2017 Indiana Trails Study Nickel Plate Trail Measuring the Health, Economic, and Community Impacts of Trails in Indiana

Transcription

1 2017 Indiana Trails Study Measuring the Health, Economic, and Community Impacts of Trails in Indiana Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands 501 N. Morton St., Suite 101, Bloomington IN

2

3 2017 Indiana Trails Study Sponsors Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington Greenways Foundation of Indiana George and Frances Ball Foundation Completed by Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands Stephen A. W olter Co-Principal Investigator William D. Ramos Co-Principal Investigator Project Associates/ Research Team Layne Elliott, Project Manager Abbas Smiley, Statistical Consultant Sara Suhaibani May 31, 2018 Copyright Notice This report is the property of the Trustees of Indiana University on behalf of the Eppley Institute for Parks & Public Lands. It may not be duplicated or used in any way without written permission of Indiana University. 2018, Trustees of Indiana University on behalf of the Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands Cite as: Wolter, S., Elliott, L., Ramos, W., Smiley, A., Suhaibani, S. (2018). Summary report: 2017 Indiana trails study. Bloomington, IN. Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands, Indiana University. iii

4 Table of Contents Acknowledgements vii Background 1 2 Description of the Trail 2 Trail Map 3 Study Methods 4 Selection of Participant Trails 4 Trail Use Counts 5 Survey Recruitment 6 Findings 8 Trail Use Factors 8 T rail Activity 8 Access 11 Social Factors 14 Reasons for Trail Usage 16 Concerns and Problems 19 Physical Activity Factors 27 Economic Factors 30 Demographic Factors 31 Trail Counters 35 Summary and Conclusions 37 References 39 iv 2017 Indiana Trail Study

5 Table of Figures Table 1: Study Timeline 7 Table 2: What Type of Activity do You Mostly Do on the Trail? 8 Table 3: Distance, Time, and Days per Week of Primary Activity 9 Table 4: Is There a Second Activity that You Do on the Trail? 10 Table 5: What is the Second Activity You Do on the Trail? 10 Table 6: Distance, Time, and Days per Week of Secondary Activity 11 Table 7: On Most Days, Where Do You Usually Come from to Get to the Trail? 11 Table 8: On Most Days How do You Get to the Trail? 12 Table 9: How Far do You Travel to Use the Trail? 12 Table 10: If You Were to Walk to the Trail, How Long Would It Take You? 13 Table 11: How Long Have You Been Using the Trail? 13 Table 12: While On the Trail do You Usually Use it 14 Table 13: Who do You Usually Use the Trail With? 15 Table 14: What Time of the Day do You Usually Use the Trail? 15 Table 15: What is the Primary Reason You Use This Trail Instead of Other Facilities? 16 Table 16: Scenery (Beauty of Environment) 17 Table 17: Terrain (Flat, Paved, etc.) 17 Table 18: Access (No Cost Associated With Use) 17 Table 19: Convenience (Location) 18 Table 20: Friendly Atmosphere (Social Environment) 18 Table 21: Accessible Features (Ease of Entry/exit, Seating, Surface, etc.) 19 Table 22: Outdoor (Environment/Access to Nature) 19 Table 23: Safety 20 Table 24: Parking (Lack of, or Cost) 20 Table 25: Accessibility of the Trail 21 Table 26: Location 21 Table 27: Facilities (Restrooms, Water Fountains) 22 Table 28: Maintenance 22 Table 29: Space/Congestion on the Trail 22 Table 30: Fear of Injury 23 Table 31: Bikers/Skaters Going Too Fast 23 Table 32: Police Presence 23 Table 33: Adequate Signage 24 Table 34: Visibility of Distance / Mile Markers 24 Table 35: Unleashed Pets 24 v

6 Table 36: Wild Animals 25 Table 37: What Concerns You Most About the Trail? 26 Table 38: Did You Exercise Regularly (Three or More Times per Week for 20 Minutes per Session) Before Using a Trail? 27 Table 39: Since Beginning to Use a Trail, Has the Amount of Exercise that You Do Table 40: Since Using the Trail, Approximately how Much has Your Exercise Level Increased? 28 Table 41: Physical Activities in the Past Month, Apart from Your Trail Activities 28 Table 42: Time Spent Doing Physical Activities Altogether 29 Table 43: For the Items Listed Below, Please Indicate Your Amount Spent on the Day You Used the Trail and also Your Estimated Annual Spending 30 Table 44: Age 31 Table 45: Gender 31 Table 46: Race/Ethnic Origin 32 Table 47: Marital Status 32 Table 48: Employment Status 33 Table 49: Employment Satisfaction 33 Table 50: Educational Attainment 34 Table 51: Household Income Level 34 Table 52: Monthly Counts on the 36 Table 53: Average Daily Counts on the 36 Table 54: Average Hourly Counts on the 36 Figure 1: Location of Indiana Trails Study participating trails 4 Figure 2: Wabash River Bridge in Peru 5 Figure 3: Trails Study volunteers at 6 Figure 4: Bikers on the 9 Figure 5: Shelter in Peru 14 Figure 6: Wallick Rest Area on the 18 Figure 7: along Pipe Creek 21 Figure 8: Skateboarders on the 36 vi 2017 Indiana Trail Study

7 Acknowledgements Nickel Plate, Inc. Michael Kuepper, President Michaelle Miller, Secretary Bill Click, Executive Board Member Steve Gough, Executive Board Member Shelly Glassburn, Volunteer Coordinator Terry Lee, Volunteer Coordinator Trails Study Advisory Group Mitch Barloga- Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission Karen Bohn- Greenways Foundation of Indiana Bob Bronson- Indiana Department of Natural Resources Angie Pool- Cardinal Greenways, Inc. Dawn Ritchie- Fort Wayne Public Works Department Rory Robinson- National Park Service Yvette Rollins- Greenways Foundation of Indiana Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands Hana Cleveland Gina Depper Layne Elliott Derek Herrmann Crystal Howell Matthew Johnson Kevin Naaman Katy Patrick Elizabeth Sherrill Abbas Smiley Sara Suhaibani Stephen Wolter Stefanie Wong vii

8

9 2017 Indiana Trails Study Background Multi-use trails are becoming a popular initiative across the country, as they provide recreational and health opportunities for users. In Indiana, a Trails Advisory Board was established by the Director of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR, n.d.) in June An Advisory Board was formed to make recommendations regarding planning for and implementing multi-use trails and to allow Indiana to apply for funding from the federal Recreational Trails Program. The majority of Indiana trails are built with a mix of state and federal funding. This funding has resulted in more than 3,500 miles of public multipurpose trails, all of which contribute to Indiana s State Trails Plan goal of providing a trail within five miles of every Indiana resident. The state s commitment to reaching this goal has led to an increase in the level of trail access from 70% of residents in 2006 to 94.4% of residents in 2017 (DNR, 2017). Due to the rapid increase of trails in the state, a thorough investigation of trail use, trends, benefits, and attitudes of trail users and trail neighbors became necessary. The Indiana Trails Study was developed to gather and better understand information on trail use and its benefits. The first Indiana Trails Study, published in 2001, described findings from a six-trail study utilizing trail traffic data, surveys of trail users, surveys of trail neighbors, and a review of other relevant studies. The 2017 Indiana Trails Study, which included three of the trails from the original study, uses the same methods, along with surveys of a control group of non-trail users, and includes information on the following: trail use levels; trail management practices; the opinions of trail users, non-users, and neighbors; and data related to trails impact on public health and state and local economies. 1

10 Description of the Trail The is a 40-plus-mile rail-trail corridor running from Kokomo in Howard County to Rochester in Fulton County. This corridor was purchased from the Norfolk Southern Railroad via the Federal Railbanking program for the purpose of developing a trail for hiking, bicycling, and other non-motorized recreational uses. The trail currently goes through the communities of Cassville, Bennetts Switch, Miami, Bunker Hill, Peru, Denver, Deedsville, Birmingham, Macy, and Rochester. The is ideal for walking, hiking, running, bicycling, skating, or even cross-country skiing. Overall, it is comfortably wide, smooth, and maintains an almost unnoticeable grade. There is a good mixture of open and shaded trail. The trail follows what was once the Nickel Plate Railroad, running alongside, and in places crossing over, Little Pipe Creek. The landscape surrounding the trail not only looks beautiful but has the unmistakable fresh smell of the Indiana countryside. No matter how many times you visit the trail, there is always something new for you to discover. Nickel Plate Road is an interesting name for a railroad line. It earned the nickname because when it was being planned, there were four lines surveyed for the position. The competition was fierce for not only the line but also the money that would be earned by having the railroad in the respective towns and cities. The editor of the Norwalk Ohio Chronicle referred to the New York, Chicago and St. Louis RR route as Nickel Plated due to the money that would be earned. The nickname stuck. As you explore the woodlands and wetlands, you can see a wide variety of plant and animal life. Of interest is Scout Bridge, which crosses Little Pipe Creek, and an old dam with some historical interest, both of which are just south of the Peru trailhead. South of Bunker Hill and to the east of the trail are some of the remains of the Union Traction railway, an electric interurban line that was abandoned around The is well maintained and is one of the nicest-looking trails in the Midwest. The amazing sights, sounds and scents the trail provides make it much more than just a great place to visit; it s an experience Indiana Trail Study

11 Trail Map 3

12 Study Methods The Indiana state government and local communities have made a significant commitment to build, operate, and maintain trails. The benefits of the policy and implementation of a state-wide trail system are often stated based on evaluation, comments, and research on a national level. Indiana is unique in that it began a state-wide study in 2000, the first Indiana Trails Study, which described findings from a six-trail study utilizing trail traffic data, surveys of trail users, surveys of trail neighbors, and a review of other relevant studies. The first Indiana Trails Study provided significant value and benefits to trails in Indiana and was cited frequently in the state and nationally. The 2017 Indiana Trails Study, suggested in part to replicate the study by Indiana trail advocates, uses these methods along with surveys of a control group of non-trail users in order to gather updated data on the trails, including the following: trail use levels; trail management practices; the opinions of trail users, non-users, and neighbors; and data related to trails impact on public health and state and local economies. Specifically, the 2017 study s methods include: Traffic (user) counts collected via trail counters at select trail segments Online surveys (or paper-mail surveys upon request) of both trail users and a control group of non-users Online surveys of trail-adjacent property owners (that is, trail neighbors ) Review of recent research and trail-related studies Collection of data on non-trail users and trail neighbors was not trail specific and is not included in this report. The 2017 Indiana Trails Study Summary Report contains an analysis of trail neighbor data, while the Summary Report and further published reports will reference non-trail user, or control group, data. Selection of Participant Trails Figure 1: Location of Indiana Trails Study Participating Trails Indiana Trail Study

13 One of the important components of the study was the selection of trails. The process used similar criteria to the study from 2001 and sought an equal mix of geographic locations and rural to urban settings. No single definition of urban, suburban, or rural fit the needs of this study, so a compilation of sources including the Indiana Department of Transportation, the U.S. Census Bureau, and other anecdotal sources were used to create the following definitions. Rural areas were defined as residential areas of at least one acre on average, as well as farmland, open range, or forest. Suburban areas were defined as areas of average density of single family homes and light commercial development. Urban areas were defined as areas of dense residential, commercial, or industrial development and included medium to larger city centers. This method provided a more accurate depiction of the trails in Indiana s trail network. Other criteria for selecting study trails included: The trail contributes to a statewide mix of trails Participation in the 2001 Indiana Trails Study The ability and willingness of the managing organization to fully participate based on: þþ Length of time the agency has been in existence þþ Functioning Board of Directors or agency support þþ Available paid staff or the ability to generate a volunteer staff for data collection þþ Number of volunteers available þþ Length of time volunteer network has been in existence The agency s access to trail counters The agency s ability to provide a list of neighboring properties visually abutting or within 150 feet of the trail for the trail neighbor survey These criteria were not individually defined by a minimum standard. Each potential trail was evaluated based on its fit within the framework of the set of criteria as a whole. In addition to having the required support structure, the was selected by virtue of being a representative rural trail in the Central section of Indiana. Figure 2: Wabash River Bridge in Peru Trail Use Counts Trail counts refers to the number of users on a trail during a specific timeframe. For the 2017 Indiana Trails Study, each participating agency was asked to provide trail counters. Infrared counters were suggested because of their low cost, availability, and relative ease of use. Not all agencies had access to infrared counters, resulting in variation in counter type. All but two participating agencies already had counters. The remaining two agencies used counters supplied by the research team. Trail counters were placed at various locations on each participating trail from April 10 through October 15. Trail counter locations were determined in consultation with the local agency responsible for the trail. Trail segments where counters were already deployed or soon to be deployed were used. A trail counter was placed on the Wabash River Bridge in Peru by the research team on July 6 and remained in place throughout the course of the study. 5

14 Survey Recruitment In order to recruit survey participants for the study, trained volunteers from the trail management agency were stationed at specified trailheads at specified times and days to distribute study information, including the link to the online trail survey. Note that the volunteers canvassed the survey location by giving survey information and participation request cards to all individuals at the location during the date and time specified, but did not directly collect information from any survey participant. The researchers assumed that trail use levels vary by location, even for individual trails. In response, recruitments were completed during four one-week periods throughout the study in various locations and at various times of day on each trail between April and October. Popular trailheads were selected in order to intercept users when starting or ending trail use. Survey recruitment locations on the Nickel Plate included the northern trailhead at 18th Street in Rochester, the Lovers Lane trailhead in Peru, the Wallick Road trailhead near Peru, and the County Road 450 South trailhead near Kokomo. When collecting data for the control group of non-users, sites such as grocery stores or libraries that were further away from the trail and used by a cross-section of community residents were chosen. The target number of trail user survey responses depends on the populations of the participating communities, but a 95% confidence interval was sought in this study. Figure 3: Trails Study volunteers at Indiana Trail Study

15 Table 1 shows the overall schedule for the 2017 Indiana Trails Study. The multi-method data collection process is complex, requiring active management of deliverables and process. Table 1: Study Timeline February March April May June July August September October- December April 2018 May 2018 Surveys Draft survey instruments Finalize surveys First survey period Second survey period Third survey period Final survey period Trail agencies Meet with agencies; orient them on volunteer recruitment, survey protocol, and study details Create training material for agencies and volunteers Complete training Trail neighbor surveys Complete draft trail neighbor survey Finalize, validate trail neighbor survey Compile trail neighbor mailing lists Mail trail neighbor survey invitations; prelim data analysis Mail second round of trail neighbor surveys Trail counters Confirm trail counter protocol with trail agencies Confirm trail counters in place at all trails Collect trail counter data from all trails Data analysis Build data analysis models and protocol Complete prelim data analysis from first survey period Complete prelim data analysis from second survey period Complete data analysis from third survey period Begin final data analysis on surveys, trail neighbor surveys, counter data Complete data analysis Issue final reports 7

16 Findings A total of 1393 trail users were surveyed throughout the eight trails in Indiana participating in the study. While the 2017 Indiana Trails Study did use a new survey instrument, many of the questions were similar to those of the 2001 survey. When possible, comparisons were made between both studies to examine changes in trail use patterns and attitudes in the intervening 16 years. The did not participate in the 2001 Indiana Trail Study, therefore all comparisons between the studies in this report are study-wide. Trail Use Factors Trail Activity Table 2 shows that the primary activity of trail users on the Nickel Plate is biking (59%) followed by walking (23%), then jogging (18%). Table 2: What Type of Activity Do You Mostly Do on the Trail? Walk Count % 23% 29% Run/Jog Count % 18% 19% Bike Count % 59% 52% Skate Count % 0% 0.2% Horseback Riding Count % 0% 0.2% Bird Count Watching % 0% 0.1% People Watching Count % 0% 0.2% Total Indiana Trail Study

17 This resembles the average among all trails in the study, where biking was rated the top activity by 52% of respondents, followed by walking (29%) and jogging (19%). In contrast, the leading statewide activity in 2001 was walking, with 41% of trail users reporting it as their primary activity. In 2001, biking was the primary activity of 39% of trail users. This likely mirrors the increase in bicycling in the U.S., which has more than doubled since 2001 (League of American Bicyclists, 2015). Nickel Plate users far exceeded the statewide average when asked about the distance they travel on the trail, the length of time they spend engaging in their primary trail activity, and how many days per week they use the trail for that activity (Table 3). Nickel Plate users report an average of 12.5 miles (vs. 9.5 statewide), for 93 minutes per session (vs. 72 minutes statewide), for about four days per week (vs. 3.5 days per week statewide). This pattern is seen on all the rural trails in the study. Trail users are staying on trails longer in 2017; they travel 9.5 miles compared with seven miles per session in Moreover, 17% of trail users are on the trail for more than 20miles. This increase corresponds with the increase in the number of bikers. Table 3: Distance, Time, and Days per Week of Primary Activity Average Miles Performed Average Minutes/Session Average Days/Week Figure 4: Bikers on the 9

18 When asked if there is a second activity they use the trail for, 54% of Nickel Plate users said yes compared with 55% of trail users statewide (Table 4). Table 4: Is There a Second Activity that You Do on the Trail? Yes Count % 54% 55.5% No Count % 46% 44.5% Total 72 Table 5 shows that biking is the top secondary activity by Nickel Plate users at 40%. Jogging was the third most popular secondary activity with 17.5% of users partaking in it. Statewide, walking (40%), biking (37%), and jogging (17%) were predictably also the top three. Table 5: What is the Second Activity You Do on the Trail? Walk Count % 35% 40% Run/Jog Count 7 15 % 17.5% 17.5% Bike Count % 40% 37% Skate Count % 2.5% 0.5% Horseback Count Riding % 0% 0.1% Bird Count 0 2 Watching % 0% 2% People Count Watching % 5% 2.9% Total Indiana Trail Study

19 Nickel Plate users exceeded statewide averages for miles (6.5) and time spent (52 minutes) doing their secondary activity as well as their primary activity, but used the trail for their secondary activity slightly less often: 1.5 days per week (Table 6). Table 6: Distance, Time, and Days per Week of Secondary Activity Average Miles Performed Average Minutes/Session Average Days/Week Access Tables 7-8 display where trail users come from, how they get to trails, and how far they travel to use them. The vast majority of people (88%) come from home to use the Nickel Plate, compared with 87% statewide. Coming from work to use the trail was a distant second at 11% (11% statewide). Table 7: On Most Days, Where Do You Usually Come from to Get to the Trail? Work Count 8 17 % 11% 11% Home Count % 88% 87% School Count % 0% 0.5% After a meal Count 0 1 % 0% 1% Another setting Count 1 2 % 1% 1.5% Total 73 Nickel Plate users differ from users statewide in how they get to the trail. Approximately 46% of statewide users drive to their trail compared with 56% of Nickel Plate users. Only 22% of Nickel Plate users bike to the trail and 22% walk. The high number of people who drive to use the trail corresponds across the study with higher numbers of people using the trail for biking. Statewide, 31% of users bike and 22.5% walk to their trails to use them. In 2001, 19% of statewide trail users biked and 20% of them walked to their trails. The number of people who bike to their trail to use it has doubled in 16 years, reflecting the significant increase in bike use on the trail. This shift away from driving could reflect users increased participation in physical activity, as seen in the increase in biking and other forms of transportation, or it could be indicative of an increase in the number of trails available, reducing the need for people to drive to access them. 11

20 Table 8: On Most Days How do You Get to the Trail? Walk Count % 22% 22.5% Drive Count % 56% 46% Bicycle Count % 22% 31% Bus/public transportation Count % 0% 0.1% Ride with family/friends Count Total 73 % 0% 0.2% Nickel Plate users travel longer distances to use the trail than do users of other trails in the state. A majority (62%) travel less than three miles. Statewide, the average distance traveled to use one of the trails in the study is 2.4 miles, up from 1.5 miles in 2001, and 64% of users travel less than three miles. Over 14% percent of statewide users and 29% of Nickel Plate users traveled more than seven miles to reach the trail, which is important to note when considering the potential of trails to draw tourists. Table 9: How Far do You Travel to Use the Trail? <1 mile Count % 27.5% 35% 1-3 miles Count % 20.5% 29% miles Count % 14% 14% miles Count 7 12 % 10% 8% >7 miles Count % 29% 14.5% Total Indiana Trail Study

21 Table 10: If You Were to Walk to the Trail, How Long Would It Take You? 1-10 Count % 20.5% 24.5% Count 7 22 % 10.5% 14.5% Count 5 14 % 7.5% 9.5% Count 4 12 % 6% 8% Count % 4.5% 6% Count 4 12 % 6% 8% Count % 7.5% 4.5% Count 0 3 % 0.0% 2% Count % 1.5% 3% >90 Count % 37% 21% Total 68 As seen in Table 11, Nickel Plate users have been using their trail an average of seven years, compared with the statewide average of 8.5 years. Table 11: How Long Have You Been Using the Trail? Average Time, Years

22 Social Factors In addition to trails value as exercise and recreation facilities, they are frequently used for social activities. Families and friends walk together, walking clubs are more common, and benches and plazas are being constructed on trails across the nation as gathering spots in order to facilitate social activity. Tables illustrate how frequently people use their trail with other people and when they use it. Table 12 shows that 52% of Nickel Plate users are usually on the trail alone. Of those who are frequently on the trail with other people, 47% (Table 13) are with family members less the state average and 38% use the trail with friends, exercise partners, or coworkers. Table 12: While On the Trail do You Usually Use it With others Count % 48% 47% Alone Count % 52% 53% Total 73 Figure 5: Shelter in Peru Indiana Trail Study

23 Table 13: Who Do You Usually Use the Trail With? Spouse/Partner Count % 41% 45% Exercise Partners Count 7 10 % 20% 14% Children Count 1 3 % 3% 4% Children Count 3 2 % 9% 3% Coworker Count % 0% 2% Friend(s) Count 5 13 % 15% 17.5% Other family members/relatives Count % 3% 3.5% Walk/Run club Count 1 1 % 3% 1% Mix of family & friends Count % 6% 10% Total 34 Usage of the Nickel Plate is higher in the morning (36.5% from 8-11 AM) than at other times. This is a bit of a departure from other trails in the study. Morning is often a peak time but not as much as is seen on the Nickel Plate. Usage on the Nickel Plate is fairly even throughout the rest of the day, without the afternoon peak (26%) seen study-wide. Table 14: What Time of the Day do You Usually Use the Trail? 5-8 AM Count 8 16 % 12% 10.5% 8-11 AM Count % 36.5% 27.5% 11 AM- 2 PM Count % 18% 20% 2-6 PM Count % 18% 26% After 6 PM Count % 15.5% 16% Total 71 15

24 Reasons for Trail Usage Table 15 illustrates trail users primary reason for using a trail. The majority of Nickel Plate users (65%) are on the trail for physical activity. This is slightly higher than the state average of 63.5%. The second most popular primary reason for using the trail was for recreation (13%), followed by stress reduction at 9%, and walking the dog at 7%. Statewide, slightly fewer trail users are on the trail for physical activity (63.5%) and slightly more are using a trail for recreation (13.5%). Use of the Nickel Plate for transportation, as with other rural trails, is very low with only 3% using the trail to commute. A similar question with broader answers was asked in Health/exercise was the top answer among users statewide with 69%, whereas 28% stated recreation, and 3% indicated they were commuting. Adding 2017 s physical activity, stress reduction, and health issues answers into a single category shows that 72% of trail users statewide and 74% of Nickel Plate users answered similarly to 2001 s health/exercise response. Combining 2017 s recreation, walking the dog, and aesthetics answers to compare to the 2001 answer of recreation shows that trail use for recreation has decreased from 28% to 23.5% statewide and registers at 23% on the. Statewide use for commuting has also increased with 5% now using their trail for transportation compared with 2% in Table 15: What is the Primary Reason You Use This Trail Instead of Other Facilities? Physical Activity Count % 65% 63.5% Recreation Count % 13% 13.5% Transportation Count % 3% 5% Walk Dog Count 5 7 % 7% 5% Stress Reduction Count 6 10 % 9% 6.5% Health Issues Count 0 3 % 0% 2% Aesthetics Count % 3% 5% Total Indiana Trail Study Trail users were asked to rate the importance of certain characteristics of the trail they were using from least important to most important on a 5-point scale. This is helpful information for trail planners so they can understand the features and atmospheric amenities that should or should not be included when they are planning new trail routes or updating existing trails. Tables show how trail users rate these characteristics. The feature of the that users appreciate the most is having access to the outdoors and nature. 95% (Table 22) said that being outdoors on the trail was either most important or quite important, far exceeding the statewide average of 88% and marking the highest percentage of any trail in the study. The next most important characteristic of the trail was ease of access or no cost at 88% (Table 18) followed by scenery (Table 16) at 82%, having accessible features at 80% (Table 21), the convenience of the location at 75.5% (Table 19), and terrain at 71% (Table 17). Far behind, as on all other trails, was the idea that the trail had a friendly atmosphere, with only 55% rating this as most or quite important. Nickel Plate users rated all characteristics except the location of the trail higher than study-wide averages, indicating that they are largely happy with the management of the trail.

25 Statewide, access to the outdoors and nature rated at the top of the list of most important trail features with 88% of users rating it as most or quite important, followed by location with 79.5 and scenery with 76%. Table 16: Scenery (Beauty of Environment) Least Important Count % 2.5% 1% Somewhat Important Count % 1.5% 5% Important Count % 14% 18.5% Quite Important Count % 34% 34% Most Important Count % 48% 42% Total 71 Table 17: Terrain (Flat, Paved, etc.) Least Important Count 2 6 % 3% 4% Somewhat Important Count 7 13 % 10% 9% Important Count % 16% 18.5% Quite Important Count % 27.5% 30% Most Important Count % 43.5% 38.5% Total 69 Table 18: Access (No Cost Associated With Use) Least Important Count 2 3 % 3% 2% Somewhat Important Count 2 5 % 3% 3.5% Important Count 3 15 % 4% 10% Quite Important Count % 31% 21.5% Most Important Count % 59% 63% Total 71 17

26 Table 19: Convenience (Location) Least Important Count % 0% 2% Somewhat Important Count % 8.5% 5% Important Count % 16% 13.5% Quite Important Count % 27% 25.5% Most Important Count % 48.5% 54% Total 70 Table 20: Friendly Atmosphere (Social Environment) Least Important Count 3 8 % 4.5% 6% Somewhat Important Count % 13.5% 14% Important Count % 27% 26.5% Quite Important Count % 26% 26.5% Most Important Count % 29% 27% Total 66 Figure 6: Wallick Rest Area on the Indiana Trail Study

27 Table 21: Accessible Features (Ease of Entry/exit, Seating, Surface, etc.) Least Important Count % 4% 4% Somewhat Important Count 2 10 % 3% 7% Important Count 9 28 % 13% 19% Quite Important Count % 39% 31% Most Important Count % 41% 39% Total 70 Table 22: Outdoor (Environment/Access to Nature) Least Important Count % 3% 1% Somewhat Important Count 0 4 % 0% 2.5% Important Count 1 13 % 1.5% 8.5% Quite Important Count % 28% 25% Most Important Count % 67.5% 63% Total 71 Concerns and Problems Trail users were asked about their concerns about the trail and problems they may experience while on the trail (Tables 23-36). Just as with preferred trail characteristics, trail users were asked to rate their concerns from least important to most important. This data is useful for gauging physical and safety features of trail design, construction, and maintenance, and can be used to inform trail managers of particular issues that may exist on their trail. Ranking at the top for Nickel Plate users is the location of the trail (Table 26), with 57% of trail users rating the concern as quite important or most important. Nickel Plate was constructed on the bed of a former rail line, and its proximity to industrial areas, road crossings, or sight lines may be reasons for this concern. The issue garnering the second most concern is maintenance, with 47% of users rating it as quite or most important (Table 28). Safety (Table 23) was even with maintenance as a concern, with 47% saying it was quite or very important. The rating of safety as a concern, while lower than average, contrasts with more specific concerns that generally factor into safety, receiving ratings of low importance. In fact, only 8% rated wild animals (Table 36), 12% rated bikers/skaters going too fast (Table 31), 20% rated fear of injury (Table 30), and 23.5% rated Police presence (Table 32) were most or quite important as concerns. The only individual safety factor that approached the level of concern for overall safety was unleashed pets. 34% of Nickel Plate users said that unleashed pets (Table 35) was a most important or quite important concern. 19

28 Accessibility of the trail (Table 25) was the fourth highest rated concern, with 44.5% listing it as their most or quite important concern.facilities (Table 27) were next at 41%, followed by space/congestion, with 36% of users rating it as most or quite important (Table 29). Other logistical and amenities issues (i.e., parking, visibility of mile markers, and adequate signage) do not appear to rate highly as concerns (Tables, 24, 33, and 34). Statewide, location of the trail was also the highest rated concern (noted by 59% of users), though much lower than the Nickel Plate. The concern with the next highest level of users rating it as most or quite important was also maintenance (55.5%), followed by accessibility (52.5%) and safety (51.5%). Similar to Nickel Plate, there is a slight disconnect between safety and concerns that feed into safety, and a relatively low level of concern about logistical and amenities-related problems. In 2001, trail users across the state said that personal safety was their most important issue, followed by vandalism, safe intersections, and natural surroundings. Table 23: Safety Least Important Count 6 17 % 9% 12% Somewhat Important Count % 20% 15.5% Important Count % 24% 21% Quite Important Count 9 25 % 14% 18% Most Important Count % 33% 33.5% Total 66 Table 24: Parking (Lack of, or Cost) Least Important Count % 27% 29% Somewhat Important Count % 25.5% 23% Important Count 9 21 % 16.5% 18.5% Quite Important Count 8 18 % 14.5% 15.5% Most Important Count 9 16 % 16.5% 14% Total Indiana Trail Study

29 Table 25: Accessibility of the Trail Least Important Count % 16% 17% Somewhat Important Count % 21.5% 13% Important Count % 18% 17.5% Quite Important Count % 30.5% 25% Most Important Count 8 35 % 14% 27.5% Total 56 Table 26: Location Least Important Count 9 20 % 15% 15.5% Somewhat Important Count % 15% 10% Important Count 7 20 % 12% 15.5% Quite Important Count % 31% 25.5% Most Important Count % 27% 33.5% Total 59 Figure 7: along Pipe Creek 21

30 Table 27: Facilities (Restrooms, Water Fountains) Least Important Count % 14% 11% Somewhat Important Count % 18% 18.5% Important Count % 27% 30.5% Quite Important Count % 19.5% 21% Most Important Count % 21.5% 19% Total 56 Table 28: Maintenance Least Important Count % 16% 10.5% Somewhat Important Count % 20% 11.5% Important Count % 17% 23% Quite Important Count % 22% 27.5% Most Important Count % 25% 28% Total 64 Table 29: Space/Congestion on the Trail Least Important Count % 25.5% 14% Somewhat Important Count % 22% 19.5% Important Count 9 34 % 16.5% 27% Quite Important Count % 27% 23.5% Most Important Count % 9% 16% Total Indiana Trail Study

31 Table 30: Fear of Injury Least Important Count % 32% 30% Somewhat Important Count % 17% 27.5% Important Count % 23.5% 22% Quite Important Count 9 13 % 19% 12% Most Important Count 4 10 % 8.5% 9% Total 47 Table 31: Bikers/Skaters Going Too Fast Least Important Count % 34% 30% Somewhat Important Count % 26% 27% Important Count % 20% 22.5% Quite Important Count % 10% 11% Most Important Count % 10% 10% Total 50 Table 32: Police Presence Least Important Count % 30.5% 27% Somewhat Important Count % 35% 25.5% Important Count 5 30 % 11% 27% Quite Important Count % % 17% 11.5% Most Important Count 3 10 % 6.5% 9% Total 46 23

32 Table 33: Adequate Signage Least Important Count % 30.5% 25.5% Somewhat Important Count % 22% 25% Important Count % 28% 29.5% Quite Important Count % 13% 14% Most Important Count 3 7 % 6.5% 6% Total 46 Table 34: Visibility of Distance / Mile Markers Least Important Count % 22% 24.5% Somewhat Important Count % 28.5% 25% Important Count % 24.5% 25% Quite Important Count % 12% 15% Most Important Count 6 12 % 12% 10.5% Total 49 Table 35: Unleashed Pets Least Important Count % 20% 25% Somewhat Important Count % 20% 22% Important Count % 26% 21% Quite Important Count 9 17 % 18% 14.5% Most Important Count 8 20 % 16% 17.5% Total Indiana Trail Study

33 Table 36: Wild Animals Least Important Count % 32% 45.5% Somewhat Important Count % 36% 27.5% Important Count % 23% 16.5% Quite Important Count 2 5 % 4% 5% Most Important Count % 4% 5.5% Total 47 When asked to rate the single most important concern they had, more Nickel Plate users said that lack of facilities (drinking fountains, restrooms, etc.) was their biggest concern, with 29.5%. This is well above the state average of 18.5%, and coincides with findings from the previous section, where 41% of trail users said that maintenance was either a very important or quite important concern. The next most significant concern was maintenance at 17%, slightly below the state average of 19%. Maintenance and facilities are consistently the top two most important concerns across the study. Fewer Nickel Plate users than average, however, rated safety (9.5% vs. the state average of 11%), congestion (3% vs. the state average of 11%), bikers and skaters going too fast (4.5% vs. the state average of 9.5%), and Police patrols (1.5% vs. the state average of 5%) as their most important concern. Unleashed pets (11%) and location (11%) both rated much higher than average as most important concerns. In 2001, drinking water/toilets (listed in 2017as Facilities ) was the area with the lowest level of satisfaction on every trail surveyed. Other top most important concerns across the state in 2001 were adequate patrols (parallel to 2017 s Police Presence ), and vandalism. 25

34 Table 37: What Concerns You Most About the Trail? Lack of Safety Count % 9.5% 11% Parking (Lack of, Cost) Count 3 3 % 4.5% 2% Accessibility of the Trail Count 2 7 % 3% 5% Location Count % 11% 6% Facilities Count % 29.5% 18.5% Maintenance Count % 17% 19% Space/Congestion Count % 3% 11% Fear of Injury Count 2 2 % 3% 1% Bikers/Skaters Going Fast Count 3 13 % 4.5% 9.5% No Police Patrols Count 1 7 % 1.5% 5% Adequate Signage Count 0 2 % 0% 1.5% Visibility of Distance Count 0 2 % 0% 1.5% Unleashed Pets Count 7 10 % 11% 7% Wild Animals Count 1 3 % 1.5% 2% Total Indiana Trail Study

35 Physical Activity Factors Tables show that access to a trail continues to have a positive impact on exercise levels not only statewide but especially on the. About 70% of Nickel Plate users said that they exercised regularly before they started using the trail, compared to the statewide average of 59.9% (Table 38). About 61% of Nickel Plate users said that their exercise level increased since they began using the trail (Table 39), with 70% saying that their exercise level had increased at least 25% since they started to use the trail. Comparatively, 67% of statewide users said they increased their exercise level, with 73% saying that they increased their exercise level by more than 25% since they started using a trail. While impressive, this is actually a drop in the number of people who said they exercise more because of the trail: in 2001, 78% of statewide trail users reported an increase in exercise levels. It is important to note, however, that many hundreds of miles of trails have been built in the state since the 2001 study and many more Hoosiers have had access to trails for a number of years. Table 38: Did You Exercise Regularly (Three or More Times per Week for 20 Minutes per Session) Before Using a Trail? Yes Count % 70% 59.5% No Count % 30% 40.5% Total 73 Table 39: Since Beginning to Use a Trail, Has the Amount of Exercise that You Do... Increased Count % 61% 67% Decreased Count 2 2 % 3% 1% Why? Health Issues Do not Know Count 0 3 % 0% 2% Stayed the Same Count % 36% 30% Total 73 27

36 Table 40: Since Using the Trail, Approximately how Much has Your Exercise Level Increased? <25% Count % 30% 27% 26-50% Count % 42% 37% 50-75% Count % 12% 16% % Count 3 12 % 7% 12% >100% Count 4 8 % 9% 8% Total 43 Trail users were also asked about other physical activities they did apart from trail activities (Table 41). Most common among Nickel Plate users were housework (17%), walking (15%), bicycling (13%), and gardening (12%). Statewide, walking was the top activity, reported by 24% of users, and followed by bicycling (17.5%), strength training (16.5%), and gardening (15.5%). The most common amount of time spent doing these other activities (Table 42) was more than 5 hours per week, on both the (35%) and statewide (34%). Table 41: Physical Activities in the Past Month, Apart from Your Trail Activities Aerobic Dance Count 4 7 % 2% 1.7% Bicycling Count % 13% 17.5% Strength Training Count % 11% 16.5% Golf Count 7 14 % 3% 3.5% Jogging/Running Count % 11% 11% Walking Count % 15% 24% Gardening Count % 12% 15.5% Swimming/Water Exercises Count % 5% 5.7% Organized team sport Count % 2% 2% Housework Count 45 6 % 17% 1.5% Yoga Count 12 2 % 5% 0.5% Martial Arts Count % 2% 0.02% Racquet Sports Count % 2% 0.1% Total Indiana Trail Study

37 Table 42: Time Spent Doing Physical Activities Altogether (per week) <30 Minutes Count % 1.5% 3.5% Minutes Count % 8.5% 5.5% Hours Count % 7% 7.5% Hours Count 7 11 % 10% 7% Hours Count 5 12 % 7% 8% Hours Count % 7% 7.5% Hours Count 4 11 % 6% 7% Hours Count 6 10 % 8.5% 6.5% Hours Count % 5.5% 6% Hours Count % 5.5% 7% >5 Hours Count % 34% 34% Total 71 29

38 Economic Factors To gauge the economic impact of trails, users were asked about their spending on certain items related to trail use, as well as their travel to and from the trail. Table 43 shows that trail users spent an average of $24.00 each on the day they were surveyed on trail use. While daily expenditure is interesting as a snapshot, it is not as reliable for measuring economic impact as annual spending because daily spending may be skewed by the purchases of big ticket items by a relatively small number of people, or may be influenced by weather or local events that encourage or discourage trail use on a given day. Annual spending is more useful as a picture of the economic impact of trails on their communities. Nickel Plate users spend an average of $3,198 per year on trail-related expenditures, including $1,534 on food and $870 on transportation. The total spent by Nickel Plate users is less than the study-wide average but still significant. Many trail users travel a long distance to use the Nickel Plate, proving that the trail is a tourism draw that adds to the area s economy. Table 43: For the Items Listed Below, Please Indicate Your Amount Spent on the Day You Used the Trail and also Your Estimated Annual Spending DAILY Average Dollars, Spent On Bikes $4.50 $18.00 Skates $0 $0.10 Clothing $2.00 $4.50 Shoes $7.50 $7.50 Food $8.00 $12.00 Maps $0 $0.50 Transportation $2.00 $4.50 Parking $0 $0.20 Total (by Trail) $24.00 $47.30 ANNUAL Bikes $260 $307 Skates $9 $5 Clothing $294 $331 Shoes $167 $191 Food $1534 $1678 Maps $28 $42 Transportation $870 $970 Parking $36 $40 Total (by Trail) $3,198 $3, Indiana Trail Study

39 Demographic Factors Tables display the demographic characteristics of trail users completing surveys. users are mostly male (64%), predominately white (94%), and have above-average education levels and household incomes. Approximately, 83% of Nickel Plate users have more than a high school education, almost exactly the same as the 82.5% of trail users statewide. However, the trail has a lower percentage of users at higher income levels (43.5% above $91,000) than the statewide average (46.5% above $91,000), though still above average for the general population. Nickel Plate users are also somewhat older than other trails in the study, with 69% being above age 45. Only 4% are Race/ethnicity diverges from 2001, when 98% of trail users were white across Indiana. This change may indicate that trails are beginning to reach previously underserved populations. The average age of trail users has increased since the 2001 study. In 2017, 64% of trail users were 46 or older, while just 43% of respondents were in the same age range in In contrast, the number of year-old users has dropped from 41% to 30%. This shift may indicate that aging populations have more access to trails and are more informed about the health benefits of exercise. Table 44: Age Table 45: Gender Years Count 3 9 % 4% 6% Count % 10% 13% Count % 17% 16% Count % 44% 45% 65 Count % 25% 20% Total 71 Male Count % 64% 56% Female Count % 33% 43.5% Missing Count 2 1 % 3% 0.5% Total 69 31

40 Table 46: Race/Ethnic Origin White Count % 94% 91.9% African American Count 0 2 % 0% 1% American Indian/ Alaska Native Count % 0% 0.1% Asian Count 0 2 % 0% 1% Hispanic or Latino Count 1 4 % 1.5% 3% Declined to answer Count 3 4 % 4.5% 3% Total 70 Table 47: Marital Status Single Count 9 27 % 13% 18% Married, Domestic partnership Count % 77% 72% Widowed Count 2 3 % 3% 2% Divorced Count 5 11 % 7% 7.5% Separated Count 0 1 % 0% 0.5% Total= Indiana Trail Study

41 Table 48: Employment Status Homemaker Count 3 5 % 4% 3% Self-employed Count % 17% 10% Student Count % 1% 4% Employed for wages Count % 46% 56.5% Retired Count % 28% 24.5% Not employed Count 2 2 % 3% 1% Declined to answer Count 1 2 % 1% 1% Total= Table 49: Employment Satisfaction 30% Count 2 5 % 4% 2% 31-60% Count % 9% 10.5% % Count % 87% 87.5% Total 44 33

42 Table 50: Educational Attainment Eighth grade or less Count 0 1 % 0% 1% High school or GED Count % 17% 14.5% Technical school Count % 18% 6.5% College graduate Count % 25% 39% Graduate school Count % 22% 26% Professional degree Count % 17% 11% Declined to answer Count % 1% 2% Total 71 Table 51: Household Income Level <$10,000 Count 2 3 % 3% 2% $10-38,000 Count 5 14 % 7.5% 10% $38,001-91,000 Count % 49% 41.5% $91, ,000 Count % 27% 35.5% >$190,000 Count 9 15 % 13.5% 11% Total Indiana Trail Study

43 Trail Counters All trails participating in the study were asked to place counters on their trails to collect data on trail usage. The preferred counter locations were at or near the trailheads or stations where study volunteers who were recruiting trail users to take the study survey were located, in order to most closely correspond counter data with survey data. Most trails were able to place counters in these locations, but some were not. The B-Line Trail in Bloomington, for example, uses a type of counter that is embedded in the pavement of the trail and was not able to move it near volunteer stations. Trail partners were asked to supply counter data to the study team for the duration of survey recruitment, from April 3 through October 8. Not all trails, for various reasons, were able to do that. Two trails, Pumpkinvine and Nickel Plate, did not have their own counters and were not able to acquire them, so the study team installed counters at those locations in early July. Some trails have counters installed year-round and supplied counts for the complete months of April and October, while some were not able to place counters during the entire requested time frame. Other maintenance issues left gaps in the counts at various times. The data tables reflect the counter data that each trail partners was able to supply. Estimates of the number of unique user-visits to the trail are not available, but a crude approximation is that the number of user-visits is approximately equal to half of the total traffic. This approximation assumes that each user passed the counter twice. Although it is likely that some users passed the counter more than twice and that other users passed it only once, information for making a better estimate of the number of different visits is not available. The number of different users would be less than the number of user-visits because many users make multiple trips during a month or week. Mechanical trail counters are also known to consistently undercount due to various types of physical challenges. Errors include people with backpacks or swinging arms being counted multiple times (Shoji, et. al., 2008), walkers in groups and walkers who are closely spaced in relation to other walkers being undercounted (Turner, et. al., 2007), fast moving bicycles not being detected (Turner, et. al., 2007), and counter breakdown or malfunction. Trail counter data is reported as shown on the counters and not adjusted for any users who may have passed multiple times or any potential counter variations. The highest counts on any trail in the study, by far, were at the 3rd Street location of the B-Line Trail in Bloomington, which averaged 45,540 users from April through September. The next highest trail count comes from the 91st Street Trailhead of the Monon Trail, with 17,542 from April through October. The trail with the lowest average monthly activity was the Nickel Plate, with an average of 2,312 from July through October. Both the B-Line and the Monon are urban trails, while the Nickel Plate is a rural trail. Table show the total counts by month, daily average, and hourly average during the study. The counter for the was placed on the Wabash River Bridge in Peru on July 6 and retrieved in November, meaning the July count is partial while the October count is for the full month and past the end of the study timeframe. July, adjusting for the first five days of the month before the counter was active, was the busiest month on the Nickel Plate, with 2527 users from July 6 through the end of the month. August was the next busiest with Use in the fall months dropped but did not drop significantly. This pattern is consistent among other trails in the study. Weekends were, as expected, the most heavily used days of the week, accounting for just over 43% of Nickel Plate s activity. The weekday pattern is similar to but much more even than most other trails in the study, where Monday and Tuesday typically see the heaviest use on weekdays and usage trails off consistently until Friday, the least busy day of the week. The Nickel Plate only sees a drop of.7% (four users per day) between Monday and Friday. Hourly counts diverged from study-wide average and expected usage patterns. The heaviest hour of use on the Nickel Plate is from with 11.4 users per day on average. Study-wide, where hourly counts area available, the busiest hour of the day is from 6-7 PM, as the researchers expected. Usage from 9 AM- 8 PM, with the exception of the peak 10 hour- is very similar hour to hour and without the afternoon peak seen on most other trails. The peak hour is 7.2% of the daily total- lower than expected. 35

44 Table 52: Monthly Counts on the Month Count July (7/6-7/31) 2527 August 2587 September 2253 October 1882 Total 9248 Table 53: Average Daily Counts on the Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Table 54: Average Hourly Counts on the Figure 8: Skateboarders on the Indiana Trail Study

45 Summary and Conclusions The findings in the report summarize data collected on the throughout the duration of the 2017 Indiana Trails Study and analyzed by the research team. The study was intended to take a broad look at trail use patterns, physical activity on trails, and attitudes of trail users about trail management issues, trail quality, and trails impacts on personal health and wellness. This study was a follow-up to the acclaimed 2001 Indiana Trails Study, and documents changes in the behavior and attitudes of trail users and trail neighbors while collecting critical data regarding health behaviors and a deeper look at economic impacts of trails. While the Nickel Plate Trail was not studied in the 2001 Study, its inclusion in 2017 adds to a growing body of knowledge about the significant impacts trails have on individual and public health, physical activity and exercise habits, as well as the ways that trails add value in many ways to the communities that build them. While the trails in the study show many similarities across much of the data collected, there are differences that illustrate the unique characteristics of each community and trail. As such, the conclusions drawn from this study should be viewed in a broad context. This study was constructed not only to build on the 2001 Indiana Trails Study but to facilitate further research that continues to track the changes and impacts made by the development of trail networks well into the future. This research was also conducted to continue to inform trail planners and managers about the most important issues that they should be considering. Based on the data analysis presented in this report, the following conclusions about the can be drawn: 1) Overall trail use peaks in the summer months of June and July and the weekends throughout the week, just as it does throughout all the trails in the study. Individual parts of the trail see widely varying use pattern throughout the day. Comparing actual data with the researchers expected findings, we see that: Average weekend use does exceed weekday use. Peak use throughout the week is at 10:00 AM, diverging from expectations and from study-wide findings but consistent with other rural trails. Peak hourly use is just over 7% of the daily average, less than the expected 11% to 14% expected based on findings from the 2001 study. 2) Trail users are predominately male, white, college educated, and have an above average income. This pattern is common throughout the state and the nation, based on the data collected in many other studies. 3) The most popular activity on the trail, by far, is biking, with 59% of trail user reporting biking as their primary activity. Walking was the next most popular at 23%, and jogging/running at 18%. No other type of activity was reported by survey participants. Biking is also the most popular activity statewide, a significant shift from the 2001 study when walking was the primary activity. 4) Nickel Plate users, likely due to the high number of bikers, are on the trail much longer than other trails in the study, both in distance and in time, and use it slightly more often per week than average. 5) Most trail users drive to get to the trail followed by biking. The average distance that Nickel Plate users travel to get to the trail is higher than average, as is the number of people who travel a long distance to use it. 6) Having access to the trail increases the level of activity by trail users. A total of 70% of trail users exercised 3 or more times per week before using the trail. Approximately 61% of Nickel Plate users said that their exercise level increased since they started using the trail. Of those who said they exercise more, 70% said that their exercise level has increased by at least 25%. 7) A sizeable number of trail users are on the trail to improve their health, with 74% of users reporting that their primary reason for trail use is either physical activity, stress reduction, or health issues. Recreation-related use was the next most common reason at 23%, and 1.5% of people use the trail for transportation. While the transportation number seems low, it is similar to the number of people using the trail for transportation on other rural trails. Statewide trail use for transportation has doubled since ) Nickel Plate users appreciate the opportunity to be outdoors, rating access to nature as their favorite reason for using the trail instead of other recreation facilities. Free access also rated highly, as did scenery. 37

46 9) Facilities (drinking fountains, restrooms, etc.) on the trail may need to be addressed as it is the most prevalent answer when trail users were asked what issue or problem concerned them the most. 10) While safety in a general sense is one of the issues that concerns Nickel Plate users the most, individual components of trail safety- fear of injury, bikers and skaters going too fast, police presence, and wild animals, all rated among the lowest individual concerns. 11) Trails have a growing and significant economic impact on their communities and the Nickel Plate is no different in this regard. Trail users report spending less than study-wide averages, but still average a significant amount of spending, at $3,198 each per year on trail-related expenses, including $1,534 annually on food and $870 on transportation (including lodging) Indiana Trail Study

47 References American League of Bicyclists. (2015). Bicycle commuting data. Retrieved from Indiana Department of Natural Resources. (n.d.). Indiana Trails Advisory Board. Retrieved from Indiana Department of Natural Resources. (2017). Indiana State Trails Plan Progress Report. Retrieved from Shoji, Y., Yamaguchi, K, & Yamaki, K. (2008) Estimating annual visitors flow in Daisetsuzan National Park, Japan: combining self-registration books and infrared trail traffic counters. J For Res 13, DOI /s Statista. (2017). Number of participants in skateboarding in the United States from 2006 to 2016 (in millions). Retrieved from Turner, S., Middleton, D., Longmire, R., Brewer, M., & Eurek, R. (2007) Testing and evaluation of pedestrian sensors. College Station, TX. The Texas A&M University System. Retrieved from: 39

48 2017 Indiana Trails Study Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands 501 N. Morton St., Suite 101, Bloomington IN