Pennsylvania’s ATV Riders and their€¦ · several off‐road vehicle parks in the Commonwealth....

Pennsylvania’s ATV Riders and their Needs

Submitted by: Bruce E. Lord

William F. Elmendorf

Hardwood Resource Economics, LLC

February 17, 2017

ii

ExecutiveSummary

ATV riding in Pennsylvania is a maturing sport. The number of registered ATVs has declined since 2003.

Nationally, ATV sales have also declined. Nonetheless, there are a large number of ATV rider in the

state, paying registrations fees for their machines and desiring more opportunities to ride.

In 2003, DCNR sponsored a survey of Pennsylvania ATV riders to determine the characteristics of this

audience and assess their needs. The current study will update these results. A random survey was

solicited from 3,000 registered ATV owners. This was supplemented with a survey promoted via social

media.

Since 2003, riding opportunities in the Commonwealth have increased and this is reflected in an

increase in satisfaction by registered ATV owners. While still desiring improvements and increases in

riding opportunities, the riding public were somewhat less likely to indicate that specific trail aspects

were wanting. At the same time, reflecting the maturation of the sport, they indicated an increased

desire for more involved opportunities, such as more challenging trails and multiple day opportunities.

Riders from surrounding states were contrasted with Pennsylvania respondents. While there were

many similarities, some important differences were noted. These people tended to be a little wealthier.

Logically, they were also more likely to take trips over 50 miles from home. Their evaluations of facility

needs tended to be more critical of resident riders. None‐the‐less, they indicated a much higher level of

rider satisfaction than Pennsylvania riders.

ATV riding in the Commonwealth still has room to grow. This report identifies regional differences in

desired riding characteristics and should be used, in conjunction with an inventor of existing

opportunities, to evaluate proposals for new trails.

iii

TableofContents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... ii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. v

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... vi

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1

ATV use in PA ............................................................................................................................................ 1

DCNR ATV policy ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................... 1

Procedures .................................................................................................................................................... 2

Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 2

Pennsylvania ATV riders ............................................................................................................................ 2

Number of ATVs and number or riders ................................................................................................. 2

Demographics ....................................................................................................................................... 2

Rider Characteristics ............................................................................................................................. 5

Safety ........................................................................................................................................................ 8

Needs ........................................................................................................................................................ 8

Trail amenities ....................................................................................................................................... 8

Trail length .......................................................................................................................................... 10

Trail grade ........................................................................................................................................... 11

Ride characteristics ............................................................................................................................. 11

Features .............................................................................................................................................. 13

Satisfaction .............................................................................................................................................. 16

Problems ................................................................................................................................................. 17

Tourism and economic impacts .............................................................................................................. 18

Information sources ............................................................................................................................ 18

Number of ATV trips ........................................................................................................................... 19

Economic significance ......................................................................................................................... 20

Willingness to pay ............................................................................................................................... 21

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 21

iv

Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 21

Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 22

References .................................................................................................................................................. 24

Appendix A Bureau of Conservation and Recreation Regions ................................................................... 25

Appendix B The Survey Form ..................................................................................................................... 26

v

ListofTables

Table 1. Favorite riding areas, state‐wide. ................................................................................................... 6

Table 2. Favorite riding areas in the North Central Region. ........................................................................ 6

Table 3. Favorite riding areas in the Northeast Region. .............................................................................. 7

Table 4. Favorite riding areas in the Northwest Region. ............................................................................. 7

Table 5. Favorite riding areas in the South Central Region. ........................................................................ 7

Table 6. Favorite riding areas in the Southeast Region. .............................................................................. 7

Table 7. Favorite riding areas in the Southwest Region. ............................................................................. 8

Table 8 Rating of ATV trail features on a scale of 1 to 5. ............................................................................. 9

Table 9. Rating of ATV trail features on a scale of 1 to 5, by club membership. ....................................... 10

Table 10. Rating of ATV trail length on a scale of 1 to 5. ........................................................................... 10

Table 11. Rating of ATV trail length on a scale of 1 to 5, by club membership. ........................................ 10

Table 12. Rating of ATV trail grade on a scale of 1 to 5. ............................................................................ 11

Table 13. Rating of ATV trail grade on a scale of 1 to 5, by club membership. ......................................... 11

Table 14. Agreement on desired trail characteristics (1 – strongly disagree, 5 – strongly agree). ........... 12

Table 15. Agreement on desired trail characteristics (1 – strongly disagree, 5 – strongly agree), by club

membership. ............................................................................................................................................... 13

Table 16. Adequacy of trail features. ......................................................................................................... 14

Table 17. Out‐of‐state ratings of adequacy of trail features. .................................................................... 15

Table 18. Top problems facing ATV riding in Pennsylvania. ...................................................................... 18

Table 19. Out‐of‐state riders view of top problems facing ATV riding in Pennsylvania. ........................... 18

Table 20. Information sources for ATV riding in Pennsylvania. ................................................................. 19

Table 21. Information sources for out‐of‐state ATV riders in Pennsylvania. ............................................. 19

Table 22. Trips over 50 miles in the last year. ............................................................................................ 19

Table 23. Trips over 50 miles in the last year by out‐of‐state visitors. ...................................................... 20

Table 24. Day trips during the past year. ................................................................................................... 20

Table 25. Day trips during the past year for out‐of‐state rider. ................................................................ 20

vi

ListofFigures

Figure 1. Proportion of Pennsylvania ATV riders by age and gender. ......................................................... 3

Figure 2. Annual family income of registered ATV owners. ......................................................................... 4

Figure 3. Annual family income of out‐of‐state ATV riders. ........................................................................ 4

Figure 4. Highest level of education for registered ATV owners. ................................................................ 5

Figure 5. Highest level of education for out‐of‐state ATV owners. ............................................................. 5

Figure 6. Overall satisfaction with ATV experience in Pennsylvania. ........................................................ 16

Figure 7. Out‐of‐state riders overall satisfaction with ATV experience in Pennsylvania. .......................... 17

Pennsylvania’s ATV Riders and their Needs

Bruce E. Lord

William F. Elmendorf

Hardwood Resource Economics, LLC

Introduction

In 2003, The School of Forest Resources conducted a study of all terrain vehicle (ATV) users in

Pennsylvania for the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) (Lord, et at., 2003).

That study was a response to the recently established requirement that ATVs be registered with the

Commonwealth, unless they were solely being used on the owner’s private property. Information from

this study was used by DCNR's Bureau of Conservation and Recreation to fund the development of

several off‐road vehicle parks in the Commonwealth.

DCNR is now considering the establishment of more off‐road riding opportunities and desires to update

the user study to see where we are and what has changed.

ATVuseinPA

As of May, 2016, Pennsylvania had 169,015 registered ATVs. This is a small decline of 2.7% from the

173,626 registered vehicles in 20031.

DCNRATVpolicy

In 2001, Chapter 77 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code was amended to require the registration of ATVs.

In conjunction with this, the Snowmobile and ATV Advisory Committee (SAAC) was created to advise

DCNR on snowmobile and ATV recreation. Simultaneously, expectations were crested with the public

that more ATV riding opportunities would be created. Several new riding areas, including Rock Run

Recreation Area in Cambria County and Anthracite Outdoor Adventure Area in Northumberland County

have been established since the 2003 survey.

Objectives

In order to update their information on ATV usage in the Commonwealth, DCNR has asked Pashek

Associates and Hardwood Resource Economics, LLC to update the previous survey of registered ATV

1 These are active registrations, permitted to be operated anywhere they are legally allowed. There are an additional 104,481 ATVs with limited registrations that may only be used on the owners property.

2

owners. The survey was designed to ascertain the views and attitudes of ATV owners as to the needs of

ATV riders in Pennsylvania. In addition, demographic data was collected to characterize this audience.

Procedures

The survey was created by HRE in consultation with DCNR and Pashek Associates. The survey closely

follows the 2003 survey, which will facilitate comparisons between the two studies. A random selection

of 3,000 registered ATV owners were contacted by mail and asked to fill out a six‐page online survey

instrument. This was to be paired with an identical survey advertised through social media. The

intention was for a follow‐up mailing to be sent to non respondents among the randomly selected

survey, but information about that effort had gotten out and additional, non selected people started to

sign on and attempt to complete that survey. At that time, the survey of randomly selected owners was

halted and the open survey begun. The results of these two surveys will be compared and where

statistically they show no significant differences, the combined data set will be used. If there are

differences, the results of the random survey alone will be used

Results

The random survey of registered ATV owners resulted in 250 respondents, before word got out and non

solicited responses began to come in. The survey solicited via public media garnered an additional 4,679

surveys.

PennsylvaniaATVriders

NumberofATVsandnumberorriders

The average ATV household had 2.2 ATVs and 2.7 riders. This is in contrast to 1.6 ATVs and 2.4 riders in

the 2003 study. Members of ATV clubs or organizations owned an average of 2.7 machines, significantly

higher than the average of 2.1 for non club members and also higher than the average of 2.2 ATVs in

2003.

Demographics

Just over 40% of the riders were female, slightly more than the 37% observed in the previous study

(Figure 1).

3

Figure 1. Proportion of Pennsylvania ATV riders by age and gender.

The percentage of respondents residing in Pennsylvania rose significantly from 72% in 2003 to 97% in

2016. Most respondents (59%) described themselves as living in rural areas, almost the same as in the

previous 13 years ago (62%).

The proportion of ATV owners with family incomes over $50,000 increased dramatically to 84%, with

over a third of them reporting family incomes over $100,000 (Figure 2). In 2003, a little over half

reported incomes above $50,000 and the number over $100,000 was under 15%. Half of out‐of‐state

riders had family incomes over $100,000 (Figure 3). The proportion in the lower bracket (less than

$35,000) was roughly the same. Educational levels had also increased, with the proportion with just a

high school degree dropped from half to 31% (Figure 4). Out‐of‐state riders were almost identical

(Figure 3).

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

5‐9 10‐15 16‐20 21‐29 30‐39 40‐49 50‐59 60‐69 70+

Male Female

4

Figure 2. Annual family income of registered ATV owners.

Figure 3. Annual family income of out‐of‐state ATV riders.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

5

Figure 4. Highest level of education for registered ATV owners.

Figure 5. Highest level of education for out‐of‐state ATV owners.

RiderCharacteristics

ATV owners were asked to describe the use of ATVs in their household. Trail and leisure riding was the

number one activity, checked by 84% of the respondents. This was followed by utility and work (68%)

and hunting (51%). Fewer people indicated sport riding (27%), aggressive recreation riding (16%),

transportation (15%), and fishing (11%). Racing and competition (3%) and commercial use (2%) were

negligible. This distribution was not much different than what was observed in 2003.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Non highschool

graduate

High schoolgraduate

Some college Two‐yearcollege ortech degree

Four yearcollegedegree

Post‐graduatecollegedegree

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

6

When ask to describe their recreational riding, 77% responded that they were spending time with family

and friends and 68% indicated that vistas and scenery was an important feature. Wildlife viewing (66%)

and adventure (54%) were also key features of recreational riding. Lower ratings were attached to

challenge (28%) and photography (21%). Here too, the distribution was not very different from 2003.

Experience had changed considerably since the 2003 study. In 2003 half the riders had nine years or less

of riding experience. In the current study, 72% of the respondents reported ten or more years of

experience. Another 15% indicated they had been riding between five and ten years and 13% less than

five years.

Around 7% of the respondents indicated that they were members of an ATV club or organization. This is

in line with the previous study. Snow Shoe Rails to Trails was most frequently mentioned.

Respondents were asked to identify their favorite riding areas (Tables 1‐7). Over half the ATV owners

reported riding on private land as number one. State‐wide, this was followed by the Allegheny National

Forest, Rock Run, Anthracite Outdoor Adventure Area, and Snow Shoe Rails to Trails (Table 1).

Regionally, private lands continued to be the number one location, with the ranking down the line

influenced by the local opportunities (Tables 2‐7).

Table 1. Favorite riding areas, state‐wide.

Private 52% ANF 7% Rock Run 5% AOAA 5% Snow Shoe RTT 5% Whiskey Springs 3% Bloody Skillet 3% Michaeux SF 3% Rausch Creek 2% Reading Anthracite 2%

Table 2. Favorite riding areas in the North Central Region.

Private 49% Snow Shoe RTT 13% Bloody Skillet 10% Whiskey Springs 9% Rock Run 3% AOAA 3% Susquehannock SF 3% Public 2% Tiadaghton SF 1% ANF 1%

7

Table 3. Favorite riding areas in the Northeast Region.

Private 55% AOAA 8% Reading Anthracite 7% Rausch Creek 6% Delaware SF 4% Lost Trails 3% Snow Shoe RTT 2% Rock Run 2% Whiskey Springs 2% Bloody Skillet 2%

Table 4. Favorite riding areas in the Northwest Region.

Private 66% AOAA 16% Reading Anthracite 4% Rausch Creek 2% Delaware SF 2% Lost Trails 2% Snow Shoe RTT 2% Whiskey Springs 2% Rock Run 1% Bloody Skillet 1%

Table 5. Favorite riding areas in the South Central Region.

Private 44% Michaeux SF 9% Rock Run 9% AOAA 7% Snow Shoe RTT 6% Whiskey Springs 4% Bloody Skillet 4% Mountain Ridge 3% Tri County 2% Rausch Creek 2%

Table 6. Favorite riding areas in the Southeast Region.

Private 35% AOAA 16% Rausch Creek 14% Reading Anthracite 5% Bloody Skillet 4%

8

Michaeux SF 3% Snow Shoe RTT 3% Sproul SF 3% Lost Trails 3% Whiskey Springs 2%

Table 7. Favorite riding areas in the Southwest Region.

Private 56% ANF 20% Rock Run 6% Club 3% Tri County 3% Mountain Ridge 2% Snow Shoe RTT 1% Four Season Resort 1% Scrubgrass 1% Anywhere 1%

Safety

Thirty percent of the respondents indicated that at least one person in the household had completed a

rider safety course. While not directly comparable to the 2003 study results, it seems that a similar

proportion had participated in these classes.

Needs

The heart of the survey inquired into the rider’s assessment of the trail and facility needs facing ATV

riders in the Commonwealth.

Trailamenities

Respondents were asked to indicate the importance they attached to a menu of trail features. Ranked

on a scale from 1 (very unimportant) to 5 (very important), new trails led the list with an average ranking

of 4.6 (Table 8). Also ranked as very important were three allied features: enhancement of trail systems

(4.4), access to secondary roads (4.4), and maintaining existing trails (4.2). Clearly, trail availability was

of primary importance to registered ATV owners. These four items had also received top rankings in

2003, though maintaining existing trails has moved down to fourth on the list and overall the rankings

were a little lower in the previous study (4.3, 4.1, 4.1 and 4.1 respectively).

9

Table 8 Rating of ATV trail features on a scale of 1 to 5.

Trail Features NC NE NW SC SE SW State‐wide Out‐of‐State

New trails 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.6 Enhancement of trail systems 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.5 Access to secondary roads 4.5 4.3 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.3 Maintaining existing trails 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.4 Support facilities 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.8 4.1 Increase maps, signage 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.9 Access to communities 3.8 3.3 3.8 3.6 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.6 Increase trail safety 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.5 Camping areas at trailheads 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.4 Increased law enforcement 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

A second tier of features of moderate importance included support facilities (3.8), increased maps and

signage (3.7), and access to communities (3.6) While the first two were in the same order in the prior

study, access to communities had moved up, as it had previously had a ranking of 3.0. Marginal

importance was attached to increased trail safety (3.3) and camping at trailheads (3.2). Increased law

enforcement was rated as marginally unimportant (2.5).

New trails were ranked at the top of the features list for every region in the state. Relative to the other

regions it was higher in the South Central and Southwest (4.7) and lowest in the North Central (4.5).

While the same general order of priorities existed across the regions, there were a few exceptions.

Access to secondary roads was the second priority in the North Central and Northwest regions. Access

to communities was particularly low (3.3) in the Northeast and Southeast as compared to the state

average (3.5).

Out‐of‐state riders had the same general order in the ratings as in‐state respondents. They rated access

to secondary roads a little lower. On most of the other items, they tended to rank them slightly higher.

When the ratings of trail features from club members and non club members were contrasted, club

members consistently rated each feature higher than did non‐members (Table 9).

10

Table 9. Rating of ATV trail features on a scale of 1 to 5, by club membership.

Trail Features Club Member Non Club Member

New trails 4.7 4.6 Enhancement of trail systems 4.6 4.4 Access to secondary roads 4.5 4.4 Maintaining existing trails 4.3 4.2 Support facilities 3.9 3.8 Increase maps, signage 3.9 3.6 Access to communities 3.8 3.5 Increase trail safety 3.5 3.3 Camping areas at trailheads 3.4 3.2 Increased law enforcement 2.7 2.5

Traillength

Trail length was also measure on a scale of 1 to 5. Registered ATV owners tended to favor long and

medium trails over shorter trails and large play areas (Table 10).

Long trails received slightly higher support in the North Central and Northwest regions (4.2 versus 4.1 in

the rest of the state). Large play areas received the same level of support as short trails in every region,

except the Southeast, where support for play areas (3.4) was higher than support for short trails (3.1)

The only difference from out‐of‐state riders was a slightly lower rating for short trails.

Table 10. Rating of ATV trail length on a scale of 1 to 5.

Trail Length NC NE NW SC SE SW State‐wide Out‐of‐State

Long trails (>50 miles) 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 Medium trails (10 to 20 miles) 3.9 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.0 Short trails (<10 miles) 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.1 Large play areas 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.2

Club members were more likely to rate trails ten miles of more in length higher than non‐members.

Conversely, non‐members showed a preference for trails less than ten miles in length. Preferences for

large play areas were the same (Table 11).

Table 11. Rating of ATV trail length on a scale of 1 to 5, by club membership.

Trail Length Club Member Non Club Member

Long trails (>50 miles) 4.4 4.0 Medium trails (10 to 20 miles) 4.1 4.0 Short trails (<10 miles) 3.0 3.3 Large play areas 3.3 3.3

11

Trailgrade

The respondents were asked to rank in order the types of trail grade they preferred. The highest priority

was attached to trails providing a variety of riding skills. The lowest priority was attached to race

courses and extremely difficult terrain. This was consistent across all regions (Table 12). The North

Central region was a bit of an anomaly with the lowest desire for diverse trails and the highest desire for

gentler trails. Conversely, the Southwest had the lowest desire for gentler trails (2.9) and was tied

ranking diverse experiences at the highest level (4.1).

When compared to Pennsylvania riders, out‐of‐state respondents were slightly more on the side of

more challenging opportunities, rating flat and wide trails with gradual grade changes lower, and then

ranking the other categories as high or higher.

Table 12. Rating of ATV trail grade on a scale of 1 to 5.

Trail Grade NC NE NW SC SE SW State‐wide

Out‐of‐State

Relatively flat and wide with gradual grade changes

3.5 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.3 2.9 3.3 2.9

Tighter trails with abrupt grade changes and minimal clearances

3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0

Tight trails with lots of grade changes and off cambers

3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.2

Race course with lots of jumps 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.9Trails with diverse skill and riding experiences 3.8 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.1

Non‐ members were slightly more likely to rate less challenging trails higher than club members (Table

13). Club members showed a small preference for trails with lots of grade changes and off camber

turns. They were attached a slightly higher rating to trails with a diversity of skill and riding

opportunities.

Table 13. Rating of ATV trail grade on a scale of 1 to 5, by club membership.

Trail Grade Club Member Non Club Member

Relatively flat and wide with gradual grade changes 3.2 3.3Tighter trails with abrupt grade changes and minimal clearances 3.0 3.0 Tight trails with lots of grade changes and off cambers 3.1 3.0 Race course with lots of jumps 1.7 1.7 Trails with diverse skill and riding experiences 4.1 3.9

Ridecharacteristics

ATV owners were asked to indicate their agreement with a series of statements regarding trail

characteristics on a scale of one to five (Table 14). There was again strong agreement with riding places

close to home (4.3 versus 4.4 in 2003). There was an increased desire for multiple‐use trails (from 3.7 to

4.0), weekend opportunities (3.3 to 3.9), willingness to volunteer (3.3. to 3.8), one day opportunities (3.3

12

to 3.7), and multiple day excursions with multiple overnight locations (2.8 to 3.4). In terms of the

relative rankings, one day use dropped and shared use increased.

There were some minor regional differences. The desire for trails close to home was strongest in the

Northeast (4.5). The desire for weekend opportunities from a fixed location were stronger across the

southern tier of the state and highest in the Southeast region.

The responses of out‐of‐state respondents were consistent with them not living in the area. Their

desires for places close to home and day trip opportunities were lower than state residents. Conversely,

they were more likely to desire weekend opportunities.

Table 14. Agreement on desired trail characteristics (1 – strongly disagree, 5 – strongly agree).

Ride Characteristics NC NE NW SC SE SW State‐wide

Out‐of‐

State

A place close to home where I can ride a couple of hours when I have the time

4.2 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.3 3.8

Willing to use multiple‐use trails and share trails with motorcycles and mountain bikes

4.1 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.7

Weekend opportunities where I can set up camp or stay in a nearby motel, riding multiple trails from the same location

3.8 3.8 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.0 3.9 4.3

Willing to volunteer to assist in education, patrol, or trail maintenance at a public ATV area

3.7 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.6

A place where I can arrive in the early morning and spend the day, but I am not interested in staying overnight

3.8 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.3

Multiple day excursions, riding for miles and staying in different places along the way

3.3 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5

Following the pattern established above, the club member’s responses were consistent with being ATV

enthusiasts (Table 15). They rated weekend opportunities with a single lodging location and multiple

day opportunities with multiple lodging locations higher than non‐members. They were also more likely

to volunteer their services. Non club members tended to rate single day opportunities, both close to

home and as day trips, higher.

13

Table 15. Agreement on desired trail characteristics (1 – strongly disagree, 5 – strongly agree), by club membership.

Ride Characteristics Club Member

Non Club Member

A place close to home where I can ride a couple of hours when I have the time 4.1 4.3 Willing to use multiple‐use trails and share trails with motorcycles and mountain bikes 4.0 3.9 Weekend opportunities where I can set up camp or stay in a nearby motel, riding multiple trails from the same location 4.3 3.8 Willing to volunteer to assist in education, patrol, or trail maintenance at a public ATV area 4.0 3.6 A place where I can arrive in the early morning and spend the day, but I am not interested in staying overnight 3.6 3.7 Multiple day excursions, riding for miles and staying in different places along the way 3.7 3.3

Features

Respondents were asked to evaluate 26 ATV features as adequate, needing improvement, or needing

increase (Table 16).

Needingincrease

Registered ATV owners’ principal desire was for more trails. An increase in trail availability was the

number one need, with 61% of respondents indicating agreeing (Table 16). This was followed by

medium trails (52% requesting an increase), long trails (51%), trail access (49%), and short trails (39%).

This was the same top five as found in the 2003 study. Next in the list of priorities for increase were

campgrounds near trailheads (38%), water features (37%), and trailhead restrooms (36%). Camping on

trails was identified as needing increase by 35%. Two information items, information on the Internet

(36%) and trail map availability (35%) were also highly ranked.

14

Table 16. Adequacy of trail features.

Trail Features Should be Increased

Should be Improved Adequate Inadequate

Trail Availability 61% 16% 5% 76% Medium Trails 52% 14% 12% 65% Long trails 51% 16% 11% 67% Trail access 49% 18% 13% 66% Short trails 39% 12% 24% 51% Campground near trailheads 38% 12% 24% 50% Water features 37% 11% 26% 48% Trailhead restrooms 36% 14% 25% 50% Info available on the Internet 36% 20% 21% 56% Camping on trails 35% 11% 27% 47% Trail map availability 35% 20% 21% 55% Play areas 34% 10% 30% 44% Trailhead loading unloading area 33% 13% 30% 45% Trail design 32% 21% 23% 53% Safe riding courses for youth 31% 12% 30% 43% Trail signing 31% 21% 23% 52% Challenge of existing trails 27% 14% 32% 42% Safe riding courses for adults 26% 10% 38% 36% Environmental Stewardship Tread 26% 12% 36% 38% Safety etiquette information 24% 13% 37% 37% Trail maintenance condition 24% 19% 33% 43% Emergency response medical aid on trail

23% 14% 35% 37%

ATV dealer education on safety 17% 10% 46% 26% Safety of riding areas 17% 11% 47% 27% Policing and enforcement of rules 15% 10% 48% 26% Race courses 9% 10% 81% 19%

Needingimprovement

When asked to identify which ATV trail features were most in need of improvement, many of the same

characteristics were cited. However, the number of people noting a need for improvement was

generally lower than the number requesting an increase in provision. In the study, people were satisfied

with the quality of what was available, but wanted more.

Trail design (21%) and signing (21%) most often cited as the attribute needing to be improved (Table 16).

These were followed by information on the Internet (20%), trail map availability (20%), trail access

(18%), long trails (16%), and trail availability (16%). While the general order of the improvement

priorities had not changed, there was a noticeable decrease in the proportion of people indicating

improvement needs. Trail design dropped from 32% in 2003. Trail access, trail signing, and trail map

availability each had 28% of the audience indicating improvement needs in the prior study. This trend

was noticeable across almost all features.

15

Adequate

Once again, race courses were at the top of the items listed as adequate, with 81% of the respondents

agreeing (an increase from 70% in 2003) (Table 16). Policing and rule enforcement was next, rated as

adequate by 48%, a large drop from the previous study (62%). Less than half of the respondents felt

that the safety of riding areas (47%) and ATV dealer education (46%) were adequate, a decrease from

2003 (54% and 59% respectively). Overall, with the exception of race courses, fewer people rated the

features as adequate.

Inadequate

The converse of adequate is the combination of features needing to be either increased or improved.

This list largely follows the order of features needing increase, but is somewhat more comprehensive

(Table 16). Over three‐quarters of ATV owners considered trail availability inadequate (down from 90%

in 2003). Two‐thirds found long trails to be lacking (down from 72%). Next was trail access (66%, down

from 80%) and medium trails (65%, down from 78%). Following these were the two information items,

information on the Internet (56%, down from 67%) and trail maps (55%, down from 74%)

Out‐of‐stateridersratingoffeatures

Riders from the surrounding states were somewhat more critical of trail features than Pennsylvania

riders (Table 17). Their relative rankings were similar, but for example, 74% felt trail availability should

be increased, as opposed to 61% of state residents. Medium trails and long trails were similar. Two‐

thirds of out‐of‐state riders felt they needed increase, as compared to just over half of Pennsylvania

riders. Many of the other top features followed the same pattern. It is notable that short trails fell

down into the middle of the list and had similar ratings as in‐state riders. At the other end of the list,

none of the out‐of‐state respondents were interested in seeing race courses either increased of

improved.

Table 17. Out‐of‐state ratings of adequacy of trail features.

Trail Features Should be Increased

Should be Improved Adequate Inadequate

Trail availability 74% 13% 8% 87%Long trails 66% 16% 12% 82%Medium trails 66% 12% 15% 78%Trail access 56% 16% 21% 72%Campgrounds near trailheads 50% 10% 29% 60%Trailhead restrooms 50% 14% 26% 64%Camping on trails 46% 10% 33% 56%Information available on the Internet 45% 19% 27% 64%Water features 45% 12% 32% 56%Trailhead loading unloading area 43% 10% 39% 53%Trail map availability 43% 22% 28% 65%Short trails 42% 10% 37% 53%Play areas 38% 8% 42% 46%

16

Trail signing 37% 25% 29% 63%Trail design 36% 21% 33% 57%Challenge of existing trails 35% 14% 40% 49%Safe riding courses for youth 33% 10% 45% 42%Environmental Stewardship Tread 30% 11% 48% 41%Trail maintenance condition 28% 20% 43% 48%Safety etiquette information 28% 13% 50% 40%Safe riding courses for adults 28% 5% 54% 33%Emergency response medical aid on trail 27% 14% 45% 41%ATV dealer education on safety 21% 6% 60% 27%Safety of riding areas 19% 12% 60% 31%Policing enforcement of rules 18% 11% 59% 29%Race courses 0% 0% 57% 0%

Satisfaction

Satisfaction with ATV riding in Pennsylvania has grown since 2003. The current survey found 60% of the

respondents to be satisfied or very satisfied with their experience, up dramatically from 45% satisfaction

in 2003. And, conversely, dissatisfaction has dropped to 40% from 55% (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Overall satisfaction with ATV experience in Pennsylvania.

The vast majority of people who were unsatisfied with their riding experience in Pennsylvania either

indicated that there were not enough trails (65%) or that it was illegal to ride where they wished (26%).

Most of the later either wished to be allowed to ride on State Forest roads or on State Game Land

Very Satisfied8%

Satisfied52%

Dissatisfied29%

Very Dissatisfied

11%

17

property. Around 5% complained about over regulation. Relatively few (just over 1%) indicated that

fees were too high.

Many of the satisfied ATV owners don't use public property (35%). One third indicated satisfaction, but

desired more public opportunities. The remaining 31% indicated that Pennsylvania offered an enjoyable

set of opportunities. Several individuals were very complementary of the quality of the trails they were

able to ride on.

Out‐of‐state riders reported higher levels of satisfaction, with 31% reporting themselves as being very

satisfied and 51% satisfied (Figure 7). Only 3% indicated that they were very dissatisfied. That 82% of

out‐of‐state visitors were satisfied or very satisfied should not be surprising, as this is a self‐selected

group that chose to travel to Pennsylvania to take advantage of the opportunities the Commonwealth

has to offer.

Figure 7. Out‐of‐state riders overall satisfaction with ATV experience in Pennsylvania.

Problems

The respondents were asked to rate the severity of 14 ATV issues in Pennsylvania on a scale of 1 to 5,

with 5 being the most severe (Table 18). Riding in illegal areas and trespassing were the top two with a

score of 3.6 each. This was followed by too many rules and regulations (3.0). The remainder scored

under 3.0, indicating that people didn't think they were large problems. Riding under the influence (2.8)

and failure to comply with rules and regulations (2.8) were next on the list. At the bottom of the list

were too much noise (2.1), environmental degradation/damage (2.3), and crowding (2.4). Considering

that 3.0 was a neutral response, not many problems were noted.

Riders from surrounding states were a bit less critical of riding problems (Table 19). Riding in illegal

areas fell to 3.1 and trespassing to 3.0. Too many rules and regulations fell from 3.0 to 2.6. Many of the

other ratings were similar for both groups.

Very Dissatisfied3%

Dissatisfied15%

Satisfied51%

Very Satisfied31%

18

Table 18. Top problems facing ATV riding in Pennsylvania.

Riding in illegal areas 3.6Trespassing 3.6Too many rules and regulations 3.0Riding under the influence 2.8Failure to comply with rules or regulations 2.8Irresponsible dangerous reckless 2.7Campground trailhead speeding 2.7Riding without head or eye protection 2.7Excessive speeding on trails 2.6Riding in streams and wetlands 2.6Lack of parent supervision of youth 2.5Crowding too many people/machines 2.4Environmental degradation damage 2.3Too much noise 2.1

Table 19. Out‐of‐state riders view of top problems facing ATV riding in Pennsylvania.

Riding in illegal areas 3.6Trespassing 3.6Too many rules and regulations 3.0Riding under the influence 2.8Failure to comply with rules or regulations 2.8Irresponsible dangerous reckless 2.7Campground trailhead speeding 2.7Riding without head or eye protection 2.7Excessive speeding on trails 2.6Riding in streams and wetlands 2.6Lack of parent supervision of youth 2.5Crowding too many people/machines 2.4Environmental degradation damage 2.3Too much noise 2.1

Tourismandeconomicimpacts

Informationsources

Sources of information have drastically changed over the past 13 years. Previously, word of mouth was

cited by 72% of ATV owners as the best source of information about riding opportunities in Pennsylvania

and the internet by only 17% of owners. Now, websites were cited by 57% of the audience and

Facebook by another 31%. Including blogs, email and other internet sources, 97% of respondents

reported using the Internet of riding information (Table 20).

19

There was little difference in where out‐of‐state ATV owners got their information. Websites was the

main source for each group (Table 21. Information sources for out‐of‐state ATV riders in Pennsylvania.).

Facebook was next, with identical proportions in each group. Word of mouth was much lower

(aggregated under other in this table).

Table 20. Information sources for ATV riding in Pennsylvania.

Websites 57% Facebook 31% Word of Mouth 10% Blogs 4% Email 4% Club 1% Publications 1% Other internet <1% DCNR/ANF <1% Dealer <1% Other media <1%

Table 21. Information sources for out‐of‐state ATV riders in Pennsylvania.

Websites 54% Facebook 31% Blogs 5% Other 7% Email 3%

NumberofATVtrips

The ATV owners were asked about the number of trips over 50 miles they took in the previous year

(Table 22). Around a third didn't report any (35%). A single trip was reported by 13% and two trips by

9%. Three trips per year and four trips per year were reported by 8% and 5% of the audience,

respectively. Five or more trips were logged by 30% of the riders surveyed.

Not surprisingly, visitors from other states reported a higher proportion of trips over 50 miles, with two‐

thirds indicating such experiences (Table 23Table 23. Trips over 50 miles in the last year by out‐of‐state

visitors.). Of course, none said they had zero such trip.

Table 22. Trips over 50 miles in the last year.

0 35%

1 13% 2 9% 3 8% 4 5% 5+ 30%

20

Table 23. Trips over 50 miles in the last year by out‐of‐state visitors.

0 0%

1 7% 2 7% 3 11% 4 9% 5+ 66%

The respondents were also asked how many day trips they made during the past year. Some (13%), of

them didn't report any (Table 24). One day trip was reported by 6% of the respondents, 2 trips by 9%,

three trips by 9%, four trips by 8% and five or more trips by 55%.

Little difference was related by out‐of‐state riders (Table 25).

Table 24. Day trips during the past year.

Number of trips

0 13% 1 6% 2 9% 3 9% 4 8% 5+ 55%

Table 25. Day trips during the past year for out‐of‐state rider.

Number of trips

0 10% 1 7% 2 6% 3 10% 4 8% 5+ 59%

Another question asked about the number of overnight trips the respondents had taken. However, due

to coding problems, these results were not able to be used.

Economicsignificance

There were severe problems with the expenditure data collected from the online surveys. A large

number of respondents submitted expenditure numbers that were clearly inflated. This was true for

21

both the random survey and the open survey. For this reason, the expenditures from the on‐site

surveys were used for economic impacts. These people reported spending an average $117 on their trip

to Rock Run and AOAA. The average number of trips per household was derived from the above data.

Since the upper range was listed as five or more, this value had to be estimated. If the average for that

group was 15 trips, then an overall average of 9 trips resulted. This number was in the range of what

had been observed in the previous study. This would imply annual expenditures of $1,053 per ATV

household.

The average ATV household had 2.2 machines. Given that there were a little under 79 thousand ATV

registered in the Commonwealth, this works out to 336 thousand ATV households. Combined, this

suggest that ATV riders are spending almost $38 million annually on ATV trips.

Willingnesstopay

When asked how much they would be willing to pay for a pass to ride their ATV in a public facility,

registered ATV owners indicated an average value of $127 for a seasonal pass and $22 for a weekly pass.

In 2003 the average willingness to pay for a seasonal pass was $59 for a seasonal pass and $12 for a day

pass. These changes may be a reflection of the establishment of several ATV parks in the state with

published rates.

Conclusions

Summary

ATV riding in Pennsylvania is a maturing sport. Although the number of registered ATVs has declined

since 2003, more riding opportunities exist now than previously. In 2003, many people were riding on

private land and the chief public opportunities were the Allegheny National Forest State Forests. Now,

there are many more public locations available, including Rock Run, Anthracite Outdoor Adventure Area,

Whiskey Springs, and Bloody Skillet.

Satisfaction with ATV opportunities in the Commonwealth has increased. In 2003 45% indicated that

they were satisfied or very satisfied with existing riding opportunities. This increased to 60% in the

current study. Obviously, the increase in riding opportunities has improved riders outlook.

This being said, the riders clearly still have needs and desires for improvements to their sport. In terms

of trail amenities, new trails continue to be the number one desire (increasing from a ranking of 4.3 to

4.6). Enhancement of trail systems, access to secondary roads and maintaining existing trails also

continue to receive support. These were all rated as 4.1 in the prior study and have now increased to

4.4, 4.4, and 4.2 respectively. In general the ratings of trail features has increased. The only exception

was the rating of increased law enforcement declined from 2.7 to 2.5. This was once again the lowest

on the list and the only one below 3.0.

22

The importance of long trails (greater than 50 miles) rose from a rating of 3.7 in 2003 to 4.1 today,

showing an increase desire for more extensive activities among today's riders. The evaluation of

medium and short trails had not changed much over the same period.

A similar trend was observed with the rating of trail grade. The top rated feature was diverse skill and

riding experiences in both studies (3.5 in 2003 and 4.0 in 2016). Trails with abrupt grade changes and

minimal clearances and trails with lots of grade changes and off cambers both increased a bit in ratings

(from 2.8 to 3.0 and from 2.9 to 3.1, respectively). The one decline was for race courses (dropping from

1.9 to 1.7).

Following this, a set of questions asked about types of opportunities the riders were interested in. A

similar pattern of increased desire for more advanced opportunities was demonstrated. The top one, a

place close to home, had dropped slightly in the intervening time, with an agreement of 4.3 (down from

4.4). Agreement with a desire for all‐day opportunities, without an overnight stay, stayed the same

(3.7). However, interest in weekend opportunities, operating out of a single location had increased from

3.3 to 3.9. And, desire for multiple day excursions, staying at different locations along the way jumped

from 2.8 to 3.4. Allied with this, a willingness to share multiple‐use trails with motorcycles and

mountain bikes moved up from 3.7 to 4.0.

A comparison of trail features needing increase or improvement showed a general improvement. The

percent of people who felt that key features needed to be increased declined for the top categories:

from 65% to 61% for trail availability; from 60% to 52% for medium trails; from 52% to 51% for long

trails; trail access from 53% to 49%; and short trails from 51% to 39%. Meanwhile, on the other end of

the spectrum, 81% said race courses were adequate, versus 70% in 2003.

Some other aspects were mixed. Policing and enforcement or rules was considered adequate by 48%,

versus 62% in 2003. Dealer education on safety was adequate according to 47%, as compared to 59%

in the prior survey. And, safety or riding areas was considered adequate by 47% , versus 54% last time

around.

Riders from surrounding states were contrasted with Pennsylvania respondents. While there were

many similarities, some important differences were noted. These people tended to be a little wealthier.

Logically, they were also more likely to take trips over 50 miles from home. Their evaluations of facility

needs tended to be more critical of resident riders. None‐the‐less, they indicated a much higher level of

rider satisfaction than Pennsylvania riders.

Recommendations

Satisfaction with riding opportunities in the state shows the efforts of the past 13 years have paid off.

While there is not a tremendous amount of problems noted by ATV riders, there is still room for

improvement. This is particularly true for more involved opportunities involving trails systems with

multiple days of riding and with more challenging trails. The regional differences in desired trail

characteristics should provide guidance when considering the potential to use ATV registration funds to

support the development of new and/or improved riding areas.

23

Web‐based and social media information sources are growing in importance to riders. The current

DCNR web page on riding opportunities is showing its age. DCNR should expand and improve their

offerings in this arena.

24

References

Lord, B. E., W. F. Elmendorf, and C. H. Strauss. 2004. Pennsylvania’s ATV Riders and their Needs. Project report to Bureau of Recreation and Conservation, PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 49 pp.

25

AppendixABureauofConservationandRecreationRegions

North Central

Cameron Lycoming Snyder

Centre Montour Tioga

Clinton Northumberland Union

Columbia Potter Snyder

Northeast Berks Berks Sullivan

Bradford Bradford Susquehanna

Carbon Carbon Wayne

Lackawanna Lackawanna Wyoming

Lehigh Lehigh

Northwest Clarion Erie McKean

Clearfield Forest Mercer

Crawford Jefferson Venango

Elk Lawrence Warren

South Central Adams Franklin Mifflin

Bedford Fulton Perry

Blair Huntingdon Somerset

Cambria Juniata York

Cumberland Lancaster

Dauphin Lebanon

South East Bucks Bucks Philadelphia

Chester Chester

South West Allegheny Butler Indiana

Armstrong Fayette Washington

Beaver Greene Westmoreland

26

AppendixBTheSurveyForm

Pennsylvania’s ATV Riders and their€¦ · several off‐road vehicle parks in the Commonwealth....

Documents

Transcript of Pennsylvania’s ATV Riders and their€¦ · several off‐road vehicle parks in the Commonwealth....