. 1983b. Projections of future forest

recreation use. Resour. Bull. WO-2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 12 p.

Holman, T.B.; Jacquart, M. 1988. Leisure-activity patterns and

marital satisfaction: a further test. Journal of Marriage and the

Family. 50: 69-77.

Holman, T.B.; Epperson, A. 1984. Family and leisure: a review of

the literature with research recommendations. Journal of Leisure

Research. 16: 277-294.

Holt, D.; Smith, T.M.F. 1979. Post-stratification. Journal of the

Royal Statistical Society. A-142: 33-46.

Hvenegaard, G.T.; Manaloor, V. 2004. Current and potential

expenditure patterns of birding festival participants. Recent

Advances and Research Updates. 5(1): 47-60.

Cordell, H.K.; Bergstrom, J.C. 1991. A methodology for assessing

national outdoor recreation demand and supply trends. Leisure

Sciences. 13(1): 1-20.

Cordell, H.K.; Bergstrom, J.C.; Hartmann, L.A.; English, 

D.B.K. 1990. An analysis of the outdoor recreation and

wilderness situation in the United States: 1989-2040. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RM–189. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 112 p.

Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C.J.; Bowker, J.M. [and others]. 1999. 

Outdoor recreation in American life: a national assessment of

demand and supply trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing. 

449 p.

Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C.J.; Green, G.T. 2008. Nature-based

outdoor recreation trends and wilderness. International Journal of

Wilderness. 14(2): 7-13.

Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C.J.; Green, G.T. [and others]. 2004. 

Outdoor recreation for 21st century America. State College, PA:

Venture Publishing, Inc. 293 p.

Decray, S.; Green, P.; Payne, R.H. 1998. The birding festival: an

opportunity waiting. Birding December: 525-526.

DiGregorio, L. 2002. Birding festivals beckon. Birding. 34(1): 77.

Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design

method (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley. 464 p.

Dugan, D.; Fay, G.; Colt, S. 2006. Nature-based tourism in

southeast Alaska: results from 2005 and 2006 field study. 

Anchorage, AK: University of Alaska Anchorage and EcoSystems, Institute of Social and Economic Research. 67 p.

Englin, J.; Shonkwiler, J.S. 1995. Estimating social welfare using

count data models: an application to long-run recreation demand

under conditions of endogenous stratification and truncation. The

Review of Economics and Statistics. 77(1): 104-112.

English, D.B.K.; Betz, C.J.; Young, J.M. [and others]. 1993. 

Regional demand and supply projections for outdoor recreation. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RM–230. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station. 39 p.

Etzkorn, P.K. 1964. Leisure and camping: the social meaning of

a form of public recreation. Society and Social Research. 49:

76-89.

Eubanks, T.; Stoll, J.R. 1999. Avitourism in Texas. https://secure.

filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8972638d5b5e71759cae. [Date

accessed: September 10, 2010].

Fennell, D.A.; Weaver, D. 2005. The ecotourism concept and

tourism-conservation symbiosis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 

13: 373-390.

Fermata, Inc. 2001. A survey of two California nature festivals. 

https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=	

8972638d60677179a29b. [Date accessed: September 10, 2010].
133

Literature Cited

Martinson, A.M.; Schwartz, N.; Vaughan, M.W. 2002. Women’s

experiences of leisure: implications for design. New Media &

Society. 4(1): 29-49.

McDowell Group. 2009. Alaska visitor statistics program V interim

visitor volume report, Fall/Winter 2008-09. http://www.dced.

state.ak.us/oed/toubus/pub/AVSP_Fall_Winter 2007-08.pdf. 

[Date accessed: September 13, 2010].

Measells, M.K.; Grado, S.C. 2007. Economic impacts of two

birding festivals in Mississippi. In: Proceedings of the Southern

Forest Economics Workshop 2007, Global Change and Forestry,

Economic and Policy Implications. San Antonio, TX: Southern

Forests Economic Workers: 142-149.

O’Hara, K. 2008. Understanding geocaching practices and

motivations. http://www.ict.csiro.au/staff/kenton.ohara/papers/

geocaching_chi.pdf. [Date accessed: September 13, 2010].

Orthner, D.K. 1975. Leisure activity patterns and marital

satisfaction over the marital career. Journal of Marriage and

Family. 37(7): 91-102.

Orthner, D.K. 1976. Patterns of leisure and marital interaction. 

Journal of Leisure Research. 8(2): 98-111. 

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC). 

1962. Outdoor recreation for America. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 246 p.

Outdoor Resources Review Group (ORRG). 2009. The State of

the Great Outdoors. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future. 

97 p.

President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors (PCAO). 1986. 

Report and recommendations to the President of the United States. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 210 p.

Polson, J. 1993. Flocking effect: small towns learn to love birders

who descend on "hot spots." American Birds. 47(5): 1062 1070.

Robbins, E. 2003. Driving them wild. Planning. 69(11): 18-21.

Romero, A.; Stangel, P. 1996. Festival birding. Wildbird. January:

34-39.

Saenz, R. 2004. Latinos and the changing face of America. New

York: Russell Sage Foundation. 28 p.

SAS Institute Inc. 2004. SAS/STAT® 9.1 user’s guide. Cary, NC:

SAS Institute Inc. 5121 p.

Schumacher, P.; Morahan-Martin, J. 2001. Internet and computer

experiences related? Gender differences. Computers and Human

Behavior. 17: 92-110.

Scott, J.K.; Johnson, T.G. 2003. Bowling alone but online

together: social capital in e-communities. Journal of the

Community Development Society. 36(1): 1-18.

Shafer, E.L., Jr. 1969. The average camper who doesn't exist. 

Res. Pap. NE-142. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture Forest Service, Northeast Research Station. 27 p.

Hvenegaard, G.T.; Manaloor, V. 2007. A comparative approach to

analyzing local expenditures and visitor profiles of two wildlife

festivals. Event Management. 10: 231-239.

Imber-Black, E. 2001. The new triangle: couples and technology. 

In: Papp, P., ed. Couples on the fault line. New York: Guilford

Publications: 48-62.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. 

Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/

assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf. [Date accessed: September

29, 2010].

Jacobs, M.H.; Manfredo, M.J. 2008. Decline in nature-based

recreation is not evident. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Science. 105(27): E40.

Jenner, M.L. 2003. Brant wildlife festival visitor survey analysis. 

Unpublished report. Nanaimo, BC: Matt Jenner & Associates. 

Johnson, C.Y.; Bowker, J.M.; Cordell, H.K. 2001. Outdoor

recreation constraints: an examination of race, gender, and rural

dwelling. Southern Rural Sociology. 17: 111-133.

Joyce, L.A.; Price, D.T.; Coulson, D.P. [and others]. In

preparation. Projecting climate change in the United States: A

technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA

Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-XXX. Fort Collins,

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station. XX p.

Kim, C.; Scott, D.; Thigpen, J.F.; Kim, S.-S. 1998. Economic

impact of a birding festival. Festival Management and Event

Tourism. 5: 51-58.

King, D.A. 1966. Activity patterns of campers. http://ncrs.fs.fed.us/

pubs/rn/rn_nc018.pdf. [Date accessed: September 13, 2010].

Kingsmill, S. 1988. Swallowtown: Pembroke, Ontario, the San Juan

Capistrano of the North. Birder's World. 2(1): 10-13.

Lawton, L.J. 2009. Birding festivals, sustainability and ecotourism:

an ambiguous relationship. Journal of Travel Research. 48(2):

259-267.

Leeworthy, V.R.; Bowker, J.M.; Hospital, J.D.; Stone, E.A. 

2005. Projected participation in marine recreation: 2005 and

2010. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/21306. [Date accessed:

September 7, 2010].

Lynch, T.; Harrington, J. 2003. The economic impact of the

Florida Wakulla Springs birding and wildflower festival. 

Tallahassee, FL: Center for Economic Forecasting and Analysis. 

17 p.

Lynch, T.; Harrington, J.; Chambliss, K. [and others]. 2003. The

economic impact of the 2nd annual Florida panhandle birding

and wildflower festival. Tallahassee, FL: Center for Economic

Forecasting and Analysis. 22 p.

Marin, G.; Marin, B.V. 1991. Research with Hispanic populations. 

Applied Social Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications. 144 p. Vol. 23.
134

Literature Cited

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. 2000

Census of Population and Housing. Summary File 1. U.S. Census

Bureau. Retrieved on February 1, 2012, from http://www.census.

gov/census2000/sumfile1.html. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2004. We the

people: Hispanics in the United States. http://www.census.gov/

prod/2004pubs/censr-18.pdf. [Date accessed: September 13, 2010].

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2008. 

Population Estimates Program, Vintage 2008. U.S. Census

Bureau. Retrieved on February 1, 2012, from http://www.census.

gov/popest/data/historical/2000s/vintage_2008/index.html. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2007. 2006

National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated

Recreation. http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-nat.

pdf. [Date accessed: September 13, 2010].

U.S. Department of the Interior, USDA. 2009. Federal lands

recreation enhancement act, second triennial report to Congress. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/passespermits/docs/accomps/wo-rptcongress/2009-00-rea-triennial-report.pdf. [Date accessed:

September 9, 2010].

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1986. 

1982-1983 Nationwide Recreation Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 95 p.

Walsh, R.G.; Jon, K.H.; McKean, J.R.; Hof, J. 1992. Effect of

price on forecasts of participation in fish and wildlife recreation:

an aggregate demand model. Journal of Leisure Research. 24(2):

140-156.

Wear, D.N. 2011. Forecasts of county-level land uses under three

future scenarios: a technical document supporting the Forest

Service 2010 RPA assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–141. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service,

Southern Research Station. 41 p.

Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2007. Complete economic and

demographic data source [database]. Washington, DC: Woods &

Poole Economics, Inc.

Wright, T. 2003. Geocaching: trees as treasure. American Forests. 

109(2): 7-9.

Wunder, S. 2000. Ecotourism and economic incentives—an

empirical approach. Ecological Economics. 32(3): 465-479.

Zarnoch, S.J.; Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C.J.; Langner, L. 2010. Projecting

county-level populations under three future scenarios:Atechnical

documentsupporting the Forest Service 2010 RPAAssessment. 

e-Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-128. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 8 p. 

Zhang, L.C. 2000. Post-stratification and calibration—a synthesis. 

American Statistician. 54(3): 178-184.

Shinew, K.J.; Stodolska, M.; Floyd, M. [and others]. 2006. Race

and ethnicity in leisure behavior: where have we been and where

do we need to go? Leisure Sciences. 28(4): 403-408. 

Souter, R.A.; Bowker, J.M. 1996. A note on nonlinearity bias and

dichotomous choice cvm: implications for aggregate benefits

estimation. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review. 25(1):

54-59.

Stodolska, M. 1998. Assimilation and leisure constraints: dynamics

of constraints on leisure in immigrant populations. Journal of

Leisure Research. (30)4: 521-551.

The Outdoor Foundation. 2004. Exploring the active lifestyle,

2004. Retrieved on September 13, 2010, from http://www.

outdoorfoundation.org/research.activelifestyle.html. [Date

accessed: September 13, 2010].

The Outdoor Foundation. 2009. Outdoor recreation participation

report 2009. http://www.outdoorfoundation.org/pdf/Research	

Participation2009.pdf. [Date accessed: September 13, 2010].

Thomsen, I.; Halmoy, A. 1998. Combining data from surveys

and administrative record systems: the Norwegian experience. 

International Statistical Review. 66 (2): 201-221.

Tierney, P.T.; Dahl, R.F.; Chavez, D.J. 1998. Cultural diversity of

Los Angeles County residents using undeveloped natural areas. 

Res. Pap. PSW–236. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 76 p.

Tilin, A.; Grudowski, M. 1997. Dynomite! A visual history of

all the gear we couldn’t- and still can’t- do without. Outside. 

October: 132-139.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 1978. 

Outdoor recreation and wilderness. In: The nation’s renewable

resources—an assessment, 1975. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 55-108 p. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995. National Survey on Recreation and

the Environment, 1994-95 [database]. Stored at USDA Forest

Service, Greatest Good for the 21st Century (SRS-4953), 320

Green Street, Athens, GA 30602.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. 1999-2000 National survey on

recreation and the environment. http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/trends/

nsre.html. [Date accessed: September 13, 2010].

USDA Forest Service. 2001. National Survey on Recreation and

the Environment, 1999-2001 [database]. Stored at USDA Forest

Service, Greatest Good for the 21st Century (SRS-4953), 320

Green Street, Athens, GA 30602.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. National Survey on Recreation and

the Environment, 2005-09 [database]. Stored at USDA Forest

Service, Greatest Good for the 21st Century (SRS-4953), 320

Green Street, Athens, GA 30602.
135

Appendix

APPENDIX Appendix table 1—Trends in millions of people ages 16 and older participating in 33 outdoor recreation activities by historic period in the United States, 1982 to 2001 1982-1983 1994-1995 1999-2001 2005-2009 Trend 

Activity 

Percent 

participating

Total 

participants 

Percent 

participating

Total 

participants 

Percent 

participating

Total 

participants 

Percent 

participating

Total 

participants 

Percent 

change in 

participants, 

1982-83 to 

2005-09 

Change in 

number of 

participants, 

1982-83 to 

2005-09 

----millions---- ----millions----- ----millions----- ----millions----- -----millions----- 

Walk for 

pleasure 53.0 91.9 68.8 138.5 82.0 175.6 85.0 200.0 117.6 108.1 

View/ 

photograph birds 12.0 20.8 27.0 54.3 32.0 68.5 35.7 84.1 304.2 63.3 

Attend outdoor 

sports events 40.0 69.4 49.0 98.6 50.2 107.5 53.7 126.3 82.0 56.9 

Day hiking 14.0 24.3 26.6 53.6 32.3 69.1 33.9 79.8 228.2 55.5 

Visit nature 

centers, etc. 50.0 86.7 55.1 110.9 56.5 121.0 56.6 133.3 53.7 46.6 

Attend outdoor 

concerts, plays, etc. 25.0 43.4 35.2 70.9 40.7 87.2 37.5 88.1 103.1 44.7 

Sightseeing 46.0 79.8 58.4 117.5 50.9 109.0 52.7 123.9 55.3 44.1 

Swimming in 

lakes, streams, etc. 32.0 55.5 43.4 87.4 40.0 85.5 41.5 97.5 75.8 42.0 

Picnicking 48.0 83.3 55.7 112.1 55.3 118.3 51.7 121.6 46.0 38.3 

Driving for 

pleasure 48.0 83.3 – – 50.4 107.9 51.2 120.5 44.6 37.2 

Running or 

jogging 26.0 45.1 28.2 56.7 30.9 66.2 34.2 80.4 78.2 35.3 

Boating 28.0 48.6 37.8 76.2 35.1 75.0 35.5 83.5 71.9 34.9 

Bicycling 32.0 55.5 38.7 77.8 38.3 81.9 37.5 88.3 59.1 32.8 

Drive off-road 11.0 19.1 17.8 35.9 16.8 36.0 20.6 48.4 153.5 29.3 

Swimming in 

an outdoor pool 43.0 74.6 49.2 99.1 39.7 85.0 43.3 102.0 36.7 27.4 

Continued on next page
136

Appendix 1982-1983 1994-1995 1999-2001 2005-2009 Trend 

Activity 

Percent 

participating

Total 

participants 

Percent 

participating

Total 

participants 

Percent 

participating

Total 

participants 

Percent 

participating

Total 

participants 

Percent 

change in 

participants, 

1982-83 to 

2005-09 

Change in 

number of 

participants, 

1982-83 to 

2005-09 

----millions---- ----millions----- ----millions----- ----millions----- -----millions----- 

Developed 

camping 17.0 29.5 23.1 46.5 25.9 55.3 23.8 56 89.7 26.5 

Motorboating 19.0 33 29.6 59.5 23.7 50.7 23.4 55 66.7 22.0 

Fishing 34.0 59 35.0 70.4 33.5 71.6 34.2 80.4 36.2 21.4 

Outdoor team 

sports 24.0 41.6 29.1 58.6 21.4 45.9 26.6 62.5 50.2 20.9 

Primitive 

camping 10.0 17.3 15.6 31.4 15.5 33.1 14.5 34.1 97.4 16.8 

Canoeing or 

kayaking 8.0 13.9 9.5 19.2 10.7 23.0 12.9 30.4 118.6 16.5 

Sledding 10.0 17.3 13.7 27.7 14.4 30.8 13.6 32.0 85.1 14.7 

Backpacking 5.0 8.7 8.4 17.0 10.0 21.5 9.9 23.2 166.6 14.5 Golf 13.0 22.6 17.3 34.9 16.5 35.3 15.2 35.9 58.8 13.3 

Hunting 12.0 20.8 12.5 25.3 11.0 23.6 11.9 28.0 34.5 7.2 

Horseback 

riding 9.0 15.6 10.3 20.7 9.3 19.8 9.1 21.5 37.8 5.9 

Waterskiing 9.0 15.6 11.3 22.7 7.5 16.0 9.0 21.3 36.3 5.7 

Downhill skiing 6.0 10.4 11.3 22.8 8.1 17.4 6.8 15.9 53.2 5.5 

Snowmobiling 3.0 5.2 4.8 9.6 5.3 11.3 4.5 10.7 105.3 5.5 Ice skating 

outdoors 6.0 10.4 7.1 14.2 6.3 13.6 5.1 12.0 15.3 1.6 

Cross country 

skiing 3.0 5.2 4.4 8.8 3.6 7.8 2.6 6.1 17.0 0.9 

Sailing 6.0 10.4 6.0 12.1 4.9 10.4 4.4 10.4 0.0 0.0 

Tennis 

outdoors 17.0 29.5 14 28.2 9.8 20.9 10.0 23.5 -20.3 -6.0 

Appendix table 1 (continued)

Note: The numbers in this table are annual participation estimates based on data collected during the four time periods. 1982-1983 participants based on 173.5 million people ages 16+ (U.S. Department of the Interior 1986), 1994-1995 participants based on 201.3 million people ages 16+ (Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2007). 1999-2001 participants based on 214.0 million people ages 16+ (U.S. Department of Commerce 2000). 2005-2009 participants based on 235.3 million people ages 16+ (U.S. Department of Commerce 2008). Missing 

data are denoted with “—“ and indicate that participation data for that activity were not collected during that time period. 

Source: NRS 1982-1983 (n=5,757), USDA Forest Service (1995) (n=17,217), USDA Forest Service (2001) (n=52,607), and USDA Forest Service (2009) (n=30,398). 
137

Appendix

Appendix table 2—Percent participating and number of participants ages 16 and older in outdoor recreation activities by region, 2005-2009 

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast United States 

Activity Percent Participants Percent Participants Percent Participants Percent Participants Percent Participants 

 thousands thousands thousands thousands thousands 

Walk for pleasure 84.6 82,519.8 83.9 66,330.5 85.3 18,019.8 87.7 33,128.3 85.0 199,998.3 

Family gathering 74.9 72,991.7 73.8 58,322.5 73.3 15,472.8 72.7 27,400.9 74.0 174,187.9 

Gardening or landscaping 66.6 64,821.7 69.3 54,762.2 66.8 14,104.5 64.1 24,178.5 67.1 157,867.0 

View/ photograph natural 

scenery 63.6 62,159.8 59.6 47,254.1 69.5 14,717.9 67.9 25,686.1 63.7 149,818.0 

Visit outdoor nature 

center/zoo 57.3 56,077.1 52.5 41,609.8 61.5 13,042.2 59.5 22,535.9 56.6 133,265.0 

Attend outdoor sports events 53.8 52,415.2 55.4 43,710.9 57.2 12,075.4 48.1 18,133.6 53.7 126,335.2 

Sightseeing 50.8 49,615.6 52.9 41,832.9 57.8 12,208.9 53.6 20,241.5 52.7 123,898.8 

Picnicking 54.6 53,484.4 44.3 35,168.8 54.6 11,600.0 56.2 21,313.4 51.7 121,566.6 

View/ photograph flowers, 

etc. 50.9 49,763.8 49.5 39,229.0 54.1 11,441.5 55.2 20,888.6 51.6 121,322.9 

Driving for pleasure 50.3 49,114.9 50.3 39,824.0 58.2 12,301.6 50.9 19,252.8 51.2 120,493.3 

View/ photograph other 

wildlife 51.0 49,702.7 49.2 38,884.8 55.7 11,764.8 46.9 17,706.9 50.2 118,059.2 

Visit historic sites 44.4 43,391.5 42.3 33,462.6 46.5 9,830.6 45.5 17,189.6 44.1 103,874.3 

Swimming in an outdoor pool 42.7 41,573.2 44.5 35,113.6 38.3 8,087.1 45.6 17,208.0 43.3 101,981.9 

Visit a beach 45.2 44,166.6 39.3 31,125.3 31.1 6,583.9 53.1 20,092.4 43.3 101,968.2 

Yard games, e.g., croquet 46.3 44,657.6 43.9 34,326.4 44.5 9,300.3 28.3 10,573.5 42.0 98,857.8 Swimming in lakes, streams, 

etc. 43.8 42,665.9 39.4 31,141.6 34.5 7,284.1 43.6 16,453.3 41.5 97,544.9 

Bicycling 39.6 38,804.7 33.1 26,243.3 36.4 7,727.1 41.0 15,536.2 37.5 88,311.3 

Attend outdoor concerts, etc. 41.0 40,144.8 33.0 26,240.7 31.0 6,586.7 40.0 15,165.1 37.5 88,137.3 

View or photograph birds 38.2 37,208.9 34.2 26,974.6 33.1 6,972.4 34.3 12,916.5 35.7 84,072.4 

Running or jogging 29.5 28,886.0 35.1 27,914.9 44.5 9,455.8 37.1 14,098.5 34.2 80,355.1 

Day hiking 32.7 32,417.0 25.2 20,283.2 46.1 9,901.7 44.7 17,145.3 33.9 79,747.2 

Visit a wilderness 31.3 30,799.9 29.9 23,832.9 45.3 9,653.0 39.0 14,834.8 33.6 79,120.6 

Continued on next page
138

Appendix North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast United States Activity Percent Participants Percent Participants Percent Participants Percent Participants Percent Participants 

 thousands thousands thousands thousands thousands 

Gather mushrooms, berries, 

etc. 36.0 34,936.3 31.8 25,070.2 31.6 6,647.6 28.1 10,559.4 32.8 77,213.5 

Visited farm or agricultural 

setting 35.7 34,820.6 29.2 23,091.0 34.3 7,258.4 26.9 10,168.3 32.0 75,338.3 

View or photograph fish 25.2 24,581.1 28.9 22,838.1 24.5 5,163.6 28.9 10,909.5 27.0 63,492.2 

Outdoor team sports 21.6 21,813.5 19.3 15,752.3 34.9 7,620.8 44.4 17,311.5 26.6 62,498.1 

Visit waterside besides beach 23.6 23,041.6 23.1 18,302.5 23.0 4,857.9 27.3 10,313.2 24.0 56,515.2 

Developed camping 20.6 20,454.1 19.4 15,550.6 34.0 7,301.1 33.0 12,656.5 23.8 55,962.4 

Warmwater fishing 24.5 23,501.6 29.9 23,257.7 19.7 4,101.7 13.1 4,857.9 23.7 55,718.9 

Motorboating 24.1 23,423.2 24.2 19,031.3 23.5 4,935.8 20.3 7,627.7 23.4 55,018.0 

Visit prehistoric sites 18.6 18,325.6 19.1 15,243.5 29.7 6,334.3 23.5 8,943.8 20.8 48,847.2 

Off-highway vehicle driving 17.6 17,259.9 21.3 16,907.4 27.1 5,746.6 22.4 8,503.8 20.6 48,417.7 

Boat tours or excursions 19.2 18,720.3 18.8 14,858.7 15.6 3,287.2 24.5 9,251.6 19.6 46,117.9 

Mountain biking 20.3 19,919.7 14.7 11,706.5 17.4 3,691.1 19.4 7,346.5 18.1 42,663.8 

Basketball outdoors 19.2 18,723.2 14.9 11,797.2 20.1 4,250.7 17.3 6,527.6 17.6 41,298.7 

Golf 17.2 16,708.6 14.2 11,231.4 16.4 3,459.0 11.9 4,483.2 15.2 35,882.1 

Volleyball outdoors 19.0 18,258.3 14.0 10,899.8 3.6 756.0 12.3 4,561.9 14.7 34,475.9 

Primitive camping 11.9 11,789.5 11.8 9,484.8 26.7 5,737.9 18.6 7,138.0 14.5 34,150.2 

Sledding 21.3 20,951.2 4.8 3,827.8 15.9 3,387.1 10.1 3,856.1 13.6 32,022.2 

Coldwater fishing 11.3 11,267.3 9.4 7,564.6 22.6 4,891.3 18.5 7,133.1 13.1 30,856.3 

Football 13.8 13,427.0 9.4 7,442.9 19.0 4,007.9 12.2 4,577.4 12.5 29,455.1 

Handball, etc. outdoors 13.1 12,799.5 10.1 7,969.3 9.1 1,929.4 13.6 5,120.0 11.8 27,818.2 

Soccer outdoors 11.1 10,845.5 12.9 10,239.2 9.6 2,022.5 9.4 3,546.5 11.3 26,653.6 

Baseball 14.7 14,168.9 6.8 5,295.7 16.6 3,483.9 6.3 2,373.0 10.8 25,321.5 

Saltwater fishing 8.2 7,926.5 15.3 11,923.2 4.7 973.2 11.4 4,252.8 10.7 25,075.7 

Tennis outdoors 9.8 9,559.8 10.2 8,045.5 11.4 2,405.9 9.2 3,491.0 10.0 23,502.2 

Backpacking 8.5 8,496.5 7.8 6,265.3 14.9 3,219.6 13.6 5,217.4 9.9 23,198.8 

Canoeing 12.3 11,919.2 9.0 7,045.6 6.7 1,397.5 6.5 2,432.5 9.7 22,794.9 

Appendix table 2 (continued)

Continued on next page
139

Appendix

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast United States 

Activity Percent Participants Percent Participants Percent Participants Percent Participants Percent Participants 

 thousands thousands thousands thousands thousands 

Softball 6.8 6,197.3 14.4 10,652.3 2.3 451.6 12.6 4,456.3 9.2 21,757.4 

Horseback riding 7.8 7,594.2 9.6 7,630.2 12.4 2,626.3 9.6 3,641.9 9.1 21,492.6 Waterskiing 7.8 7,646.3 9.7 7,718.5 10.8 2,290.5 9.5 3,599.4 9.0 21,254.6 

Use personal watercraft 7.6 7,425.7 9.7 7,719.9 9.5 2,001.5 10.6 3,998.0 9.0 21,145.1 

Big game hunting 8.7 8,485.6 10.1 7,992.2 13.6 2,868.1 4.0 1,509.4 8.9 20,855.3 

Rafting 7.2 7,022.8 7.9 6,289.9 10.2 2,160.3 8.2 3,101.9 7.9 18,574.9 

Small game hunting 6.8 6,542.5 8.6 6,710.4 8.9 1,851.7 3.8 1,429.2 7.0 16,533.8 Horseback riding on trails 5.9 5,768.2 7.1 5,649.2 9.3 1,977.4 7.2 2,704.5 6.8 16,099.2 

Downhill skiing 7.5 7,490.1 4.0 3,230.7 8.8 1,898.2 8.6 3,313.9 6.8 15,932.9 

Snorkeling 5.9 5,809.2 5.9 4,690.5 5.9 1,263.6 9.0 3,417.6 6.5 15,181.0 Inline skating 7.0 6,641.5 6.3 4,871.4 1.0 201.3 7.7 2,837.2 6.2 14,551.4 Kayaking 7.0 6,816.0 4.6 3,629.2 4.5 948.0 7.4 2,817.3 6.0 14,210.5 Mountain climbing 4.2 4,148.9 4.1 3,324.9 11.5 2,481.3 6.3 2,431.8 5.3 12,386.9 

Snowboarding 5.8 5,791.9 2.2 1,821.9 5.6 1,215.2 8.6 3,322.9 5.2 12,152.0 Ice skating 8.4 8,242.3 1.9 1,510.5 3.2 687.2 4.1 1,548.4 5.1 11,988.4 Snowmobiling 7.1 6,998.4 1.4 1,100.8 6.0 1,283.3 3.4 1,295.3 4.5 10,677.8 

Anadromous fishing 3.7 3,730.5 3.4 2,729.8 3.9 852.7 8.7 3,357.8 4.5 10,670.8 

Caving 4.1 4,027.9 4.1 3,273.4 5.5 1,161.5 5.2 1,969.3 4.4 10,432.1 

Sailing 5.0 4,921.3 3.2 2,584.7 3.0 634.1 5.9 2,255.8 4.4 10,395.9 

Rock climbing 4.0 3,978.3 2.7 2,210.0 7.5 1,622.6 5.2 2,009.9 4.2 9,820.8 

Rowing 5.0 4,905.8 3.1 2,419.3 3.6 757.8 3.5 1,301.7 4.0 9,384.6 Orienteering 2.5 2,438.4 1.9 1,550.5 4.8 1,027.4 3.1 1,182.3 2.6 6,198.6 

Cross-country skiing 4.0 3,923.7 0.8 609.0 3.0 635.3 2.4 914.7 2.6 6,082.6 

Migratory bird hunting 1.8 1,761.3 2.5 1,942.5 3.0 637.9 1.4 538.5 2.1 4,880.2 Ice fishing 3.9 3,774.4 0.4 325.5 2.6 546.0 0.5 180.9 2.1 4,826.7 

Surfing 1.1 1,125.0 1.6 1,290.0 1.4 308.3 5.0 1,944.9 2.0 4,668.2 Snowshoeing 2.3 2,321.8 0.2 186.2 3.3 718.3 2.2 842.5 1.7 4,068.8 

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast United States

Activity Percent Participants Percent Participants Percent Participants Percent Participants Percent Participants

thousands thousands thousands thousands thousands

Scuba diving 1.5 1,477.4 1.3 1,022.1 1.8 389.7 2.0 744.0 1.5 3,633.2 

Windsurfing 0.8 756.9 0.3 273.9 0.5 107.3 0.6 238.7 0.6 1,376.7 

Appendix table 2 (continued)

Note: Number of participants based on 2008 Census estimates: 97.44 million (North), 79.02 million (South), 21.11 million (Rocky Mountains), 37.72 million (Pacific Coast), and 235.30 million (United States). Source: NSRE 2005-2009 (n=30,398). 
140

Appendix Appendix Table 3—Trends in outdoor recreation activity participation of people ages 16 and older in the United States with sample size and 95 percent confidence limits, 1994-2009 1994-1995 1999-2001 2005-2009 

Activity n= 

Lower 

conf. 

limit Percent

Upper

conf. 

limit 

Total 

participants n= 

Lower 

conf. 

limit Percent 

Upper 

conf. 

limit 

Total 

participants n= 

Lower 

conf. 

limit Percent 

Upper 

conf. 

limit 

Total 

participants 

Change in 

participants, 

1999-2001 to 2005-

2009 

 thousands thousands thousands percent thousands 

Walk for pleasure 16,552 68.1 68.8 69.5 138,443.5 52,578 81.7 82.0 82.4 175,552.8 25,967 84.6 85.0 85.4 199,998.3 13.9 24,445.5Family gathering 16,552 63.0 63.7 64.4 128,180.0 52,513 73.2 73.6 74.0 157,574.6 13,389 73.3 74.0 74.8 174,187.9 10.5 16,613.3Gardening or 

landscaping 0 – – – – 5,769 64.6 65.8 67.0 140,796.8 5,178 65.8 67.1 68.4 157,867.0 12.1 17,070.2

View/ photograph 

natural scenery 0 – – – – 52,391 58.9 59.4 59.8 127,055.4 26,356 63.1 63.7 64.3 149,818.0 17.9 22,762.6

Visit outdoor nature 

center/zoo 16,552 54.3 55.1 55.9 110,906.4 52,492 56.1 56.5 56.9 120,957.6 16,379 55.9 56.6 57.4 133,265.0 10.2 12,307.4

Attend outdoor 

sports events 16,552 48.2 49.0 49.7 98,583.5 7,922 49.1 50.2 51.3 107,470.2 2,764 51.8 53.7 55.6 126,335.2 17.6 18,865.0

Sightseeing 16,552 57.6 58.4 59.1 117,480.2 47,662 50.5 50.9 51.4 108,950.4 12,771 51.8 52.7 53.5 123,898.8 13.7 14,948.4Picnicking 16,552 54.9 55.7 56.4 112,068.5 52,519 54.8 55.3 55.7 118,260.3 16,300 50.9 51.7 52.4 121,566.6 2.8 3,306.3View/ photograph 

flowers, etc. 0 – – – – 52,411 43.4 43.8 44.2 93,757.9 26,257 51.0 51.6 52.2 121,322.9 29.4 27,565.0

Driving for pleasure 0 – – – – 47,648 50.0 50.4 50.9 107,939.9 12,774 50.3 51.2 52.1 120,493.3 11.6 12,553.4View/ photograph 

other wildlife 16,552 30.5 31.2 31.9 62,809.7 52,230 43.6 44.0 44.4 94,182.5 26,257 49.6 50.2 50.8 118,059.2 25.4 23,876.7

Visit historic sites 16,552 44.8 45.5 46.3 91,590.6 47,460 44.5 44.9 45.4 96,114.8 16,164 43.4 44.1 44.9 103,874.3 8.1 7,759.5Swimming in an 

outdoor pool 16,552 48.4 49.2 50.0 99,029.1 29,726 39.2 39.7 40.3 85,009.0 25,362 42.7 43.3 44.0 101,981.9 20.0 16,972.9

Visit a beach 16,552 63.3 64.0 64.7 128,786.3 52,362 39.0 39.5 39.9 84,445.9 30,346 42.8 43.3 43.9 101,968.2 20.7 17,522.3Yard games, e.g., 

croquet 16,552 42.7 43.4 44.2 87,356.2 10,008 37.6 38.6 39.5 82,519.4 2,773 40.2 42.0 43.9 98,857.8 19.8 16,338.4

Swimming in lakes, 

streams, etc. 16,552 42.6 43.4 44.2 87,353.4 52,530 39.5 40.0 40.4 85,540.9 30,357 40.9 41.5 42.0 97,544.9 14.0 12,004.0

Bicycling 16,552 37.9 38.7 39.4 77,816.7 52,565 37.9 38.3 38.7 81,906.5 16,833 36.8 37.5 38.3 88,311.3 7.8 6,404.8Attend outdoor 

concerts, etc. 16,552 34.5 35.2 35.9 70,877.5 7,916 39.6 40.7 41.8 87,154.8 2,673 35.6 37.5 39.3 88,137.3 1.1 982.5

View or photograph 

birds 16,552 26.3 27.0 27.7 54,293.7 52,470 31.6 32.0 32.4 68,465.3 26,710 35.2 35.7 36.3 84,072.4 22.8 15,607.1

Continued on next page
141

Appendix

Appendix table 3 (continued)

1994-1995 1999-2001 2005-2009 

Activity n= 

Lower

conf. 

limit Percent 

Upper 

conf. 

limit 

Total 

participants n= 

Lower 

conf. 

limit Percent

Upper 

conf. 

limit 

Total 

participants n= 

Lower 

conf. 

limit Percent 

Upper 

conf. 

limit 

Total 

participants 

Change in 

participants, 

1999-2001 to 2005-

2009 

 thousands thousands thousands percent thousands 

Running or jogging 16,552 27.5 28.2 28.9 56,717.7 10,010 30.0 30.9 31.8 66,182.6 1,870 32.0 34.2 36.3 80,355.1 21.4 14,172.5 

Day hiking 16,552 25.9 26.6 27.3 53,547.5 52,510 31.9 32.3 32.7 69,103.5 16,796 33.2 33.9 34.6 79,747.2 15.4 10,643.7 Visit a wilderness 0 – – – – 52,413 31.0 31.4 31.8 67,248.2 16,801 32.9 33.6 34.3 79,120.6 17.7 11,872.4 Gather 

mushrooms, berries, etc. 0 – – – – 52,571 27.7 28.1 28.4 60,043.2 16,789 32.1 32.8 33.5 77,213.5 28.6 17,170.3 

Visited farm or 

agricultural setting 0 – – – – 29,909 26.9 27.4 27.9 58,567.3 5,293 30.8 32.0 33.3 75,338.3 28.6 16,771.0 

View or photograph 

fish 16,552 13.2 13.7 14.2 27,562.3 52,441 24.1 24.4 24.8 52,293.3 27,238 26.5 27.0 27.5 63,492.2 21.4 11,198.9 

Outdoor team 

sports 16,552 28.4 29.1 29.8 58,562.2 44,980 21.1 21.4 21.8 45,864.0 1,041 23.9 26.6 29.2 62,498.1 36.3 16,634.1 

Visit waterside 

besides beach 0 – – – – 52,176 24.5 24.8 25.2 53,163.5 20,233 23.4 24.0 24.6 56,515.2 6.3 3,351.7 

Developed 

camping 16,552 22.5 23.1 23.7 46,494.0 52,563 25.5 25.9 26.2 55,342.3 16,802 23.1 23.8 24.4 55,962.4 1.1 620.1 

Warmwater fishing 16,552 23.8 24.5 25.2 49,302.4 49,671 21.9 22.2 22.6 47,568.7 30,266 23.2 23.7 24.2 55,718.9 17.1 8,150.2 

Motor-boating 16,552 28.9 29.6 30.3 59,531.0 52,527 23.3 23.7 24.0 50,657.2 30,346 22.9 23.4 23.9 55,018.0 8.6 4,360.8 

Visit prehistoric 

sites 16,552 17.4 17.9 18.5 36,120.9 52,324 20.2 20.5 20.9 43,961.0 16,679 20.1 20.8 21.4 48,847.2 11.1 4,886.2 

Off-highway vehicle 

driving 16,552 17.3 17.8 18.4 35,898.0 44,956 16.5 16.8 17.2 36,009.3 17,771 20.0 20.6 21.2 48,417.7 34.5 12,408.4 

Boat tours or 

excursions 0 – – – – 9,990 18.3 19.1 19.8 40,793.1 16,500 19.0 19.6 20.2 46,117.9 13.1 5,324.8 

Mountain biking 0 – – – – 49,793 20.2 20.6 20.9 43,994.3 16,817 17.5 18.1 18.7 42,663.8 -3.0 -1,330.5 

Basketball 

outdoors 16,552 14.5 15.1 15.6 30,327.9 10,003 11.9 12.5 13.2 26,790.1 829 15.0 17.6 20.1 41,298.7 54.2 14,508.6 

Golf 16,552 16.7 17.3 17.9 34,856.6 10,013 15.8 16.5 17.2 35,288.5 1,859 13.6 15.2 16.9 35,882.1 1.7 593.6 

Volleyball outdoors 16,552 16.4 16.9 17.5 34,074.4 10,003 9.4 10.0 10.6 21,370.2 822 12.2 14.7 17.1 34,475.9 61.3 13,105.7 

Primitive camping 16,552 15.0 15.6 16.1 31,380.9 52,562 15.2 15.5 15.8 33,100.6 16,802 14.0 14.5 15.0 34,150.2 3.2 1,049.6 

Sledding 16,552 13.2 13.7 14.3 27,653.0 10,009 13.7 14.4 15.1 30,822.8 10,372 12.9 13.6 14.3 32,022.2 3.9 1,199.4 Coldwater fishing 16,552 12.0 12.5 13.0 25,082.2 49,709 13.0 13.3 13.6 28,392.0 30,269 12.7 13.1 13.5 30,856.3 8.7 2,464.3 Football 16,552 7.6 8.0 8.4 16,106.0 10,000 6.3 6.8 7.2 14,453.6 840 10.3 12.5 14.8 29,455.1 103.8 15,001.5 

Continued on next page
142

Appendix Appendix table 3 (continued) 1994-1995 1999-2001 2005-2009 

Activity n= 

Lower 

conf. 

limit Percent 

Upper

conf. 

limit 

Total 

participants n= 

Lower 

conf. 

limit Percent 

Upper 

conf. 

limit 

Total 

participants n= 

Lower 

conf. 

limit Percent

Upper 

conf. 

limit 

Total 

participants 

Change in 

participants, 

1999-2001 to 2005-

2009 

 thousands thousands thousands percent thousands 

Handball, etc. 

outdoors 16,552 6.3 6.7 7.0 13,388.8 10,007 6.6 7.1 7.6 15,194.9 1,906 10.4 11.8 13.3 27,818.2 83.1 12,623.3

Soccer outdoors 16,552 5.2 5.6 5.9 11,245.1 10,002 6.6 7.1 7.6 15,107.7 788 9.1 11.3 13.5 26,653.6 76.4 11,545.9Baseball 16,552 7.5 8.0 8.4 16,018.3 10,002 5.3 5.8 6.2 12,375.4 859 8.7 10.8 12.8 25,321.5 104.6 12,946.1Saltwater fishing 16,552 10.9 11.4 11.9 22,938.5 52,504 9.7 10.0 10.3 21,401.7 30,309 10.3 10.7 11.0 25,075.7 17.2 3,674.0Tennis outdoors 16,552 13.5 14.0 14.5 28,215.2 10,012 9.2 9.8 10.4 20,910.4 1,882 8.6 10.0 11.3 23,502.2 12.4 2,591.8Backpacking 16,552 8.0 8.4 8.9 16,982.9 52,570 9.8 10.0 10.3 21,505.9 17,782 9.4 9.9 10.3 23,198.8 7.9 1,692.9Canoeing 16,552 8.4 8.9 9.3 17,851.1 52,546 8.8 9.0 9.3 19,282.3 30,361 9.4 9.7 10.0 22,794.9 18.2 3,512.6Softball 16,552 14.9 15.4 16.0 30,999.0 10,003 9.3 9.9 10.5 21,170.8 860 7.3 9.2 11.2 21,757.4 2.8 586.6Horseback riding 16,552 9.8 10.3 10.7 20,701.5 52,580 9.0 9.3 9.5 19,832.8 16,223 8.7 9.1 9.6 21,492.6 8.4 1,659.8Waterskiing 16,552 10.8 11.3 11.7 22,657.1 52,545 7.2 7.5 7.7 15,973.0 30,361 8.7 9.0 9.4 21,254.6 33.1 5,281.6Use personal 

watercraft 16,552 5.6 6.0 6.3 12,021.9 52,532 8.7 8.9 9.2 19,065.0 30,353 8.7 9.0 9.3 21,145.1 10.9 2,080.1

Big game hunting 16,552 9.0 9.4 9.9 19,002.6 44,975 8.1 8.3 8.6 17,806.4 10,366 8.3 8.9 9.4 20,855.3 17.1 3,048.9Rafting 16,552 9.1 9.6 10.0 19,283.6 52,530 8.7 8.9 9.2 19,100.3 30,356 7.6 7.9 8.2 18,574.9 -2.8 -525.4Small game 

hunting 16,552 8.2 8.6 9.0 17,340.3 44,973 6.7 6.9 7.2 14,845.4 20,356 6.7 7.0 7.4 16,533.8 11.4 1,688.4

Horseback riding 

on trails 16,552 7.1 7.5 7.9 15,132.9 49,857 7.2 7.4 7.6 15,838.0 16,219 6.5 6.8 7.2 16,099.2 1.6 261.2

Downhill skiing 16,552 10.8 11.3 11.8 22,768.1 44,978 7.9 8.1 8.4 17,421.1 20,380 6.4 6.8 7.1 15,932.9 -8.5 -1,488.2Snorkeling 16,552 7.6 8.1 8.5 16,202.3 52,528 6.1 6.3 6.6 13,573.4 20,353 6.1 6.5 6.8 15,181.0 11.8 1,607.6Inline skating 0 – – – – 5,840 15.4 16.3 17.3 34,943.1 1,898 5.1 6.2 7.3 14,551.4 -58.4 -20,391.7Kayaking 16,552 1.5 1.7 1.9 3,356.4 52,548 3.1 3.3 3.4 6,971.5 30,359 5.8 6.0 6.3 14,210.5 103.8 7,239.0Mountain climbing 16,552 4.2 4.5 4.8 9,018.2 10,012 5.7 6.1 6.6 13,157.5 12,740 4.9 5.3 5.7 12,386.9 -5.9 -770.6Snow-boarding 16,552 2.8 3.0 3.3 6,121.7 44,979 4.1 4.2 4.4 9,088.1 20,381 4.9 5.2 5.5 12,152.0 33.7 3,063.9Ice skating 16,552 6.7 7.1 7.4 14,194.5 10,009 5.9 6.3 6.8 13,550.9 10,372 4.7 5.1 5.5 11,988.4 -11.5 -1,562.5Snow-mobiling 16,552 4.5 4.8 5.1 9,615.8 44,977 5.1 5.3 5.5 11,301.0 20,382 4.3 4.5 4.8 10,677.8 -5.5 -623.2Anadromous 

fishing 16,552 5.1 5.4 5.8 10,950.5 52,329 3.9 4.0 4.2 8,600.6 29,810 4.3 4.5 4.8 10,670.8 24.1 2,070.2

Caving 16,552 4.4 4.7 5.0 9,478.9 10,008 3.7 4.1 4.5 8,809.4 15,374 4.1 4.4 4.8 10,432.1 18.4 1,622.7

Continued on next page
143

Appendix

1994-1995 1999-2001 2005-2009 

Activity n= 

Lower

conf. 

limit Percent

Upper

conf. 

limit 

Total 

participants n= 

Lower 

conf. 

limit Percent

Upper 

conf. 

limit 

Total 

participants n= 

Lower 

conf. 

limit Percent

Upper 

conf. 

limit 

Total 

participants 

Change in 

participants, 

1999-2001 to 2005-

2009 

 thousands thousands thousands percent thousands 

Sailing 16,552 5.7 6.0 6.4 12,118.3 52,543 4.7 4.9 5.1 10,441.9 30,357 4.2 4.4 4.6 10,395.9 -0.4 -46.0 

Rock climbing 16,552 3.4 3.7 4.0 7,469.2 10,009 3.8 4.2 4.6 8,966.7 15,390 3.9 4.2 4.5 9,820.8 9.5 854.1 

Rowing 16,552 5.0 5.3 5.7 10,688.9 52,531 3.9 4.0 4.2 8,617.3 30,345 3.8 4.0 4.2 9,384.6 8.9 767.3 

Orienteering 16,552 2.2 2.4 2.6 4,830.4 9,996 1.5 1.7 2.0 3,695.0 6,696 2.3 2.6 3.0 6,198.6 67.8 2,503.6 

Cross country 

skiing 16,552 4.1 4.4 4.7 8,832.4 44,977 3.5 3.6 3.8 7,767.5 20,381 2.4 2.6 2.8 6,082.6 -21.7 -1,684.9 

Migratory bird 

hunting 16,552 2.6 2.8 3.1 5,709.0 52,573 2.2 2.3 2.4 4,936.0 30,364 1.9 2.1 2.2 4,880.2 -1.1 -55.8 

Ice fishing 16,552 2.2 2.4 2.6 4,830.1 9,991 2.4 2.7 3.0 5,712.4 30,316 1.9 2.1 2.2 4,826.7 -15.5 -885.7 

Surfing 16,552 1.3 1.5 1.6 2,920.9 52,546 1.4 1.5 1.6 3,191.0 20,355 1.8 2.0 2.2 4,668.2 46.3 1,477.2 

Snow-shoeing 0 -- -- -- -- 10,006 1.8 2.1 2.4 4,490.3 10,370 1.5 1.7 2.0 4,068.8 -9.4 -421.5 

Scuba diving 0 -- -- -- -- 52,546 1.7 1.8 1.9 3,847.2 20,360 1.4 1.5 1.7 3,633.2 -5.6 -214.0 Windsurfing 16,552 1.2 1.4 1.6 2,805.4 52,544 0.6 0.7 0.8 1,532.2 20,351 0.5 0.6 0.7 1,376.7 -10.1 -155.5 

Note: The numbers in this table are annual participation estimates based on data collected during the three time periods. 1994-1995 participants based on 201.3 million people ages 16+ 

(Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2007). 1999-2001 participants based on 214.0 million people ages 16+ (U.S. Department of Commerce 2000). 2005-2009 participants based on 235.3 million people ages 16+ (U.S. Department of Commerce 2008). Snorkeling in 1994-1995 included scuba diving. Percent change was calculated before rounding. 

Source: NSRE 1994-1995 (n=17,217), NSRE 1999-2001 (n=52,607), and NSRE 2005-2009 (n=30,398).

Appendix table 3 (continued)Source: USDA Forest Service (1995) (n=17,217), USDA Forest Service (2001) (n=52,607), and USDA Forest Service (2009) (n=30,398).
144

Appendix Appendix table 4—Mean and total annual days of participation in outdoor recreation activities by people ages 16 and older by region, 2005-2009 North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast United States 

Activity 

Mean 

days Total days 

Mean 

days Total days 

Mean 

days Total days 

Mean 

days Total days 

Mean 

days Total days 

 millions millions millions millions millions 

Walk for pleasure 99.9 8,226.6 113.0 7,474.4 86.5 1,554.2 111.1 3,672.6 104.6 20,927.8 

View/photograph natural 

scenery 

79.4 4,930.0 78.4 3,700.6 80.9 1,189.6 69.7 1,788.5 77.5 11,608.6 

View/photograph flowers, etc. 88.7 4,399.6 87.4 3,417.4 67.1 765.6 93.6 1,949.7 86.8 10,532.2 View or photograph birds 99.8 3,696.0 106.6 2,862.4 79.6 552.3 85.9 1,104.3 97.7 8,215.0 View/photograph other wildlife 48.5 2,399.0 48.8 1,888.8 44.6 522.4 39.7 699.4 46.7 5,509.5 Visited farm or agricultural 

setting 

41.5 1,465.0 48.5 1,136.4 71.6 527.4 51.1 526.5 48.5 3,655.3 

Swimming in an outdoor pool 23.1 962.7 27.9 979.3 27.2 220.0 26.6 459.1 25.7 2,621.1 Driving for pleasure 17.7 860.6 20.2 795.1 16.5 200.4 14.9 284.0 17.8 2,140.1 Sightseeing 15.0 740.8 15.2 633.8 12.8 155.7 15.5 312.2 14.9 1,842.5 Day hiking 22.4 723.8 22.9 462.7 20.4 200.8 25.7 438.2 22.9 1,825.5 Swimming in lakes, streams, 

etc. 

12.0 511.0 13.0 404.0 10.8 78.8 14.5 238.5 12.6 1,232.4 

Visit a beach 10.7 473.1 11.2 349.0 10.0 66.0 14.7 296.1 11.6 1,184.2 Family gathering 6.9 507.5 6.1 358.7 7.7 119.2 7.1 193.8 6.8 1,179.3 Off-highway vehicle driving 16.4 282.8 33.3 561.6 16.9 96.9 12.6 106.8 21.6 1,048.2 Mountain biking 18.8 379.3 19.3 228.5 26.2 97.7 16.2 120.3 19.4 825.8 Warmwater fishing 14.1 329.0 16.9 389.7 11.3 46.1 10.7 51.5 14.6 816.3 Gather mushrooms, berries, 

etc. 

9.1 319.1 12.2 306.2 8.4 56.2 11.1 117.4 10.3 799.0 

Visit waterside besides beach 13.9 319.0 14.2 258.7 11.9 57.8 14.4 147.9 13.9 783.4 Picnicking 6.3 335.4 5.8 204.9 6.9 80.7 6.6 141.0 6.3 762.0 Visit outdoor nature center/zoo 5.8 326.6 4.9 202.7 5.5 72.5 6.0 134.6 5.5 736.4 Visit a wilderness 8.7 266.9 10.8 254.0 7.3 70.1 9.9 145.3 9.3 736.3 Motorboating 11.8 274.0 13.7 258.8 9.3 45.6 9.9 74.6 11.9 653.1 

Continued on next page
145

Appendix

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast United States 

Activity 

Mean 

days Total days 

Mean 

days Total days 

Mean 

days Total days 

Mean 

days Total days 

Mean 

days Total days 

 millions millions millions millions millions 

Visit historic sites 4.1 175.6 4.3 141.8 3.8 37.5 5.0 84.8 4.2 439.8 Developed camping 8.1 165.3 6.7 104.3 6.7 48.4 8.2 103.7 7.5 421.8 Coldwater fishing 10.6 119.6 10.4 78.7 10.0 48.9 11.0 78.2 10.5 325.4 Big game hunting 14.9 124.9 16.8 132.5 8.8 24.9 12.6 18.7 14.4 301.2 Horseback riding on trails 12.6 72.2 17.7 99.0 35.0 68.7 8.3 22.2 16.3 262.1 Primitive camping 7.3 86.9 6.8 65.1 8.5 49.2 6.8 48.4 7.3 249.6 Backpacking 9.1 77.6 10.5 66.5 12.1 39.1 10.0 52.5 10.2 235.8 Saltwater fishing 8.3 65.2 9.7 114.5 3.4 3.3 8.9 37.3 8.8 220.3 Small game hunting 11.6 75.3 13.5 89.9 12.3 22.7 16.0 22.7 12.7 210.6 Use personal watercraft 8.3 60.7 9.3 71.1 6.3 12.3 5.8 22.9 7.9 167.0 Visit prehistoric sites 3.2 59.2 3.1 48.0 3.4 21.5 3.2 29.0 3.2 157.6 Waterskiing 6.9 52.7 8.4 64.3 6.7 15.4 6.5 23.2 7.3 155.6 Canoeing 4.8 57.1 4.7 33.1 3.6 5.0 4.7 11.4 4.7 106.7 Snowboarding 6.9 40.3 5.4 9.9 8.7 10.8 8.4 28.4 7.4 89.4 Downhill skiing 5.7 43.2 4.4 14.3 6.4 12.1 5.6 18.7 5.5 88.3 Rafting 4.1 28.9 4.9 30.6 4.1 8.7 4.9 15.0 4.5 83.3 Kayaking 6.1 41.4 5.7 20.7 4.0 3.8 5.0 14.1 5.6 80.1 Surfing 13.1 14.6 10.0 12.8 7.4 2.2 25.9 50.0 17.1 79.7 Snowmobiling 7.9 54.8 3.9 4.3 4.8 6.2 9.4 12.1 7.2 77.4 Snorkeling 3.8 22.0 5.7 26.6 3.6 4.5 5.2 17.8 4.7 70.9 Anadromous fishing 5.2 19.4 6.9 19.0 4.1 3.5 7.7 26.1 6.4 68.1 Sailing 6.4 31.2 6.5 16.9 4.9 3.1 5.6 12.6 6.1 63.8 Mountain climbing 3.8 16.1 4.5 15.3 6.6 16.9 4.6 11.4 4.8 59.7 Migratory bird hunting 10.3 18.2 11.6 22.6 10.1 6.5 14.5 7.8 11.3 55.0 Rowing 5.3 26.0 5.7 13.8 4.9 3.7 6.3 8.2 5.5 51.7 Rock climbing 3.2 13.1 3.0 7.0 7.2 12.2 5.9 12.4 4.6 44.7 

Appendix table 4 (continued)

Continued on next page
146

Appendix North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast United States 

Activity 

Mean 

days Total days 

Mean 

days Total days 

Mean 

days Total days 

Mean 

days Total days 

Mean 

days Total days 

 millions millions millions millions millions 

Cross-country skiing 5.7 22.2 4.5 2.7 9.2 5.8 5.8 5.2 5.9 35.9 Scuba diving 5.1 7.3 8.7 8.6 3.2 1.3 7.7 5.6 6.3 22.7 Snowshoeing 5.5 12.9 2.1 0.4 4.6 3.3 5.4 4.5 5.2 21.2 Caving 1.9 7.9 1.6 5.3 2.2 2.5 1.9 3.8 1.9 19.5 Windsurfing 4.9 3.7 5.1 1.4 3.3 0.3 4.0 1.0 4.6 6.4 

Note: The numbers in this table are annual activity days estimates based on data collected between 2005 and 2009. Mean days is the average annual number of days in which 

participants engage in an activity. Total annual days (in millions) is the product of the estimated number of participants times the mean annual days. 

Source: NSRE 2005-2009 (n=30,398).

Appendix table 4 (continued)

Source: USDA Forest Service (2009) (n=30,398).
147

Appendix

Appendix table 5—Trends in outdoor recreation annual activity days by people ages 16 and older in the United States with sample size and 95 percent confidence limits, 1994-2009

1994-1995 1999-2001 2005-2009 

Activity n= 

Lower 

conf. 

limit 

Mean 

days 

Upper 

conf. 

limit 

Total 

annual days n= 

Lower 

conf. 

limit 

Mean 

days 

Upper 

conf. 

limit 

Total 

annual days n= 

Lower 

conf. 

limit 

Mean 

days 

Upper 

conf. 

limit 

Total 

annual days 

Change in 

participants, 

1999-2001 to 

2005-2009 

 millions millions millions percent millions 

Walk for pleasure 7,959 105.4 107.9 110.4 18,942.2 7,203 100.4 103.2 105.9 18,109.3 4,925 101.4 104.6 107.9 20,927.8 15.6 2,818.5View/ photograph 

natural scenery 

0 – – – – 5,728 53.3 56.2 59.2 7,141.5 11,065 75.1 77.5 79.9 11,608.6 62.6 4,467.1

View/ photograph 

flowers, etc. 

0 – – – – 21,948 59.7 61.2 62.7 5,739.9 8,855 84.1 86.8 89.6 10,532.2 83.5 4,792.3

View or photograph 

birds 

3,479 83.3 87.7 92.1 6,004.6 16,142 85.6 87.8 89.9 6,009.3 6,522 94.4 97.7 101.1 8,215.0 36.7 2,205.7

View/ photograph 

other wildlife 

4,053 34.2 36.7 39.3 3,461.0 22,709 37.4 38.5 39.7 3,630.6 8,534 44.7 46.7 48.6 5,509.5 51.8 1,878.9

Visited farm or 

agricultural setting 

0 – – – – 2,953 26.8 29.9 32.9 1,750.4 844 41.2 48.5 55.8 3,655.3 108.8 1,904.9

Swimming in an 

outdoor pool 

4,992 26.4 27.6 28.8 2,346.4 11,900 22.5 23.2 23.9 1,971.1 5,359 24.6 25.7 26.8 2,621.1 33.0 650.0

Driving for pleasure 0 – – – – 4,637 18.2 18.9 19.7 2,045.2 2,649 16.8 17.8 18.7 2,140.1 4.6 94.9Sightseeing 6,856 17.1 18.0 18.9 1,961.2 4,730 14.3 14.8 15.4 1,616.5 2,732 14.2 14.9 15.6 1,842.5 14.0 226.0Day hiking 3,618 15.6 16.8 18.0 1,160.0 2,947 26.0 27.8 29.5 1,919.6 2,481 21.3 22.9 24.5 1,825.5 -4.9 -94.1Swimming in lakes, 

streams, etc. 

4,459 15.1 15.8 16.6 1,355.4 22,956 12.2 12.4 12.6 1,062.4 9,101 12.3 12.6 12.9 1,232.4 16.0 170.0

Visit a beach 7,255 24.3 25.5 26.7 2,153.0 22,034 10.7 10.9 11.1 924.0 9,628 11.3 11.6 11.9 1,184.2 28.2 260.2Family gathering 7,439 8.4 8.8 9.2 1,392.4 7,357 6.0 6.2 6.3 970.4 2,440 6.4 6.8 7.1 1,179.3 21.5 208.9Off-highway vehicle 

driving 

2,339 21.9 24.0 26.1 864.7 1,650 18.3 19.7 21.1 710.4 1,373 19.8 21.6 23.5 1,048.2 47.6 337.8

Mountain biking 0 – – – – 2,176 23.9 25.4 27.0 1,119.6 1,238 17.7 19.4 21.1 825.8 -26.2 -293.8Warmwater fishing 2,273 16.3 17.6 18.9 837.8 2,299 14.4 15.2 16.0 721.8 4,501 14.1 14.6 15.2 816.3 13.1 94.5Gather 

mushrooms, berries, etc. 

0 – – – – 5,023 9.8 10.2 10.7 614.3 2,244 9.7 10.3 11.0 799.0 30.1 184.7

Visit waterside 

besides beach 

0 – – – – 14,195 11.2 11.5 11.8 611.4 4,010 13.2 13.9 14.5 783.4 28.1 172.0

Picnicking 6,794 8.4 8.8 9.2 1,040.6 5,972 6.6 6.8 7.0 808.9 3,439 6.0 6.3 6.5 762.0 -5.8 -46.9

Continued on next page
148

Appendix 1994-1995 1999-2001 2005-2009 

Activity n= 

Lower 

conf. 

limit 

Mean 

days 

Upper 

conf. 

limit 

Total 

annual days n= 

Lower 

conf. 

limit 

Mean 

days 

Upper 

conf. 

limit 

Total 

annual days n= 

Lower 

conf. 

limit 

Mean 

days 

Upper 

conf. 

limit 

Total 

annual days 

Change in 

participants, 

1999-2001 to 

2005-2009 

 millions millions millions percent millions 

Visit outdoor nature 

center/zoo 

0 – – – – 5,968 5.0 5.1 5.3 620.9 3,924 5.3 5.5 5.8 736.4 18.6 115.5 

Visit a wilderness 0 – – – – 3,157 7.9 8.3 8.7 558.7 2,344 8.8 9.3 9.9 736.3 31.8 177.6 Motorboating 3,309 13.7 14.7 15.6 744.5 14,218 11.2 11.5 11.7 581.6 5,626 11.5 11.9 12.3 653.1 12.3 71.5 

Visit historic sites 5,343 5.0 5.5 6.0 529.1 4,748 4.1 4.3 4.4 411.2 3,042 4.1 4.2 4.4 439.8 7.0 28.6 

Developed 

camping 

3,036 9.9 10.6 11.2 585.4 2,911 7.3 7.6 7.9 419.8 1,763 7.1 7.5 7.9 421.8 0.5 2.0 

Coldwater fishing 1,859 10.4 11.4 12.4 323.6 1,365 10.6 11.3 12.0 320.9 2,440 10.0 10.5 11.1 325.4 1.4 4.5 Big game hunting 1,300 13.0 14.2 15.3 252.4 1,058 12.9 13.8 14.8 246.4 956 13.5 14.4 15.4 301.2 22.2 54.8 

Horseback riding 

on trails 

0 – – – – 485 15.1 18.3 21.5 290.3 458 13.3 16.3 19.2 262.1 -9.7 -28.2 

Primitive camping 2,308 8.6 9.3 9.9 306.6 1,787 6.7 7.1 7.4 234.1 995 6.8 7.3 7.8 249.6 6.6 15.5 

Backpacking 1,199 7.5 8.5 9.4 182.0 1,012 7.9 8.7 9.4 186.2 860 9.2 10.2 11.1 235.8 26.6 49.6 

Saltwater fishing 1,041 11.3 13.1 14.9 280.5 5,160 9.9 10.4 10.8 221.9 2,130 8.2 8.8 9.4 220.3 -0.7 -1.6 

Small game 

hunting 

935 12.2 13.6 15.0 202.0 796 13.2 14.3 15.4 212.0 732 11.6 12.7 13.8 210.6 -0.7 -1.4 

Use personal 

watercraft 

615 6.5 7.6 8.7 145.0 4,879 7.5 7.8 8.1 148.2 1,642 7.4 7.9 8.4 167.0 12.7 18.8 

Visit prehistoric 

sites 

2,468 4.2 5.0 5.9 221.2 2,047 3.1 3.3 3.4 144.0 1,454 3.0 3.2 3.4 157.6 9.4 13.6 

Waterskiing 1,269 8.8 9.6 10.4 153.3 4,372 7.8 8.1 8.4 129.7 1,656 6.9 7.3 7.7 155.6 20.0 25.9 

Canoeing 827 4.5 5.3 6.2 103.1 5,205 5.0 5.1 5.3 98.8 2,829 4.5 4.7 4.9 106.7 8.0 7.9 

Snowboarding 0 – – – – 412 6.6 7.4 8.3 67.4 362 6.3 7.4 8.4 89.4 32.6 22.0 

Downhill skiing 1,503 6.9 7.6 8.2 131.7 1,010 5.9 6.3 6.7 109.5 848 5.2 5.5 5.9 88.3 -19.4 -21.2 

Rafting 1,047 4.6 5.1 5.6 97.4 1,004 3.7 4.0 4.4 77.2 1,915 4.2 4.5 4.7 83.3 7.9 6.1 

Kayaking 155 5.2 8.1 10.9 56.2 2,109 5.8 6.2 6.6 43.0 1,856 5.3 5.6 6.0 80.1 86.3 37.1 

Surfing 127 20.2 30.9 41.6 98.6 760 18.5 21.1 23.7 67.2 285 13.8 17.1 20.3 79.7 18.6 12.5 Snowmobiling 696 8.0 9.2 10.4 104.0 653 8.1 9.0 9.8 101.4 407 6.3 7.2 8.2 77.4 -23.7 -24.0 

Snorkeling 794 6.3 7.3 8.2 98.7 3,871 5.0 5.3 5.5 71.3 1,167 4.3 4.7 5.0 70.9 -0.6 -0.4 

Anadromous 

fishing 

666 8.0 9.6 11.3 83.0 394 6.3 7.2 8.1 62.1 544 5.6 6.4 7.1 68.1 9.7 6.0 

Appendix table 5 (continued)

Continued on next page
149

Appendix

1994-1995 1999-2001 2005-2009 

Activity n= 

Lower 

conf. 

limit 

Mean 

days 

Upper 

conf. 

limit 

Total 

annual days n= 

Lower 

conf. 

limit 

Mean 

days 

Upper 

conf. 

limit 

Total 

annual days n= 

Lower 

conf. 

limit 

Mean 

days 

Upper 

conf. 

limit 

Total 

annual days 

Change in 

participants, 

1999-2001 to 

2005-2009 

 millions millions millions percent millions 

Sailing 653 6.7 8.0 9.3 83.3 3,052 5.7 6.0 6.3 62.4 851 5.6 6.1 6.7 63.8 2.2 1.4Mountain climbing 661 3.9 4.5 5.2 59.6 661 4.3 4.7 5.2 62.4 442 4.2 4.8 5.5 59.7 -4.3 -2.7Migratory bird hunting 

383 6.9 8.0 9.0 39.3 1,389 10.5 11.1 11.7 54.8 417 10.2 11.3 12.3 55.0 0.4 0.2

Rowing 476 4.3 5.4 6.5 46.6 2,357 5.4 5.7 6.1 49.2 908 5.0 5.5 6.0 51.7 5.1 2.5Rock climbing 467 3.7 5.3 6.8 47.2 437 3.8 4.4 5.0 39.8 411 3.9 4.6 5.2 44.7 12.3 4.9Cross-country skiing 

659 6.5 7.4 8.3 57.4 484 6.2 6.9 7.6 53.5 366 5.1 5.9 6.7 35.9 -32.9 -17.6

Scuba diving 794 6.3 7.3 8.2 28.0 1,044 6.4 7.0 7.6 26.9 246 5.2 6.3 7.3 22.7 -15.6 -4.2Snowshoeing 0 – – – – 292 5.5 6.3 7.1 28.3 293 4.5 5.2 5.9 21.2 -25.1 -7.1Caving 631 1.9 2.4 2.9 21.4 466 1.8 1.9 2.1 17.1 455 1.7 1.9 2.0 19.5 14.0 2.4Windsurfing 133 4.1 5.9 7.6 9.0 385 4.8 5.5 6.3 8.5 94 3.2 4.6 6.1 6.4 -24.7 -2.1

Note: The numbers in this table are annual activity days estimates based on data collected during the three time periods. Mean days is the average annual number of days in which 

participants engage in an activity. Total annual days (in millions) is the product of the estimated number of participants times the mean annual days. Snorkeling in 1994-1995 included 

scuba diving. Missing data are denoted with “—“ and indicate that annual days data for that activity were not collected during that time period. 

Source: NSRE 1994-1995 (n=17,212), NSRE 1999-2001 (n=52,607), and NSRE 2005-2009 (n=30,394).

Appendix table 5 (continued)Source: USDA Forest Service (1995) (n=17,217), USDA Forest Service (2001) (n=52,607), and USDA Forest Service (2009) (n=30,398).
150

Appendix

Appendix table 6—Percent participating in recreation activity group individual activities by demographic 

strata 

Visiting recreation and historic sites

Demographic strata 

Family 

gatherings Picnicking Visit a beach 

Visit historic 

sites 

Developed 

camping 

Visit 

prehistoric 

sites 

All people age 16+ 74.0 51.7 43.3 44.1 23.8 20.8 

Male 72.3+ * 46.9+ * 43.2 45.3+ ** 26.2+ * 21.8+ ** 

Female 75.6* 56.1* 43.6 43.1*** 21.5* 19.8** 

White 73.6+ 53.0+ * 45.5+ * 46.2+ * 26.6+ * 20.3+ 

Black 77.3* 45.3* 30.8* 32.4* 8.8* 15.2* 

American Indian 73.5 57.1 38.1*** 47.5 26.6 26.6 

Asian or Pacific Islander 79.0** 57.5* 50.5* 41.4 15.0* 25.1* 

Hispanic 72.6 50.1 42.8 44.7 26.7* 26.1* 

Age 16-24 80.0+ * 41.0+ * 52.2* 45.0+ 29.3+ * 23.3+ * 

Age 25-34 77.4* 55.2* 48.5* 48.2* 30.7* 24.1* 

Age 35-44 80.0* 62.2* 54.2* 51.9* 32.0* 23.4* 

Age 45-54 73.9 55.1* 47.4* 49.1* 25.1*** 23.2* 

Age 55-64 71.0* 51.0 39.1* 41.8** 18.7* 17.7* 

Age 65+ 65.5* 45.5* 22.1* 30.9* 10.7* 13.9* 

Less than high school 69.3+ * 39.6+ * 25.7* 30.2+ * 19.4+ * 16.2+ * 

High school graduate 70.7* 47.1* 37.5* 36.1* 23.5 17.2* 

Some college 78.5* 57.7* 50.2* 48.8* 26.7* 23.9* 

College degree 77.4* 60.5* 60.3* 59.2* 25.7** 24.7* 

Postgraduate degree 77.0** 64.1* 63.5* 66.5* 24.6 27.5* 

<$15,000 64.4+ * 41.3+ * 27.0* 27.9+ * 14.3+ * 13.4+ * 

$15,000-$24,999 72.1 51.9 28.8* 35.6* 20.8* 18.1** 

$25,000-$49,999 75.4 54.8* 42.4 43.0 24.4 21.8 

$50,000-$74,999 78.9* 58.4* 52.8* 52.5* 30.4* 23.2* 

$75,000-$99,999 80.4* 63.7* 59.9* 59.6* 32.6* 26.2* 

$100,000-$149,999 80.2* 60.3* 63.2* 60.8* 30.9* 26.7* 

$150,000+ 79.6* 57.7* 72.0* 67.5* 29.6* 27.4* 

Non-metro resident 76.2++ ** 51.8 33.3+ * 40.1+ * 26.7+ * 21.9 

Metro area resident 73.6 51.6 45.4* 45.0*** 23.2 20.5 

U.S. citizen 74.4+ 51.9 43.3 44.2 24.1+ 20.8 

Foreign born 69.4** 49.7 42.4 42.9 18.7* 18.8 

Continued on next page
151

Appendix

Viewing and photographing nature

Demographic strata 

View or 

photograph 

natural scenery 

View or photograph 

wildflowers, trees, 

etc. 

View or 

photograph 

other wildlife 

View or 

photograph 

birds 

All people age 16+ 63.7 51.6 50.2 35.7 

Male 62.3+ * 47.3+ * 51.6+ * 33.5+ * 

Female 64.8* 55.4* 48.9* 37.7* 

White 68.8+ * 55.2+ * 56.2+ * 40.1+ * 

Black 43.9* 37.6* 31.1* 25.9* 

American Indian 67.2 55.5 54.5 39.5 

Asian or Pacific Islander 67.5** 51.9 39.2* 25.7* 

Hispanic 56.3* 46.4* 42.3* 25.9* 

Age 16-24 59.0+ * 44.8+ * 47.2+ * 21.8+ * 

Age 25-34 64.4 47.3* 51.6*** 28.2* 

Age 35-44 73.1* 57.8* 58.2* 39.0* 

Age 45-54 71.5* 58.7* 56.4* 43.1* 

Age 55-64 66.4* 55.9* 51.5 42.4* 

Age 65+ 49.7* 45.5* 38.2* 37.9* 

Less than high school 43.7* 39.4+ * 40.0+ * 24.7+ * 

High school graduate 60.0* 46.7* 47.2* 34.1* 

Some college 72.2* 57.0* 55.4* 39.5* 

College degree 78.6* 63.0* 57.7* 43.3* 

Postgraduate degree 82.4* 67.4* 61.9* 48.4* 

<$15,000 47.3+ * 40.8+ * 38.0+ * 30.3+ * 

$15,000-$24,999 55.4* 47.3* 43.7* 32.3* 

$25,000-$49,999 66.5* 52.7 53.0* 37.1** 

$50,000-$74,999 74.5* 58.4* 60.2* 39.9* 

$75,000-$99,999 78.1* 59.7* 61.4* 40.9* 

$100,000-$149,999 80.8* 62.6* 63.8* 44.4* 

$150,000+ 80.3* 62.9* 63.5* 43.7* 

Non-metro resident 63.1 52.2 57.5+ * 36.9+++ 

Metro area resident 63.8 51.4 48.6* 35.5 

U.S. citizen 64.0+ 52.0+ 50.9+ ** 36.0+ 

Foreign born 56.6* 42.2* 33.7* 30.5* 

Appendix table 6 (continued)

Continued on next page
152

Appendix

Backcountry activities

Demographic strata Hiking 

Visit a 

wilderness or 

primitive area Backpacking 

Horseback riding 

on trails 

Mountain 

climbing 

All people age 16+ 33.9 33.6 9.9 6.8 5.3 

Male 39.0+ * 40.5+ * 13.3+ * 6.8 6.4+ * 

Female 29.2* 27.3* 6.7* 6.9 4.2* 

White 37.9+ * 37.3+ * 11.0+ * 7.5+ * 5.8+ ** 

Black 12.1* 15.7* 2.5* 3.0* 1.1* 

American Indian 49.0* 54.9* 18.7* 15.3* 20.1* 

Asian or Pacific Islander 29.4** 20.8* 9.9 4.8*** 4.9 

Hispanic 34.0 34.2 10.5 7.2 5.6 

Age 16-24 32.8+ 36.8+ * 14.3+ * 13.0+ * 9.3+ * 

Age 25-34 38.6* 38.4* 12.4* 7.0 4.8 

Age 35-44 41.5* 40.3* 13.7* 7.8*** 5.9 

Age 45-54 41.4* 39.1* 12.3* 8.5* 6.2*** 

Age 55-64 32.8 30.2* 6.0* 3.7* 4.2** 

Age 65+ 18.9* 20.1* 2.1* 2.3* 1.6* 

Less than high school 24.0+ * 24.2+ * 7.1+ * 4.9+ * 4.2+ ** 

High school graduate 30.1* 31.7* 7.9* 7.0 3.5* 

Some college 35.7** 37.4* 10.3 7.6** 5.7 

College degree 43.9* 40.7* 14.4* 7.9** 7.6* 

Postgraduate degree 48.4* 40.8* 14.1* 7.4 8.1* 

<$15,000 23.0+ * 26.0+ * 6.8+ * 3.7+ * 4.2+ *** 

$15,000-$24,999 27.3* 25.5* 7.0* 3.6* 2.8* 

$25,000-$49,999 34.4 34.7 10.2 6.6 4.5*** 

$50,000-$74,999 39.4* 41.5* 12.1* 7.4 6.3*** 

$75,000-$99,999 45.5* 44.8* 13.4* 9.5* 6.1 

$100,000-$149,999 48.1* 45.1* 13.7* 9.5* 9.3* 

$150,000+ 50.6* 49.5* 20.0* 12.1* 9.6* 

Non-metro resident 34.5 41.1+ * 9.9 9.0+ * 5.5 

Metro area resident 33.8 32.1* 9.8 6.4*** 5.2 

U.S. citizen 34.2+ 34.1+ 9.9+++ 6.9 5.2 

Foreign born 26.3* 24.6* 7.8*** 5.5 6.5 

Appendix table 6 (continued)

Continued on next page
153

Appendix

Motorized activities

Demographic strata Motorboating Driving off-road 

Using personal 

watercraft Waterskiing Snowmobiling 

All people age 16+ 23.4 20.6 9.0 9.0 4.5 

Male 27.3+ * 26.5+ * 10.1+ * 10.9+ * 5.9+ * 

Female 19.7* 15.1* 8.0* 7.4* 3.3* 

White 29.4+ * 22.5+ * 10+ * 10.7+ * 5.3+ * 

Black 6.4* 10.5* 4.0* 2.0* 1.4* 

American Indian 15.8* 26.1*** 5.9*** 4.1* 3.7 

Asian or Pacific Islander 12.2* 7.0* 7.0** 6.0* 0.9* 

Hispanic 15.9* 24.4* 10.0** 9.3 4.7 

Age 16-24 26.6+ * 32.6+ * 18.6+ * 19.4+ * 7.3+ * 

Age 25-34 25.9* 28.9* 11.9* 13.3* 8.1* 

Age 35-44 28.3* 26.2* 10.7* 12.0* 5.8* 

Age 45-54 27.3* 19.8 7.5* 7.6* 4.0 

Age 55-64 21.3* 12.6* 4.4* 3.3* 2.3* 

Age 65+ 13.3* 7.7* 2.5* 0.8* 1.0* 

Less than high school 15.1+ * 20.3+ 7.6+ * 7.3+ * 3.5+ * 

High school graduate 22.1* 22.6* 8.6 8.0* 5.0*** 

Some college 26.6* 22.4* 9.7** 10.2* 5.6* 

College degree 30.8* 18.1* 11.0* 11.5* 4.1 

Postgraduate degree 28.9* 13.5* 8.4 9.6 3.4** 

<$15,000 10.3+ * 13.2+ * 4.6+ * 4.0+ * 2.4+ * 

$15,000-$24,999 14.3* 14.0* 4.3* 3.6* 5.3 

$25,000-$49,999 22.2** 22.2** 8.2** 7.1* 4.2 

$50,000-$74,999 30.7* 23.2* 11* 11.4* 5.8* 

$75,000-$99,999 34.9* 27.2* 12.6* 13.8* 5.6** 

$100,000-$149,999 37.0* 26.6* 14.0* 14.8* 5.6*** 

$150,000+ 43.7* 26.2* 18.6* 22.5* 8.9* 

Non-metro resident 25.6+ * 28.4+ * 7.8+ * 8.6 6.6+ * 

Metro area resident 22.9*** 19.0* 9.2 9.1 4.1** 

U.S. citizen 24.0+ ** 20.8+ 9.1+ 9.2+ 4.5 

Foreign born 9.2* 16.9** 5.9* 4.2* 5.6 

Appendix table 6 (continued)
154

Appendix

Fishing and hunting 

Demographic strata 

Warmwater 

fishing 

Coldwater 

fishing 

Saltwater 

fishing 

Big game 

hunting 

Small 

game 

hunting 

Anadromous 

fishing 

Migratory 

bird 

hunting 

All people age 16+ 23.7 13.1 10.7 8.9 7.0 4.5 2.1 

Male 32.0+ * 17.7+ * 15.4+ * 15.3+ * 12.4+ * 6.6+ * 3.8+ * 

Female 16.0* 8.8* 6.3* 2.7* 2.0* 2.7* 0.5* 

White 27.3+ * 14.2+ * 10.1+ * 11.5+ * 9.0+ * 4.3+ 2.7+ * 

Black 15.9* 6.6* 8.4* 3.0* 2.7* 2.9* 0.3* 

American Indian 21.2 21.6* 10.8 6.3 8.6 7.5** 2.9 

Asian or Pacific Islander 8.7* 6.5* 11.8 0.8* 1.1* 5.0 0.4* 

Hispanic 18.9* 15.2* 14.8* 5.3* 4.0* 6.4* 1.4* 

Age 16-24 28.4+ * 16.3+ * 12.4+ * 10.8+ * 9.2+ * 6.1+ * 3.2+ * 

Age 25-34 28.1* 15.7* 13.8* 9.1 8.2* 5.7* 2.4*** 

Age 35-44 29.5* 15.9* 11.5*** 11.4* 8.2* 4.5 2.9* 

Age 45-54 26.2* 14.8* 12.4* 11.5* 8.7* 5.6* 2.1 

Age 55-64 19.8* 10.8* 9.6** 6.9* 5.8* 4.0*** 1.5* 

Age 65+ 13.1* 6.8* 5.5* 4.3* 3.2* 2.0* 0.7* 

Less than high school 22.7+ ** 13.5++ 9.4+ * 6.8+ * 5.4+ * 4.7+++ 1.6+ * 

High school graduate 26.1* 13.0 10.8 11.8* 8.8* 4.4 2.6* 

Some college 24.6*** 13.7 10.6 9.9*** 7.5 4.9 2.1 

College degree 22.1** 12.7 12.3* 7.2** 7.0 3.9** 2.0 

Postgraduate degree 17.4* 11.1* 11.1 4.0* 4.2* 4.1 1.6 

<$15,000 17.2+ * 10.4+ * 6.2+ * 4.5+ * 3.7+ * 3.7+ ** 1.3+ * 

$15,000-$24,999 21.7** 12.7 8.9* 6.3* 5.2* 4.7 1.2* 

$25,000-$49,999 27.7* 14.1** 10.9 10.2** 7.3 4.2 1.8 

$50,000-$74,999 27.7* 14.2** 11.5*** 12.8* 8.3** 5.1*** 2.7** 

$75,000-$99,999 30.9* 15.5* 15.2* 13.0* 10.6* 5.6** 3.4* 

$100,000-$149,999 28.0* 16.9* 17.0* 10.8*** 10.9* 6.8* 3.2* 

$150,000+ 24.8 18.2* 19.4* 9.5 10.4* 6.0* 4.1* 

Non-metro resident 32.8+ * 16.5+ * 7.9+ * 16.4+ * 14.1+ * 4.3 3.8+ * 

Metro area resident 21.8* 12.4* 11.2* 7.4* 5.6* 4.6 1.7* 

U.S. citizen 24.2+ ** 13.3+ 10.6 9.2+ 7.3+ 4.5 2.1+ 

Foreign born 9.9* 8.8* 9.8 0.4* 0.7* 5.2 0.9* 

Appendix table 6 (continued)

Continued on next page
155

Appendix

Non-motorized boating

Demographic strata Canoeing Rafting Kayaking Sailing Rowing 

All people age 16+ 9.7 7.9 6.0 4.4 4.0 

Male 11.4+ * 8.4+ ** 6.8+ * 4.4 4.8+ * 

Female 8.1* 7.5*** 5.4* 4.5 3.2* 

White 12+ * 9.2+ * 7.2+ * 4.8+ ** 4.8+ * 

Black 3.0* 2.8* 1.5* 2.4* 1.2* 

American Indian 5.8** 5.6 1.5* 3.1 1.4** 

Asian or Pacific Islander 8.7 6.6 7.5** 4.6 4.0 

Hispanic 5.9* 7.4 4.7* 4.3 3.1* 

Age 16-24 18.5+ * 15.2+ * 11.3+ * 6.2+ * 5.6+ * 

Age 25-34 10.4*** 10.3* 5.9 4.9*** 3.7 

Age 35-44 12.2* 10.1* 6.8** 4.5 4.6** 

Age 45-54 10.0 7.9 6.9** 4.9*** 4.5*** 

Age 55-64 6.4* 3.9* 4.5* 4.0 3.4*** 

Age 65+ 2.3* 1.4* 1.7* 2.2* 2.3* 

Less than high school 6.9+ * 6.2+ * 3.8+ * 2.7+ * 2.7+ * 

High school graduate 8.1* 7.1** 3.9* 2.1* 3.5** 

Some college 9.5 8.7* 5.7 4.7 4.6* 

College degree 14.2* 9.7* 10.5* 7.9* 4.9* 

Postgraduate degree 16.0* 9.6* 12.8* 10.4* 5.7* 

<$15,000 4.8+ * 5.3+ * 3.2+ * 1.9+ * 2.9+ * 

$15,000-$24,999 6.7* 5.4* 2.5* 2.3* 3.1** 

$25,000-$49,999 8.7** 7.4 4.0* 3.2* 3.9 

$50,000-$74,999 12.4* 9.7* 7.6* 4.2 5.1* 

$75,000-$99,999 15.2* 12* 9.4* 5.2*** 4.4 

$100,000-$149,999 16.0* 10.4* 11.8* 8.6* 5.3* 

$150,000+ 16.1* 14.2* 14.6* 15.4* 6.0* 

Non-metro resident 10.3+++ 7.7 4.3+ * 2.1+ * 4.0 

Metro area resident 9.6 7.9 6.4** 4.9* 4.0 

U.S. citizen 9.8+ 8.1+ 6.1 4.4 4.1+ 

Foreign born 5.9* 3.6* 5.1 4.8 1.7* 

Appendix table 6 (continued) Appendix table 6 (continuted)

Continued on next page
156

Appendix

Snow skiing/boarding

Demographic strata Downhill skiing Snowboarding Cross country skiing 

All people age 16+ 6.8 5.2 2.6 

Male 8.6+ * 6.8+ * 2.9+ ** 

Female 5.1* 3.6* 2.3*** 

White 7.4+ * 5.2+ 2.8+ 

Black 1.8* 2.6* 0.6* 

American Indian 2.4** 4.9 1.5 

Asian or Pacific 

Islander 

10.1* 6.7*** 1.8 

Hispanic 7.5 7.3* 3.4* 

Age 16-24 13+ * 18.7* 2.4+ 

Age 25-34 8.1* 7.7* 2.8 

Age 35-44 9.0* 4.1* 3.2** 

Age 45-54 7.8** 2.2* 3.7* 

Age 55-64 3.1* 0.6* 2.6 

Age 65+ 1.1* 0.1* 1.0* 

Less than high school 4.7+ * 6.9+ * 1.5+ * 

High school graduate 4.4* 4.4** 1.5* 

Some college 6.0** 4.8 2.0** 

College degree 11.5* 5.4 4.2* 

Postgraduate degree 13.7* 3.8** 7.5* 

<$15,000 3.2+ * 4.2+ ** 2.3+ 

$15,000-$24,999 2.5* 3.2* 1.4* 

$25,000-$49,999 3.8* 4.2** 1.8* 

$50,000-$74,999 7.0 5.5 3.5* 

$75,000-$99,999 10.6* 5.1 3.9* 

$100,000-$149,999 14.0* 7.3* 4.4* 

$150,000+ 24.0* 10.8* 5.3* 

Non-metro resident 4.5+ * 4.1+ * 2.6 

Metro area resident 7.2** 5.4 2.6 

U.S. citizen 6.7+++ 5.2 2.6 

Foreign born 8.3*** 4.1 2.9 

Appendix table 6 (continued)

Continued on next page
157

Appendix

Other viewing/learning/gathering nature activities 

Demographic strata 

Visit outdoor 

nature centers, 

zoos, etc. Sightseeing 

Gather 

mushrooms, 

berries, etc. 

Visit a farm or 

agricultural 

setting 

View or 

photograph 

fish 

All people age 16+ 56.6 52.7 32.8 32.0 27.0 

Male 57.5++ 51.6++ *** 36.7+ * 32.2 30.5+ * 

Female 55.8 53.7*** 29.2* 31.8 23.9* 

White 59.4+ * 55.8+ * 37+ * 35.3+ * 28.4+ * 

Black 41.1* 40.1* 18.5* 20.4* 21.8* 

American Indian 53.0 49.5 42.9** 44.9*** 26.0 

Asian or Pacific Islander 54.4 46.3* 15.5* 29.3 24.0** 

Hispanic 58.4*** 50.9 30.6** 26.6* 25.5** 

Age 16-24 58.1+ 48.3+ * 38.1+ * 31.7+ 22.8+ * 

Age 25-34 68.3* 55*** 36.1* 33.2 31.5* 

Age 35-44 69.1* 58.1* 35.2* 38.5* 34.2* 

Age 45-54 59.3* 58.7* 37.9* 36.3* 31.5* 

Age 55-64 53.6* 55** 28.5* 27.9** 26.1 

Age 65+ 36.3* 42.8* 23.2* 24.7* 17.4* 

Less than high school 38.7+ * 38.6+ * 29.6+ * 18.2+ * 21.6+ * 

High school graduate 51.0* 48.9* 33.2 32.0 25.8** 

Some college 63.8* 59.6* 35.9* 36.8* 29.3* 

College degree 71.0* 60.6* 32.9 41.5* 31.0* 

Postgraduate degree 76.5* 64.8* 30.9 38.3* 32.1* 

<$15,000 35.8+ * 36.5+ * 28.1+ * 19.1+ * 19.4+ * 

$15,000-$24,999 50.9* 42.8* 27.3* 31.1 22.3* 

$25,000-$49,999 59.0* 55.3** 36.2* 33.3 30.4* 

$50,000-$74,999 67.0* 61.1* 37.7* 39.7* 31.9* 

$75,000-$99,999 72.8* 66.2* 38.3* 42.0* 33.9* 

$100,000-$149,999 74.4* 66.4* 35.7** 47.0* 35.0* 

$150,000+ 73.7* 64.5* 37.6* 36.0 41.4* 

Non-metro resident 52.7+ * 54.8++ ** 43.8+ * 39.4+ * 27.5 

Metro area resident 57.4*** 52.2 30.6* 30.5** 26.9 

U.S. citizen 56.6 53.4+ 33.4+ 31.9 27.1+++ 

Foreign born 59.7 39.5* 21.5* 38.7 24.5*** 

Appendix table 6 (continued)

Continued on next page
158

Appendix

Other nature-based land activities 

Demographic strata Mountain biking Primitive camping Caving Rock climbing Orienteering 

All people age 16+ 18.1 14.5 4.4 4.2 2.6 

Male 23.5+ * 18.9+ * 4.9+ *** 5.3+ * 3.8+ * 

Female 13.1* 10.5* 4.0*** 3.1* 1.5* 

White 19+ ** 16.6+ * 4.8+ *** 4.6+ ** 2.6+++ 

Black 11.9* 4.6* 1.0* 2.1* 1.5** 

American Indian 29.9* 26.5* 3.5 16.4* 4.6 

Asian or Pacific Islander 11.3* 8.1* 2.8*** 3.4 2.6 

Hispanic 20.5* 15.2 6.2* 3.8 3.6*** 

Age 16-24 27.9+ * 18.4+ * 7.6+ * 10.5+ * 4.5+ * 

Age 25-34 23.8* 18.3* 3.9 4.4 2.6 

Age 35-44 27.0* 19.1* 5.6* 4.5 3.1 

Age 45-54 18.5 16.9* 5.2*** 3.5*** 2.9 

Age 55-64 10.5* 11.2* 2.5* 2.1* 1.9 

Age 65+ 4.7* 5.7* 2.2* 0.9* 1.2* 

Less than high school 15.6+ * 12.2+ * 3.8+++ *** 5.8+ * 1.9+ 

High school graduate 15.4* 14.8 4.2 2.2* 1.4* 

Some college 18.3 16.4* 5.0*** 3.6*** 3.5** 

College degree 22.7* 14.7 4.9 5.3* 3.7** 

Postgraduate degree 24.9* 13.4 4.5 5.6** 4.1** 

<$15,000 14.1+ * 10.8+ * 3.1+ * 3.7+ 0.9+ * 

$15,000-$24,999 13.3* 10.3* 4.0 2.5* 2.6 

$25,000-$49,999 16.6** 15.8** 4.9 3.6*** 2.1 

$50,000-$74,999 19.9** 18.1* 6.6* 4.2 3.8** 

$75,000-$99,999 23.0* 21.7* 4.9 3.6 3.8*** 

$100,000-$149,999 30.0* 19.2* 5.8** 8.0* 4.9* 

$150,000+ 29.1* 20.3* 6.2** 7.4* 3.6 

Non-metro resident 16.9+++ *** 18.6+ * 5.1+++ *** 4.2 2.1 

Metro area resident 18.4 13.7* 4.3 4.2 2.7 

U.S. citizen 17.8+ 14.8+ 4.5 4.2 2.7 

Foreign born 25.7* 7.3* 4.0 3.3 1.0 

Appendix table 6 (continued)

Continued on next page
159

Appendix

Developed-setting activities 

Demographic strata 

Walking 

for 

pleasure 

Gardening 

or 

landscaping 

for pleasure 

Driving for 

pleasure 

Yard games 

e.g., 

horseshoes Bicycling 

Attend 

outdoor 

concerts 

etc. 

Horse-back 

riding (any type) 

All people age 16+ 85.0 67.1 51.2 42.0 37.5 37.5 9.1 

Male 83.6+ * 65.8+++ 52.4++ *** 49.7+ * 42.7+ * 34.2+ ** 8.8 

Female 86.4* 68.3 50.1*** 35.8* 32.8* 40.5** 9.4 

White 85.2+ 69.8+ * 56.1+ * 47.2+ * 37.3+ 35+ ** 10.1+ * 

Black 83.3* 55.1* 32.5* 36.1** 33.4* 42.3*** 3.9* 

American Indian 86.5 72.7 58.8 54.4 41.6 53.9 21.2* 

Asian or Pacific Islander 82.9*** 65.2 36.2* 8.2* 37.6 49.7** 5.6* 

Hispanic 86.2** 64.3*** 48.2** 34.3* 42.7* 41.4 9.6 

Age 16-24 86.2+ ** 47.0+ * 50.5+ 58.0+ * 54.7+ * 57.1+ * 17.4+ * 

Age 25-34 88.6* 64.5 53.9** 45.3 46.6* 39.0 9.8 

Age 35-44 87.6* 74.1* 59.3* 57.6* 47.9* 40.6 10.1 

Age 45-54 87.0* 74.2* 55.8* 45.5 37.0 37.4 10.7* 

Age 55-64 83.2* 72.9* 52.3 40.2 25.8* 27.2* 5.2* 

Age 65+ 78.2* 68.6 39.2* 17.5* 18.3* 24.8* 3.4* 

Less than high school 80.2+ * 53.8+ * 39.6+ * 41.2++ 33.2+ * 29.5+ * 7.0+ * 

High school graduate 81.7* 67.0 49.1** 38.1** 31.6* 31.7* 9.3 

Some college 87.6* 71.1* 57.1* 42.3 38.2 40.5 10.4* 

College degree 90.7* 75.1* 57.1* 45.6 46.8* 46.2* 9.7 

Postgraduate degree 93.2* 78.5* 58.9* 47.3 49.8* 49.8* 9.4 

<$15,000 80.1+ * 53.2+ * 34.6+ * 32.8+ * 30+ * 29.4+ * 4.7+ * 

$15,000-$24,999 84.6 64.4 42.4* 29.2* 25.6* 38.0 5.4* 

$25,000-$49,999 85.8 66.6 54.9* 41.1 35.3* 36.0 8.7 

$50,000-$74,999 87.3* 74.3* 59.5* 53.6* 40.5* 35.4 10.7** 

$75,000-$99,999 91.5* 79.9* 63.5* 51.7* 44.8* 46.8* 12.3* 

$100,000-$149,999 90.7* 76.1* 65.9* 56.6* 54.4* 53.7* 11.2** 

$150,000+ 90.7* 77.0* 59.2* 49.5 53.4* 39.3 14.5* 

Non-metro resident 84.6 72.0+ * 57.9+ * 51.4+ * 30.1+ * 27.0+ * 12.5+ * 

Metro area resident 85.1 66.0 49.9* 40.1*** 39.0* 39.5** 8.5* 

U.S. citizen 84.9+ 67.4 52.1+ ** 42.9+ 37.2+ 37.7 9.2 

Foreign born 89.9* 65.6 34.8* 18.3* 46.3* 34.5 7.8 

Appendix table 6 (continued)

Continued on next page
160

Appendix

Other water-based activities 

Demographic strata 

Swimming 

in outdoor 

pool 

Swimming 

in lakes, 

streams, 

etc. 

Visit other 

waterside 

(not 

beach) 

Boat tours 

or 

excursions Snorkeling Surfing 

Scuba 

diving 

Windsurfing 

All people age 16+ 43.3 41.5 24.0 19.6 6.5 2.0 1.5 0.6 

Male 42.1+ * 43.5+ * 24.0 19.7 7.3+ * 2.5+ * 2.2+ * 0.7 

Female 44.6* 39.6* 24.1 19.5 5.6* 1.5* 0.9* 0.5 

White 46.3+ * 46.7+ * 27.1+ * 20.7+ * 7.3+ * 2.0+ 1.7++ 0.7++ 

Black 28.8* 18.6* 12.5* 12.1* 2.4* 0.5* 1.2 0.4 

American Indian 27.7* 40.9 23.5 12.8** 6.3 2.0 2.2 0.1 

Asian or Pacific Islander 39.5** 35.3* 23.4 25.9* 10* 3.3* 0.6** 1.0 

Hispanic 45.9* 40.5 20.0* 18.6 5.6*** 2.9* 1.3 0.3** 

Age 16-24 64.7* 58.6* 29.1+ * 19.4+ 9.5+ * 5.9+ * 2.5+ * 1.5+ * 

Age 25-34 54.3* 49.4* 27.0* 17.7* 7.1 1.9 2.4* 0.4*** 

Age 35-44 54.4* 53.9* 33.7* 25.3* 8.4* 2 1.9 0.7 

Age 45-54 43.1 44.9* 26.3* 22.1* 8.1* 1.6*** 1.7 0.7 

Age 55-64 31.9* 31.4* 19.8* 18.8 4.9* 0.6* 0.7* 0.2* 

Age 65+ 18.2* 15.4* 9.4* 14.5* 1.3* 0.2* 0.1* 0.1* 

Less than high school 32.3+ * 28.5+ * 15.0+ * 12.3+ * 2.8+ * 1.7+ *** 1.0+ * 0.5+ 

High school graduate 39.1* 36.3* 20.4* 15.6* 3.7* 1.6** 0.8* 0.3* 

Some college 46.9* 46.0* 28.1* 21.8* 7.1*** 2.0 1.7 0.6 

College degree 56.5* 55.8* 33.7* 29.3* 13* 3.0* 2.5* 0.9** 

Postgraduate degree 55.5* 56.3* 34.6* 32.4* 13.9* 2.7*** 3.2* 1.3* 

<$15,000 26.2+ * 28.3* 16.5+ * 12.4+ * 1.8+ * 1.2+ * 0.4+ * 0.3+ ** 

$15,000-$24,999 32.3* 27.5* 18.2* 12.8* 3.0* 0.9* 0.6* 0.3*** 

$25,000-$49,999 41.5* 39.3* 23.9 17.9** 4.6* 1.3* 1.1** 0.3** 

$50,000-$74,999 51.7* 50.7* 30.9* 24.1* 8.2* 1.7 1.6 0.6 

$75,000-$99,999 58.1* 58.4* 33.5* 27* 10.8* 3.2* 2.2** 0.9 

$100,000-$149,999 62.0* 60.6* 34.6* 30.5* 13.7* 5.0* 2.8* 1.4* 

$150,000+ 67.4* 69.2* 37.9* 40.3* 22.6* 5.2* 6.9* 1.4* 

Non-metro resident 34.7+ * 37.9+ * 21.9+ * 13.6+ * 3.8+ * 0.6+ * 0.8+ * 0.3++ *** 

Metro area resident 45.2* 42.2** 24.5 20.9* 7.0* 2.3* 1.7*** 0.6 

U.S. citizen 43.6+ 41.7+ 24.2+ 19.7 6.4 2.0 1.5 0.5+ 

Foreign born 38.5* 36* 19.1* 18.5 7.0 2.0 1.5 2.1* 

Appendix table 6 (continued)

Continued on next page
161

Appendix

Other winter activities 

Demographic strata Sledding Ice skating outdoors Ice fishing Snowshoeing 

All people age 16+ 13.6 5.1 2.1 1.7 

Male 12.8++ *** 4.3+ ** 3.4+ * 1.6 

Female 14.4*** 5.8** 0.8* 1.9 

White 16.6+ * 5.2+++ 2.6+ * 2.3+ * 

Black 5.9* 4.2 0.4* 0.2* 

American Indian 22.8* 10.3** 1.8 1.5 

Asian or Pacific Islander 7.0* 4.2 0.3* 0.9 

Hispanic 9.2* 5.6 1.6** 0.6* 

Age 16-24 26.5+ * 12.6+ * 2.3+ 1.6++ 

Age 25-34 19.1* 5.6 3.0* 2.0 

Age 35-44 20.3* 6.1*** 2.4 2.0 

Age 45-54 11* 4.2*** 2.5** 2.2 

Age 55-64 4.7* 2.3* 1.7 1.5 

Age 65+ 1.4* 0.6* 0.8* 0.8* 

Less than high school 9.8+ * 3.5+ * 1.5+ * 0.7+ * 

High school graduate 12.9 4.5 2.7* 1.1** 

Some college 15** 5.6 2.1 1.7 

College degree 17.7* 6.6* 1.9 2.9* 

Postgraduate degree 15.9*** 7.2* 1.3** 4.7* 

<$15,000 8.1+ * 2.6+ * 1.2+ * 1.2+ 

$15,000-$24,999 9.8* 3.9 1.8 0.9*** 

$25,000-$49,999 11.9** 4.4 2.1 1.3 

$50,000-$74,999 17.4* 5.3 2.8* 2.0 

$75,000-$99,999 19.1* 6.5*** 3.2* 2.3 

$100,000-$149,999 21.3* 7.8* 2.7** 3.4* 

$150,000+ 20.8* 7.9* 2.5 4.0* 

Non-metro resident 13.8 2.7+ * 3.3+ * 2.2 

Metro area resident 13.6 5.6** 1.8* 1.6 

U.S. citizen 13.9+ 5.1 2.1+ 1.7 

Foreign born 4.7* 5.2 0.9* 1.3 

Appendix table 6 (continued)

Continued on next page
162

Appendix

Individual sports 

Demographic strata 

Running or 

jogging Golf 

Handball 

outdoors 

Tennis 

outdoors Inline skating 

All people age 16+ 34.2 15.2 11.8 10.0 6.2 

Male 41.7+ * 22.6+ * 11.7 11.2+++ 7.0 

Female 28.1* 8.2* 11.9 8.8 5.3 

White 31.5+ ** 17.5+ ** 10.8+ 9.8++ 6.0+ 

Black 37.2 8.0* 15.5*** 7.6 7.6 

American Indian 44.4 33.4** 11.7 0.0 33.4* 

Asian or Pacific Islander 21.5* 5.8** 25.6* 20.6* 2.2 

Hispanic 48.4* 13.8 10.3 10.9 5.6 

Age 16-24 72.8+ * 13.8+ 33.8+ * 25.5+ * 12.6+ * 

Age 25-34 43.8* 19.4** 12.3 12.8 11.1* 

Age 35-44 44.6* 22.0* 10.8 10.4 6.0 

Age 45-54 22* 17.4 7.8** 6.3** 2.3* 

Age 55-64 15.9* 14.4 6.1* 2.6* 1.6* 

Age 65+ 11.5* 6.4* 3.2* 1.9* 3.0** 

Less than high school 33.4+ 6.3+ * 14.3 9.9+ 6.5 

High school graduate 26.8* 14.2 11.6 6.2* 6.3 

Some college 33.9 15.7 10.8 9.3 5.5 

College degree 44.6* 26.8* 11.9 15.5* 7.2 

Postgraduate degree 44.7* 19.1 9.3 16.1** 6.1 

<$15,000 28.1+ *** 5.8+ * 12.4++ 6.9+ 9.4*** 

$15,000-$24,999 26.4*** 6.7* 7.6 9.7 5.2 

$25,000-$49,999 38.3 10.6** 9.2*** 7.3 5.0 

$50,000-$74,999 32.0 19.7** 7.7** 10.3 5.5 

$75,000-$99,999 46.4* 17.9 16.7** 13.4 7.2 

$100,000-$149,999 47.9* 32.3* 13.0 10.7 10.5** 

$150,000+ 44.6** 33.8* 15.3 28.3* 5.8 

Non-metro resident 31.0 9.7+ * 9.9 6.0+ ** 4.0+++ 

Metro area resident 34.8 16.4 12.2 10.9 6.6 

U.S. citizen 34.1++ 15.3 11.6 10.0 6.1 

Foreign born 49.7** 16.4 17.9 10.4 7.2 

Continued on next page

Appendix table 6 (continued)
163

Appendix

Team sports 

Demographic strata 

Attend sports 

events 

outdoors Basketball 

Volleyball 

outdoors Football Baseball Soccer Softball 

All people age 16+ 53.7 17.6 14.7 12.5 10.8 11.3 9.2 

Male 56.2++ *** 24.9+ * 15.3 17.9+ * 14.1+ ** 15.8+ * 14.6+ * 

Female 51.4*** 11.8* 14.0 8.3* 7.2** 6.9* 3.4* 

White 54.7+ 19.9+ 14.2 13.3 11.4+++ 10.0 5.4+ * 

Black 49.7 28* 17.5 10.2 5.5*** 11.6 0.0 

American Indian 42.6 4.5 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 14.9 

Asian or Pacific Islander 35.1* 4.2* 15.6 11.7 5.2 23.7*** 0.0*** 

Hispanic 59.8** 8.2* 14.5 13.3 13.9 16.6*** 28* 

Age 16-24 70.3+ * 42.9+ * 30.7+ * 28.4+ * 16.2+ ** 31.9+ * 9.7+ 

Age 25-34 66.0* 27.8* 23.0* 21.6* 15.2** 15.3 20.8* 

Age 35-44 63.9* 18.7 11.4 10.2 16.5** 13.9 11.6 

Age 45-54 54.5 15.9 12.9 5.2* 8.3 4.7** 3.6** 

Age 55-64 39.9* 7.4* 4.2* 3.7* 5.2** 2.3** 0.8* 

Age 65+ 36.5* 0.5* 4.1* 2.5* 1.1* 0.0* 0.8* 

Less than high school 39.1+ * 19.1+ 15.7 12.3 8.0 15++ *** 16.6+ * 

High school graduate 50.3*** 13.1*** 13 12.8 9.6 5.8** 6.1*** 

Some college 58.2** 14.8 17.6 11.1 13.5 14.0 7.2 

College degree 68.0* 27.2* 12.7 13.4 14.0 9.8 7.6 

Postgraduate degree 65.3* 20.3 10.9 13.9 10.9 12.7 7.0 

<$15,000 36.1+ * 20.9+ 12.1 4.3+ ** 14+ 9.4++ 3.4+ *** 

$15,000-$24,999 40.8* 19.2 10.7 10.6 4.4 13.7 1.2* 

$25,000-$49,999 49.3** 8.6* 14.9 12.5 7*** 7.4 10.6 

$50,000-$74,999 61.4* 18.2 17.4 14.5 11.2 4.7** 3.4** 

$75,000-$99,999 70.7* 27.2** 16.6 8.0 26.2* 10.0 9.6 

$100,000-$149,999 72.0* 24.3 17.0 26.2* 15.9 22.1* 12.8 

$150,000+ 71.6* 49.0* 23.8 9.2 17.2 11.1 10.6 

Non-metro resident 50.0+++ 21.8 13.7 6.3++ *** 8.4 7.9 4.2++ ** 

Metro area resident 54.5 16.7 14.9 13.4 11.3 12.1 10.3 

U.S. citizen 54.2++ 17.8 14.9 12.5 10.8 10.8+ 6.5+ * 

Foreign born 40.4** 23.3 6.5 14.6 10.1 44.7* 46.6* 

Note: The test statistic denoted by the '+' symbol is chi-square goodness of fit which tests independence of the observed 

proportions in the categories of each demographic group. The test statistic denoted by '*' is a binomial test of significance 

between the stratum participation rate and the participation rate for all people ages 16 and older shown in line 1. Significance 

levels indicated by (same for '+'): '*'=.01, '**=.05, '***=.10. 

Source: USDA Forest Service (2009), n=30,398. Hispanics may be of any race but are included in the Hispanic category only. 

Income is total annual family income before taxes. U.S. citizen includes people born abroad.

Appendix table 6 (continued)
164

Appendix Appendix table 7—Millions of individual annual activity days of land-based activities that occurred in natural forest, non-forest natural, and developed or other settings by region By activity East West Nation 

Activity 

Natural 

forest 

Nonforest 

natural 

Other 

settings Total 

Natural 

forest 

Nonforest 

natural 

Other 

settings Total 

Natural 

forest 

Nonforest 

natural 

Other 

settings Total 

Walk for pleasure 6,036.1 4,967.6 4,696.3 15,701.0 1,735.7 1,947.8 1,543.3 5,226.8 7,766.0 6,921.7 6,239.2 20,927.8 View/photograph natural scenery 4,860.4 2,690.0 1,047.6 8,630.6 1,516.3 1,073.7 387.9 2,978.0 6,318.5 3,816.5 1,445.1 11,608.6 

View/photograph flowers, etc. 3,889.1 2,465.9 1,462.0 7,817.0 1,077.3 641.7 996.2 2,715.2 4,892.3 3,049.4 2,590.5 10,532.2 

View or photograph birds 3,042.9 2,227.3 1,288.2 6,558.4 874.9 484.3 276.4 1,656.6 3,914.8 2,713.8 1,566.0 8,215.0 

View/photograph other wildlife 2,673.9 940.2 673.6 4,287.7 878.6 159.1 184.1 1,221.8 3,607.3 1,048.1 854.0 5,509.5 

Day hiking 783.9 242.8 159.8 1,186.5 353.2 121.5 164.3 639.0 1,117.8 361.7 345.9 1,825.5 

Family gathering 472.9 248.5 144.7 866.2 145.8 109.1 58.1 313.0 615.4 360.3 203.5 1,179.3 

Off-highway vehicle driving 573.5 186.3 84.5 844.4 77.0 119.9 6.8 203.7 627.4 334.6 86.2 1,048.2 

Mountain biking 328.3 168.1 111.6 607.9 98.7 67.5 51.7 218.0 420.5 238.1 167.3 825.8 

Gather mushrooms, berries, etc. 428.4 129.3 67.6 625.3 98.4 70.7 4.5 173.6 525.9 201.7 71.5 799.0 

Picnicking 322.8 147.9 69.6 540.3 115.3 56.5 49.9 221.7 433.9 203.4 124.6 762.0 

Visit outdoor nature center/zoo 349.3 130.5 49.2 529.3 130.8 43.3 32.9 207.1 479.7 173.3 83.2 736.4 

Visit a wilderness 441.9 66.2 12.7 520.8 189.6 22.5 3.3 215.4 632.2 88.3 15.8 736.3 

Visit historic sites 70.0 186.0 61.4 317.4 55.3 50.4 16.6 122.3 139.0 226.1 74.6 439.8 

Developed camping 183.9 42.8 42.9 269.6 116.3 24.4 11.5 152.1 301.9 67.2 52.7 421.8 

Big game hunting 223.5 28.3 5.4 257.6 37.1 5.5 1.1 43.7 260.4 34.0 6.6 301.2 

Horseback riding on trails 112.3 36.5 22.5 171.3 33.9 27.7 29.3 90.9 142.1 65.4 54.5 262.1 

Primitive camping 106.8 29.9 15.3 152.0 58.8 32.2 6.5 97.5 162.7 66.2 20.7 249.6 

Backpacking 120.3 11.3 12.5 144.1 60.8 26.7 4.1 91.6 179.3 40.3 16.2 235.8 

Small game hunting 129.6 27.1 8.3 165.2 21.6 20.0 3.8 45.4 148.2 49.8 12.3 210.6 

Visit prehistoric sites 79.9 26.8 0.5 107.2 13.4 36.7 0.4 50.5 89.9 66.8 0.9 157.6 

Snowmobiling 42.5 12.3 4.3 59.1 12.3 4.1 1.9 18.3 54.9 16.4 6.1 77.4 Mountain climbing 14.3 11.6 5.5 31.4 23.7 3.6 1.0 28.3 35.1 17.0 7.6 59.7 Rock climbing 11.8 5.2 3.1 20.1 15.5 8.5 0.3 24.5 27.8 14.7 1.9 44.7 
165

Appendix

East West Nation 

Activity 

Natural 

forest 

Nonforest 

natural 

Other 

settings Total 

Natural 

forest 

Nonforest 

natural 

Other 

settings Total 

Natural 

forest 

Nonforest 

natural 

Other 

settings Total 

Cross-country skiing 16.8 5.7 2.4 24.9 9.6 1.1 0.2 10.9 27.1 6.4 2.4 35.9 Snowshoeing 11.5 1.5 0.3 13.3 7.4 0.5 0.0 7.9 19.1 1.8 0.3 21.2 Source: NSRE 2005-2009 (n=30,394). Note: Annual days are in millions. Other settings include the remainder of days that were not reported in natural forests or on non-forest natural 

lands. 

By activity group 

East West Nation 

Activity 

Natural 

forest 

Nonforest 

natural 

Other 

settings Total 

Natural 

forest 

Nonforest 

natural 

Other 

settings Total 

Natural 

forest 

Nonforest 

natural 

Other 

settings Total 

Visiting recreation & historic sites 1,129.5 652.0 319.1 2,100.7 446.0 277.1 136.4 859.6 1,580.1 923.8 456.3 2,960.2 Viewing/photographing nature 14,466.3 8,323.4 4,471.4 27,293.7 4,347.2 2,358.8 1,844.7 8,571.6 18,732.9 10,627.9 6,455.7 35,816.5 

Backcountry activities 1,472.7 368.4 213.0 2,054.1 661.2 202.0 202.0 1,065.2 2,106.6 572.7 440.1 3,119.4 

Motorized activities 616.1 198.7 88.8 903.5 89.3 124.0 8.7 222.0 682.4 350.9 92.3 1,125.6 

Hunting 353.1 55.4 13.7 422.8 58.7 25.5 4.9 89.1 408.6 83.8 18.9 511.3 

Snow skiing 16.8 5.7 2.4 24.9 9.6 1.1 0.2 10.9 27.1 6.4 2.4 35.9 

Note: Annual days are in millions. Based on land-based activities only. The entire non-motor water activity group is excluded. Some land-based activities did not ask about 

environmental setting. Other settings include the remainder of days that were not reported in natural forests or on non-forest natural lands. Activity groups consist of the following 

activities: Viewing/photographing nature: View/photograph birds, natural scenery, other wildlife (besides birds), and wildflowers, trees, etc. Backcountry activities: Backpacking, day hiking, horseback riding on trails, mountain climbing, and visiting a wilderness or primitive area. Visiting recreation and historic sites: Family gatherings, picnicking, visiting historic or prehistoric sites, and camping. Not included: Visiting the beach. Motorized activities: Off-highway vehicle driving and snowmobiling. Not included: Motorboating, using personal watercraft, and waterskiing. 

Hunting: Big game hunting, small game hunting. 

Snow skiing: Includes cross-country skiing only; no other snow-based activity collected forest setting data. 

Source: NSRE 2005-2009 (n=30,394). 

Appendix table 7 (continued)Source: USDA Forest Service (2009) (n=30,394).
166

Appendix

Appendix table 8—Percent of youth ages 6 to 19 (with 95 percent confidence intervals) reporting spending less, 

about the same, or more time outdoors this year than last, by gender and age 

Less time About the same More time 

Gender Age n= 

95 

percent 

c.i. 

lower Percent 

95 

percent 

c.i. 

upper 

95 

percent 

c.i. 

lower Percent 

95 

percent 

c.i. 

upper 

95 

percent 

c.i. 

lower Percent 

95 

percent 

c.i. 

upper 

Male 6 to 9 187 5.6 9.8 14.1 36.5 43.6 50.7 39.4 46.6 53.7 

Female 6 to 9 180 8.3 13.2 18.2 40.4 47.7 55.0 32.0 39.1 46.2 

Male 10 to 12 140 7.7 13.4 19.0 37.0 45.2 53.5 33.3 41.4 49.6 

Female 10 to 12 143 7.0 12.4 17.8 45.7 53.9 62.1 26.0 33.7 41.5 

Male 13 to 15 172 14.2 20.2 26.2 33.7 41.0 48.4 31.5 38.8 46.1 

Female 13 to 15 140 12.7 19.3 25.8 43.6 51.9 60.2 21.3 28.8 36.3 

Male 16 to 19 108 7.8 14.4 21.0 32.7 42.0 51.3 34.3 43.6 53.0 

Female 16 to 19 106 11.0 18.4 25.7 31.8 41.1 50.5 31.2 40.5 49.9 

Total All ages 1,176 13.0 15.0 17.1 42.6 45.4 48.3 36.7 39.5 42.3 

c.i. = confidence interval. 

Note: Percent may not sum across to 100.0 exactly due to rounding. 

Source: NSRE National Kids Survey, 2007 to 2009. 
167

Appendix

Appendix table 9—Percent and number of annual activity days that occurred on public and private lands in forest settings 

 by region 

East West Nation 

Public Private Public Private 

Activity 

Percent Days Percent Days 

Annual 

Days 

Percent Days Percent Days 

Annual 

Days 

Total 

Annual 

Days 

millions millions millions millions millions millions millions

Walk for pleasure 52.4 8,227.8 47.6 7,473.2 15,701.0 57.3 2,994.6 42.7 2,232.2 5,226.8 20,927.8 

View/photograph natural scenery 60.3 5,207.0 39.7 3,423.6 8,630.6 67.3 2,004.4 32.7 973.6 2,978.0 11,608.6 

View/photograph wildflowers, trees, etc. 55.1 4,306.4 44.9 3,510.6 7,817.0 57.3 1,556.1 42.7 1,159.1 2,715.2 10,532.2 

View/photograph birds 50.1 3,284.4 49.9 3,274.0 6,558.4 55.3 915.8 44.7 740.8 1,656.6 8,215.0 

View/photograph other wildlife 54.1 2,321.2 45.9 1,966.5 4,287.7 62.4 763.0 37.6 458.8 1,221.8 5,509.5 

Day hiking 73.6 872.8 26.4 313.7 1,186.5 79.4 507.6 20.6 131.4 639.0 1,825.5 

Swimming in lakes, streams, etc. 53.0 484.8 47.0 430.3 915.1 68.6 217.7 31.4 99.6 317.3 1,232.4 

Family gathering 52.9 458.1 47.1 408.1 866.2 61.8 193.5 38.2 119.5 313.0 1,179.2 

Off-highway vehicle driving 45.6 385.1 54.4 459.3 844.4 58.9 120.0 41.1 83.7 203.7 1,048.1 

Mountain biking 59.1 359.2 40.9 248.7 607.9 63.2 137.7 36.8 80.3 218.0 825.9 

Gather mushrooms, berries, etc. 43.6 272.6 56.4 352.7 625.3 59.2 102.7 40.8 70.9 173.6 798.9 

Picnicking 68.2 368.4 31.8 171.9 540.3 73.9 163.8 26.1 57.9 221.7 762.0 

Visit outdoor nature center/zoo 77.0 407.7 23.0 121.6 529.3 73.1 151.5 26.9 55.6 207.1 736.4 

Visit a wilderness or primitive area 73.8 384.1 26.2 136.7 520.8 81.1 174.8 18.9 40.6 215.4 736.2 

Visit historic sites 57.0 180.9 43.0 136.5 317.4 65.1 79.7 34.9 42.6 122.3 439.7 

Developed camping 68.2 183.8 31.8 85.8 269.6 81.3 123.6 18.7 28.5 152.1 421.7 

Big game hunting 42.0 108.3 58.0 149.3 257.6 58.4 25.5 41.6 18.2 43.7 301.3 

Horseback riding on trails 46.4 79.5 53.6 91.8 171.3 57.5 52.3 42.5 38.6 90.9 262.2 

Primitive camping 69.1 105.1 30.9 46.9 152.0 82.4 80.3 17.6 17.2 97.5 249.5 

Backpacking 77.8 112.1 22.2 32.0 144.1 78.3 71.7 21.7 19.9 91.6 235.7 

Small game hunting 44.1 72.9 55.9 92.3 165.2 55.4 25.2 44.6 20.2 45.4 210.6 

Visit prehistoric sites 69.9 75.0 30.1 32.2 107.2 74.3 37.5 25.7 13.0 50.5 157.7 

Snowmobiling 51.8 30.6 48.2 28.5 59.1 61.4 11.2 38.6 7.1 18.3 77.4 

East West Nation

Public Private Public Private

Activity

Percent DaysPercent Days

Annual

Days

Percent DaysPercent Days

Annual

Days

Total

Annual

Days

Mountain climbing 80.9 25.4 19.1 6.0 31.4 76.8 21.7 23.2 6.6 28.3 59.7

Rock climbing 69.6 14.0 30.4 6.1 20.1 70.5 17.3 29.5 7.2 24.5 44.6

Cross-country skiing 57.2 14.2 42.8 10.7 24.9 67.3 7.3 32.7 3.6 10.9 35.8

Snowshoeing 53.4 7.1 46.6 6.2 13.3 68.2 5.4 31.8 2.5 7.9 21.2

Note: Annual days are in millions. Percentages sum across to 100 percent separately for the East and West regions; may not sum to 100 exactly 

due to rounding. 

Source: USDA Forest Service (2009) n=5,374. Source: NSRE 2005-2009, n=5,374.



Cordell, H. Ken. 2012. Outdoor recreation trends and futures: a technical document supporting the Forest Service

2010 RPAAssessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-150. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest

Service, Southern Research Station, 167 p.

This publication presents a national study of outdoor recreation trends as part of the Renewable Resources

Planning Act Assessment by the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. The objectives are to review

past trends in outdoor recreation participation by Americans, to describe in detail current outdoor recreation

participation patterns, and to compare patterns across regional and demographic strata. Further objectives include

describing recreation activity participation on public and private lands and providing projections of outdoor

recreation participation out to the year 2060. One overriding national trend is quite evident: the mix of outdoor

activities chosen by Americans and the relative popularity of activities overall have been evolving over the last

several decades. One general category of activity that has been showing growth in the first decade of the 21st

century is nature-based recreation. Between 2000 and 2009, the number of people who participated in naturebased outdoor recreation grew by 7.1 percent and the number of activity days grew about 40 percent. Among

types of nature-based recreation, motorized activities showed growth up to about 2005, but then ended up toward

the end of the 2000-2009 decade at about the same level as in 2000. The trend in hunting, fishing, and backcountry

activities remained relatively flat during this period. Various forms of skiing, including snowboarding, declined

during this decade. The clear growth area was within the overall group of activities oriented toward viewing and

photographing nature. Generally, outdoor recreation activities are projected to grow in number of participants out

to 2060. Population growth is projected to be the primary driver of growth in number of adult participants under

each RPAAssessment scenario. The top five activities in terms of growth of number of participants are developed

skiing, other skiing, challenge activities, equestrian activities, and motorized water activities. The lowest rates of

participant growth are visiting primitive areas, motorized off-road activities, motorized snow activities, hunting,

fishing, and floating water activities. At the same time, a number of activities are projected to decline in per-capita

adult participation rates. 

Keywords: Nature-based recreation, outdoor recreation, recreation projections, recreation trends, recreation

visitation, 2010 RPAAssessment.

You may request additional copies of this publication by email at pubrequest@fs.fed.us

How do you rate this publication?

You may submit your feedback at

www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubeval

The Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), is 

dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s 

forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, 

and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States 

and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and 

National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly 

greater service to a growing Nation.

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, 

color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial 

status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, 

reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public 

assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information 

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 

(voice) or (202) 720-6382 ( TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern Research Station

General Technical Report SRS-150

March 2012