It is quite bad enough that Federal land management agencies have partnered
up with recreation and tourism industries to maximize the financial return that
can be generated from converting a simple walk in the park into a commodity
product. When the commodity products industry starts getting into the act,
things can quickly move from bad to worse.
I encourage you to read on and discover what the timber industry has put
forth as options for possible futures for outdoor recreation in Oregon's great
outdoors.
http://www.oregonforests.org/media/pdf/ForestTourism_FINAL.pdf
Forest Tourism Baseline Economic
Assessment
Prepared for: Oregon Forest Resources Institute
<SNIP>
For Oregon, there are at least three strategic options available that could
affect forest tourism activity – with different outcomes possible for visitation
and visitor expenditures. These generalized options are described as status quo,
increased forest visitation and increased spending per visitor. For each option,
potential advantages and disadvantages also are noted.
OPTION 1 – STATUS QUO
This option assumes essentially no change in management to explicitly
encourage or discourage added forest tourism activity.
Outcomes: Forest visitation could be expected to generally
increase with statewide population growth plus general tourism travel from
out-of-state visitors. However, a couple of factors mitigate against increased
forest tourism activity – especially on federal and private lands.
One factor is the reduced federal spending for recreation due to reduced
funding availability. Some campgrounds have been privatized and some areas
(including trails) are receiving less funding for maintenance. While the net
result of this versus consumer trends – increases and decreases in popularity of
various activities – in terms of total visitation is somewhat unclear, a couple
of likely outcomes are suggested: a) an increased share of forest tourism
activity from state parks with less on federal lands; and b) greater opportunity
for value added spending for facilities offering higher levels of visitor
amenity.
Advantages: This strategic option of staying the course
most likely involves the least expenditure of additional or re-focused
resources. It also minimizes the risk of visitor increases that could amplify
environmental risk or liability to public and private property owners.
Disadvantages: Potential downside of a status quo option
is essentially two fold: a) risk of declining levels of forest visitation
associated with decreased expenditure; and b) erosion of the personal connection
that Oregonians and tourists from out-of-state have with Oregon’s forests
(except in highly developed and more peripheral forest settings such as ski
areas and state parks).
OPTION 2 – INCREASED FOREST VISITATION
This strategic option relies on increasing the number of visitors to the
forest – through measures such as development of new day use and overnight
facilities – including interpretive and destination attractions. This approach
need not be limited to public lands but could involve encouragement of increased
multiple use of private lands – particularly if liability issues can be more
fully addressed.
Outcomes: Attracting more visitors to the forest likely
involves some mix of increased marketing to both in-state and out-of-state
residents. Ideally, this is accomplished by attracting net new visitors, so that
tourism is not drawn away from existing non-forest related attractions in
Oregon. Increased total visitation likely requires both maintenance of existing
and development of new in-forest visitor attractions and facilities on some mix
of public and private lands. Facility development not only is correlated to
higher visitation rates, but is a means of concentrating forest impacts so that
impacts can be both better controlled and mitigated.
Advantages: With added visitation comes the opportunity
for increasing aggregate forest tourism spending. Increased visitation also may
be useful to improve urban-rural connections and awareness of the forest across
a broader base of Oregonians and non-residents. Generating added visitation on
private lands with high tourism appeal may offer a means for landowners to
financially support longer rotations and conservation for biodiversity with
multi-resource forest management (as from non-industrial owners).
Disadvantages: Adding new facilities on public lands may
be problematic due to issues over funding and environmental impact. Introducing
or encouraging more multiple uses of private lands may compromise wood
production capacity – especially for non-hunting related activities.
Market testing to determine the best mix of facility development, price
points, on- and off-site amenities likely would be a necessary precursor to
pursing this strategy.
OPTION 3 – INCREASED SPENDING PER VISITOR
This strategic option typically involves extending the length of stay or
offering other opportunities for each visitor to spend more for one or more
components of the visitor experience than has been the case in the past. Longer
stays and/or increased expenditure per visit can be encouraged by actions such
as providing more developed campsites and one overnight lodging facility in or
near the forest, and developing program opportunities (such as guided tours for
activities ranging from fee hunting to forest interpretation).
There is opportunity for increasing the amount of spending by: a)
converting day travelers to overnight forest visitors; and b) transitioning from
what is a relatively low-yield camping experience (in monetary terms) to
higher-value lodging facilities – including RVs, yurts, inns and possibly small
scale forest resort facilities (also with more food sales and dining
opportunities).
A related approach would be to “monetize” portions of the visitor
experience that currently are enjoyed with little or no direct financial outlay
from the participant. Examples could include such items as fees for backcountry
hiking, developing added overnight fee facilities such as cabins or yurts in the
forest (as for hikers), and/or charging for use of interpretive facilities now
made available at no charge.
Outcomes: Increasing spending per visitor may be
accompanied with either a static or increasing number of total visitors. In any
event, this strategy implies some transition from lower-valued day use and
camping activity to other higher-valued lodging alternatives together with more
innovative approaches to identifying new sources of capturing economic value
from visitors with latent “ability to pay.”
Advantages: Capturing added value from the forest tourism
experience may prove useful as a means of generating new revenue to replace
funding cuts affecting federal and state forest lands. To the extent that
“monetization” occurs with activities generally supported by groups with
discretionary income, a user-fee-driven system may also be more socially
equitable.
Disadvantages: Longer stays in the forest involving new or
expanded high-revenue facilities may create environmental disturbance from
development that is viewed as unacceptable. Visitor or community opposition may
be experienced in converting what is a free or no-cost experience to revenue
generation. Increasing fees in some areas/land ownerships may also result in
increased use and impact in areas in which fees are not introduced or increased.
Social welfare and forest visitor usage may be diminished to the extent that
those affected do not have the ability or willingness to pay.
- Land management 
