View Full Version : Backpacking participation down 23%
Clark Fork
01-23-2006, 03:09
In the latest copy of BackPacking Light, Matt Colon, staff writer for Backpacking Light, reports the following:
"In August, the Outdoor Industry Association reported that, according to recent research, participation in backpacking in the US has declined more than 23% during the last seven years."
Some of the suggestions found in the article concerning the decline, appear too simplistic. One idea ventured is "that our culture continues to accelerate the pace at which it moves. People simply don't have time to get out into the woods for extended periords." The article goes on to set out a system for the time challenged to prepare more efficiently.
In my opinion, the most likely cause of the decline is the aging of the baby boomers. There are 72 million baby boomers making their way through the general population. As this group ages, they are likely to drop out of activities such as backpacking. The baby boomers went for running in a big way in the 1970's and 1980's. Now that boom has waned as the baby boomers moved on to other activities. Based on what is known about demographics, it appears this backpacking decline will continue.
Frankly, the most serious effect of a decline in backpacking participation is the lessening of political clout. How serious can the backpacking community be about wilderness designation when there are fewer and fewer persons that will access the wilderness? Expect to see more projects to bring roads into formerly remote hiking areas. Smaller numbers will have to unite to make their voices heard. There is probably no better time to consider a membership in an hiking organization.
Your thoughts?
Best Regards,
Clark Fork in Western Montana...
I'm curious as to how the OIA came to their conclusions. It certainly appears as though the number AT thru-hikers has diminished but more are hiking other trails.
I'd like to know of the numbers of backcountry permits pulled over the last 7 years or whether such orgs as the AMC are also seeing a drastic drop.
Clark Fork
01-23-2006, 03:36
I'm curious as to how the OIA came to their conclusions. It certainly appears as though the number AT thru-hikers has diminished but more are hiking other trails.
I'd like to know of the numbers of backcountry permits pulled over the last 7 years or whether such orgs as the AMC are also seeing a drastic drop.
The full study at:
http://www.outdoorindustry.org/pdf/2005_Participation_Study.pdf
Best Regards,
Clark Fork in Western Montana
Some of the suggestions found in the article concerning the decline, appear too simplistic.
Yes. Before anyone could even begin to comment on the validity of these claims, wouldn't it be somewhat important to know how they arrived at those numbers, and where they obtained that data from?
Even though I'd like to see those figures substantiated (since we know how easy it is to lie with statistics), if we assume it is valid it wouldn't be too hard to conclude that a decline is demographically-related.
Baby-boomers account for a big chunk of the hiking community, and they are retiring now in droves. That may somewhat offset a perceived decline in hiking/backpacking--since retirement also allows increased leisure time--but I've read a lot of stories and studies over the past couple of years about how the children of the Boomers--what we call "Gen Y"--are a lot more sedentary than their parents.
Even I notice this change in American life, and I'm not that old. But I am old enough to remember as a child being sent out of the house while Mom cleaned to have fun, explore, hike, or play outdoors for the entire day. We weren't expected to return until sundown.
[Warning: sweeping generalzation follows!]
Today's kids spend so much time with cell phones, Gameboys, console gaming, computers, and other completely sedentary activities that obesity and inactivity on the part of children is really visibly on the decline. When I was a kid, seeing an obese kid in the schools I attended was rare. Now it's epidemic, and that's sad.
I suppose we need to think of creative ways to encourage outdoorsmanship for young people. Supporting ATC and organizations like the Boy Scouts of America seem like worthy endeavours to me.
My browser has slowed to a crawl and I couldn't get the pdf to load but I found this encouragingon the OIA site...
OIA/OIF Press Releases
Active Americans Overwhelmingly Prefer Natural Beauty over Development at National Parks
For Immediate Release
Michael Lee
Marketing and Communications Manager
Outdoor Industry Association
4909 Pearl East Circle, Suite 200
Boulder, CO 80301
PH: 303.444.3353 ext 216
FX: 303.444.3284
http://www.outdoorindustry.org
Boulder, Colo, December 13th, 2005 — More than two-thirds of active Americans named beautiful scenery, wildlife viewing, secluded quiet and lack of a corporate presence as experiences they expect during a visit to America's National Parks according to a recent Outdoor Industry Association study conducted by the Leisure Trends Group. The survey also found that less than half of frequent park visitors placed a priority on the availability of food and equipment vendors and lodging.
The survey results come as the Department of Interior is considering a controversial rewrite of longstanding National Park Service policies. Opponents of the proposed rewrite, including Outdoor Industry Association, say the new guidelines would do away with the NPS's historic focus on conservation and would increase noise and air pollution in our nation's parks as well as expand commercialization of the parks.
"The results of this survey reaffirm Outdoor Industry Association's position that active Americans overwhelmingly want the NPS to continue its current mission of conservation of our nation's natural treasures," notes Frank Hugelmeyer, president of OIA. "The proposed rewrite is not only unnecessary, but runs completely against the desires of Americans visiting national parks."
The survey also found that:
· 2 out of 3 Active Americans agree or strongly agree that it is more important to protect park resources than allow for expanded uses like off-road vehicles and the building of man-mad structures.
· 67% want the National Park Service to favor maintaining the natural beauty of the park and protecting its air and water quality over man-made additions.
· 64% want the National Park Service to place a higher importance on human powered activities such as hiking, biking, paddling and camping over motorized activities such as off-road vehicle use and personal watercraft use.
· 2 out of 3 active Americans who visit a National Park expect a lack of corporate presence (billboards, signage, corporate sponsorship, establishments)
Leisure Trends Group conducted the online survey in November with its Most Active Americans PanelÔ (MAAPÔ), this panel is comprised of Americans 16 years of age and older who actively participate in a variety of outdoor reaction and sporting activities.
###
betic4lyf
01-23-2006, 07:27
as a gen. y memebr i take offense. i hike, and backpack, and year round run, or xc sci i am in good shape, can bench 205 at my best. oh yah, i have a cell phone which i don't use. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that, along with a better quality of life, what it entails is needing to do less work. as people in general tend to have a better quality of life, they don't expect to walk places, they drive. they don't make real food, the hit something with a microwave. this propogates through all economic sectors, as people want to be like the middle class, and so act like it however they can. Basically people are lazy and do the least work possible to get something done. now that it is easyier they do less work, and become fat. i have a kid who gets a ride to school, and lives around the corner to the school. it makes me sad:cool:
Lone Wolf
01-23-2006, 07:52
My thoughts? Don't give two s**ts!:jump
orangebug
01-23-2006, 07:53
It is sad that those kids don't even learn English while playing with their cellphones and Gameboys.
;)
minnesotasmith
01-23-2006, 10:42
Part of it is undoubtedly that the average age of the people who would potentially take up this sport is getting older. Too, there is much more interest in pastimes of a sedentary nature these days. However, there are some other reasons I would propose.
1) In real terms, median income is dropping, and has been since about 1973. This means a smaller percentage of people exist above the level of "just getting by", so can contemplate a hobby that has some nontrivial expenditures associated with it (especially if pursued seriously).
2) Far fewer children (like half of less) are raised with their fathers living in their house with them, and thus affecting how they are brought up. Judging from the 4:1+ ratio of male-to-female AT thruhikers that endures to this day, men (i.e., fathers) historically have had much more interest in backpacking than do women (i.e., mothers). A high proportion of us here on Whiteblaze had experiences growing up that impressed us all the way to our souls with a love of the outdoors; I don't think that is a coincidence.
3) People are more paranoid now about their children (who might well otherwise be running around in the woods, coming to feel at home there) being out of their sight. Kids kept at home or in the cities all the time growing up will probably come to think that those are the only places they belong, and unlikely to change their minds as adults.
Alligator
01-23-2006, 10:43
Page 81
Age: Trend results show a steady growth in 16 to 24 year-old backpackers since 1998--reaching a point in 2004 where one-half of backpackers fall within this age group. The growth of young backpackers has offset attrition among older (45+) backpackers who comprised only 15% of the backpacking pop. in 2004--down from a high of 23% in 2002
Third paragraph p82
A finding of a 6% decline from 1998 to 2005. I don't see where the 23% (decline) figure has come from.
This is a stratified random sample of 4000. While 276 pages, I read through the backpacking, intro, and methodology sections. The research at first glance appears sound. The percentages that deserve mention are those that have a box around them in 2004. These are the statistically significant percentages.
Well, I think that the 23% decline over 7 years focus on only one statistic. On the next page, it states that backpacking among enthusistas (frequent backpackers) has remained about the same level over 7 years of study. And there are many other activities included in the survey.
I would encourage everyone to read the entire report, and then make your own conclusions.
Footslogger
01-23-2006, 10:48
No comment on the study per se ...but I'm reading a book right now that deals with the topic of "Nature Deficit Disorder" and how kids nowadays have begun to lose a true connection with the outdoors. Here's a link to the book. Interesting reading ...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4665933
'Slogger
I would encourage everyone to read the entire report, and then make your own conclusions.
Most folks don't have the time to read a book, much less a report of this nature. That's what makes an Executive Summary so helpful. Whatever the reasons for the decline, the members of the OIA have a vested interest in getting their facts straight. They base many of their business decisions on information like this.
Gray Blazer
01-23-2006, 10:51
My thoughts? Don't give two s**ts!:jump
LW, Good Morning. Does that mean you could give one?
Lone Wolf
01-23-2006, 10:54
Already did thanks to fresh ground coffee.:D
Gray Blazer
01-23-2006, 10:56
Already did thanks to fresh ground coffee.:D
Thanks, for the details>
mmmmmmmmmmmm, less crowds out on the trails. Good news.
Alligator
01-23-2006, 11:10
mmmmmmmmmmmm, less crowds out on the trails. Good news.
P81, second to last paragraph
..., participation has held constant over the past three years and the average number of Participant outings in 2004 increased by 12 million over the previous year.
This may be reversing a trend. 2001 had a huge # of outings, declining through 2003.
Tha Wookie
01-23-2006, 11:32
The Forest Service has been conducting a long-term national study called the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE).
The results of the well-known and published scientific study completely contradict the Industry study listed above. Based on the methodology of random sampling and stastical testing that the FS uses, and the extensiveness of the program that has been pulling data as far back as 1960.
I have an entire book on it, and I could write a thesis response to this, but here's the only stat I'll need:
Backpacking participation, in the lower 48 states, has increased more than any other outdoor recreation activity since the early 80's. Cordell and Overdevest (2001) reported a 217.1% increase in the activity from 1983 to 2001. Second place on the list was "hiking" (up 182.6%). Third place was snowmobiling (up 101.8%). The list shows the results of about 20 other outdoor rec activities, all behind.
The numbers also show that this jump is not just due to the relative difference in percent within the Outdoor Rec spectrum. Indeed, from '83 to '95, participation jumped from 8.8 million to 15.2 million. From '95 to 2000, the figure exploded up to 27.9 million americans participting in backpacking.
I haven't seen the newest results from the NSRE, but I serviously doubt they reverse this strongly significant trend towards higher rates in backpacking participation.
Tha Wookie
01-23-2006, 11:36
I wanted to edit and add that there may have been a spike of use in 2000, which could be leveling off now, but that doesn't jive with the claim that it has been in decline since 1998.
I think you have to consider your sources.;)
Alligator
01-23-2006, 12:08
I wanted to edit and add that there may have been a spike of use in 2000, which could be leveling off now, but that doesn't jive with the claim that it has been in decline since 1998.
I think you have to consider your sources.;)
Wook, please describe where you feel that this particular study fails in its methodology. Granted, it's not peer reviewed.
Objectives of study, p5
1. Annually track nationwide participation levels for Americans 16 and older in human powered outdoor activities. [emp. added]
p276
Outdoor Industry Foundation (OIF) is a non-profit foundation established by Outdoor Industry Association to encourage active outdoor recreation for all Americans. OIF's charter is to increase participation in outdoor recreation and to encourage and support healthier active lifestyles. Through education, partnerships, programs, and advocacy, OIF is working to make active outdoor recreation the number one leisure activity in America.
I'm not familiar with this organization and the above quote sounds fairly innocuous to me. Is there something about this organization we should be aware of?
Tha Wookie
01-23-2006, 12:57
Wook, please describe where you feel that this particular study fails in its methodology. Granted, it's not peer reviewed.
Objectives of study, p5
[emp. added]
p276
I'm not familiar with this organization and the above quote sounds fairly innocuous to me. Is there something about this organization we should be aware of?
Actually, the methodology seems to be right out of the NSRE. But you must think about this at what it is -a trend study. 7 years is a short time.
If you look at the NSRE chart from 1983, you see a sharp consistent rise (up 217%) in backpacking up to 2001. This indicates that a drop (even 23%) could just be a "cooling off" short time trend. Furthermore, it could be related to post-9/11 economic stresses on leisure time (short term?).
The levels of backpacking are so high that 23% doesn't mean much. But really, these studies have comparability issues. I think sample size is one. The Industry report has a realtively small sample size for the entire US population. In the first three years, it barely had enough to cover the statistical power needed for testing (approx 2,500 participants).
In the only year of overlap, 2000 (when the FS reported aggregates from previous period), the Industry study found only 13.7 million backpackers, when the FS had 27.9 million. That's a colossal difference (double).
It might have something to do with the question the Industry used:
“Have you gone on an overnight backpacking trip of more
than one-quarter mile from where you parked your vehicle?” p.80
I don't know what the NSRE used. I imagine their methods to be more rigorous in every respect, though. The FS has a very good research reputation, especially Ken Cordell, who runs the NRSE from here in Athens. As far as the Outdoor Industry Foundation, you're guess is as good as mine.
Their study looks very good. But it ignores the trend before it, that is illustrated in my last post.
Alligator
01-23-2006, 13:48
Actually, the methodology seems to be right out of the NSRE. But you must think about this at what it is -a trend study. 7 years is a short time.
Definitely a big difference in timeframe, with different conclusions possible. It's good to place the results into the context of the longer time frame.
If you look at the NSRE chart from 1983, you see a sharp consistent rise (up 217%) in backpacking up to 2001. This indicates that a drop (even 23%) could just be a "cooling off" short time trend. Furthermore, it could be related to post-9/11 economic stresses on leisure time (short term?).
The OFI study shows a huge spike in 2001 outings, so some cooling off is a reasonable suggestion.
The levels of backpacking are so high that 23% doesn't mean much. But really, these studies have comparability issues. I think sample size is one. The Industry report has a realtively small sample size for the entire US population. In the first three years, it barely had enough to cover the statistical power needed for testing (approx 2,500 participants).
Possibly. The number of samples needed for a study of proportions is often quite small. That's why nationwide political polls achieve reasonable accuracy down to sample sizes as small as a 1000. But yes, it is better to look at the 23% figure in the context of the longer timeframe.
I only found a 6% drop reported in the study, I didn't see at all where the 23% figure came from.
In the only year of overlap, 2000 (when the FS reported aggregates from previous period), the Industry study found only 13.7 million backpackers, when the FS had 27.9 million. That's a colossal difference (double).
It might have something to do with the question the Industry used:
“Have you gone on an overnight backpacking trip of more
than one-quarter mile from where you parked your vehicle?” p.80
That is a very extreme difference. The question OFI asked though would seem to inflate that number (>1/4 mile). OFI does split out hiking, backpacking, camping, and car camping. Maybe the difference lies there or the exact wording of the question as you suggest.
I don't know what the NSRE used. I imagine their methods to be more rigorous in every respect, though. The FS has a very good research reputation, especially Ken Cordell, who runs the NRSE from here in Athens. As far as the Outdoor Industry Foundation, you're guess is as good as mine.
Their study looks very good. But it ignores the trend before it, that is illustrated in my last post.
I concur about the FS.
Pacific Tortuga
01-23-2006, 14:14
No comment on the study per se ...but I'm reading a book right now that deals with the topic of "Nature Deficit Disorder" and how kids nowadays have begun to lose a true connection with the outdoors. Here's a link to the book. Interesting reading ...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4665933
'Slogger
Anyone catch 60 Minutes last night on the rising trend of computer gaming with teens and younger? A prof from Indiana called it a "sport" out numbering football,baseball and basketball in particapation via the net.They spend 6 to 8 hours a day on line playing with prices of 300,000 $$$$$$$ and more. In 30 years it will play in statiums with bigger $$$$$$$$. As adults ,will they care about widernous preservation or even parks? :confused:
Stoker53
01-23-2006, 14:43
20 posts and no one has blamed Pres. Bush for the decline. Amazing.:sun
Tha Wookie
01-23-2006, 14:52
20 posts and no one has blamed Pres. Bush for the decline. Amazing.:sun
That's because we're not talking about trail management instead of trail use.
If you want to talk about the 6% cuts in Forest Service Trail Management budget, then we can start talking about the puppet brigade and it's "leader".
just goes to show that all issues are not linked so strongly to the misleading carried out in the white house.
But the ones that are deserve comment.:sun
Stoker53
01-23-2006, 15:37
That's because we're not talking about trail management instead of trail use.
If you want to talk about the 6% cuts in Forest Service Trail Management budget, then we can start talking about the puppet brigade and it's "leader".
just goes to show that all issues are not linked so strongly to the misleading carried out in the white house.
But the ones that are deserve comment.:sun
aHHH.....That's the Wookie I've learned to love. :D :clap
20 posts and no one has blamed Pres. Bush for the decline. Amazing.:sun
LOL... Yeah by now everyone knows that's a given!
Props to Laura though, she usually takes a trip a National Park with her girl friends each year. We were in Yellowstone at the same time. I never did see her, but her Secret Service escorts on horseback were pretty easy to spot. Still, it seems that George would rather have her ride in a jeep or snowmobile to visit the backcountry.
LOL... Yeah by now everyone knows that's a given!
Props to Laura though, she usually takes a trip a National Park with her girl friends each year. We were in Yellowstone at the same time. I never did see her, but her Secret Service escorts on horseback were pretty easy to spot. Still, it seems that George would rather have her ride in a jeep or snowmobile to visit the backcountry.
In all fairness to our president, in some ways he is an active outdoors person.
Before his knees gave out, he was an active runner. Even did the Houston marathon in ~3:45 IIRC. Now he is an avid mountain biker.
I'm not the biggest W fan, but have to give the man his due.
betic4lyf
01-23-2006, 21:29
i can wright in enlsih if I want to! but i am indeed a math science history person.
In the latest copy of BackPacking Light, Matt Colon, staff writer for Backpacking Light, reports the following:
"In August, the Outdoor Industry Association reported that, according to recent research, participation in backpacking in the US has declined more than 23% during the last seven years."
Some of the suggestions found in the article concerning the decline, appear too simplistic. One idea ventured is "that our culture continues to accelerate the pace at which it moves. People simply don't have time to get out into the woods for extended periords." The article goes on to set out a system for the time challenged to prepare more efficiently.
In my opinion, the most likely cause of the decline is the aging of the baby boomers. There are 72 million baby boomers making their way through the general population. As this group ages, they are likely to drop out of activities such as backpacking. The baby boomers went for running in a big way in the 1970's and 1980's. Now that boom has waned as the baby boomers moved on to other activities. Based on what is known about demographics, it appears this backpacking decline will continue.
Frankly, the most serious effect of a decline in backpacking participation is the lessening of political clout. How serious can the backpacking community be about wilderness designation when there are fewer and fewer persons that will access the wilderness? Expect to see more projects to bring roads into formerly remote hiking areas. Smaller numbers will have to unite to make their voices heard. There is probably no better time to consider a membership in an hiking organization.
Your thoughts?
Best Regards,
Clark Fork in Western Montana...
thats cool less people on the trail,i hate crowds:cool: neo