A faculty and student field-based community economic study.

1. The Economic Impacts of the Pinnacles Trails in a Kentucky Trail Town
Louisa A. Summers, Glendy M. Pineda, & Peter H. Hackbert
Berea College
ABSTRACT
Outdoor recreational tourism has increased around the world. State adventure tourism programs supporting
community-based initiatives in small rural communities in Appalachia capitalize on trail-oriented economic
development. First, this article focuses on the State of Kentucky Trail Town's history, purpose, and the development
and discovery of the economic opportunity in one trail town. Secondarily, the study responds to a unique
opportunity to measure one segment of trail users, the day hiker, to determine spending patterns and compare the
2017 and 2018 economic impact opportunity of one trail in the certified Kentucky Trail Town. Day hikers
completed a 15-question survey either before or after hiking. In 2017, the study results unexpectedly found that 77%
of the people were from outside the city limits, whereas 23% of the 82 surveyed were locals. Hikers reported
spending $6.06 per person per day in 2017. In 2018, the average spending of 186 people increased to $15.83.
Nonlocals composed 69% of the sample. The total available market of visitors to the Pinnacle Trail at Indian Fort
Mountain in 2017 and 2018 was 60,000-day hikers with an estimated economic impact of $950,765 annually at
$15.83 spending per person per day. The total serviceable market of non-local day hikers is 41,442 annual hikers
with estimated spending of $656,027 annually. These figures are comparable to a non-local day hiker spending at
national forests with a low of $14.15 to a high of $24.77 per person per day.
Located in Central Appalachia, The Pinnacles Trails and this study serves as a case study to assess day hikers'
economic impact across the 27 Certified Kentucky Trail Towns.
KEYWORDS: Economic impact, physical activity, trail town, outdoor recreation, adventure tourism
INTRODUCTION
Walking for leisure and day hiking in nature-based areas are the two most popular forms of outdoor recreation.
Maintaining physical activity by hiking with others has two for one benefits. Participants appreciate time with others
while exercising at a low cost (Moore & Ross, 1998). This physical activity improves health and can also reduce
healthcare costs for both the participants and the public sector (Godtman et al., 2017; Hartig, 2006; Kaczynski &
Henderson, 2007; Summers et al., 2018). The increase in healthcare costs has elevated the potential benefits offered
by walking and hiking. A public debate has emerged around preserving greenways, parks, and forests to reinforce
healthy lifestyles (Bowler et al., 2010). Trail systems in different communities provide numerous services to
individual users and local neighborhoods and organizations, such as reducing vehicular traffic, promoting public
health and fitness, and stimulating economic development to local businesses (Oswald et al., 2015; Hackbert, 2018).
Hiking and walking as forms of adventurism tourism are viable means of promoting resilience, new customers, and
supporting local economies (Tourism, 2014).
Policymakers, land and forestry administrators, recreation and outdoor adventure managers for over 100 years have
attempted to measure the amount of amusement and spending patterns on national forests, national parks, and along
multi-use paths and recreational trails and their economic value (Kirkland et al., 2018, Choi & Marlow, 2012,
Haefele et al., 2016, Corning et al., 2012). Trail user impact studies help managers with multiple challenges such a
parking spaces, toilet facilities, wayfinding and signage infrastructure, trail maintenance, and development. In
addition, information regarding the number of people engaging in recreational activities is needed for the local
business community that provides goods and services such as: food, accommodations, gas, arts and crafts, and
souvenirs. The recreational hiking segment can stimulate tourism, local economic growth, increase employment and
self-employment. It can contribute to developing small and medium-sized enterprises and potential export activity
(Miloradov et al., 2018). Two questions about outdoor recreation impacts often arise: (1) the current and expected
future participation in walking and hiking recreation, and (2) what are the benefits of outdoor recreation to the local
economy?

2. According to the Outdoor Foundation, in 2018, 49.0% of the U.S. population, 146.1 million Americans ages six and
over, participated in an outdoor activity at least once in 2017. The 2018 Outdoor Participation Report described an
increase of 11.9% participation in 2013 to 15.7% participation in 2017. On average, hikers participate in 14 outings
per year, per hiker for a total of 624.4 million total tours, with 9% of participants reported spending more than last
year (Outdoor Foundation, 2018).
The Outdoor Industry Association (OIA, 2017) estimates that Americans annually spend $887 billion on recreational
equipment, goods, and services connected with outdoor recreation. Consumer spending supports 7.6 million full and
part-time jobs nationally and generated $65.3 billion in federal and $59.2 billion in local and state tax revenue
(2017). In 2017, Kentucky, 61 percent of the state's 4.44 million residents participated in the outdoor industry,
supporting 120,000 jobs, producing $12.5 billion in consumer spending, and generating $756 million in state and
local tax revenue.
Federal research examining expenditures based on distance from home has identified three types of adventure
tourists. Day-trippers who travel outside their city limits spend up to twice as many visitors from nearby locals.
Hikers who stay overnight away from home spend more than day-trippers. Lastly, visitors who travel far from home
and stay overnight on average spend 15 times those on local day trips (White et al., 2016).
There are many methods used in calculating the economic benefits of trails. Corning et al. (2012) report that benefits
increase the local tax base and decrease community healthcare costs. Corning et al. (2012) also say that managing
trails is a public health interest, adds to the quality of life, and increases economic development. Understanding how
trails economic progress influences a local community is essential for continued funding and economic development
(Beiler et al., 2010).
The Commonwealth's combined resources and tourism produces economic activity exceeding $13 billion to the state
economy (Maples et al., 2017). Kentucky's state created a long-term vision for bike routes and proposed trails. Three
departments, the Kentucky Department of Travel, the Office of Adventure Tourism, and the Bluegrass Area
Development District (BADD), 2014), all worked together to plan for connecting communities via multi-use trails
(2014). The Pinnacles at Indian Fort Mountain could make a more considerable contribution to Berea's tourism
revenue because of Berea obtaining Kentucky Trail Town certification.
Regional context and study background
Appalachia remains a contradiction in America: a region rich in natural resources yet a great poverty land. The
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) was established in 1965 by Congress to address and recognize the
structural poverty in the thirteen states that comprise the Appalachia Region. The ARC mission is to innovate,
partner, and invest in building community capacity and strengthening the Appalachian economic growth in 420
counties. Distressed counties, at-risk and transitional county designations change annually as counties are added or
deleted for regional planning and implementing economic development. Lifestyle and technological advances have
not been favorable for many non-urban Appalachian communities. One scholar, Davies, frames these harmful
disparities in terms of an urban/rural divide in economic performance (2009). Small rural towns struggle to secure
businesses and jobs. Out-migration and those seeking employment and education opportunities leave rural
communities due to the lack of agriculture and manufacturing positions (Cromartie, 2018a; 2018b; Brownstein,
2015; Vazzana & Rudi-Polloshka, 2019). Eller (2008) recognized the growing popularity of ecotourism and
heritage tourism as the potential for building an alternative Appalachian economy, one that promised higher
monetary returns for residents, rural tradition preservation, and the protection of sensitive natural resources.
Hustedde (2007) concludes that rural communities should be viewed as entrepreneurial ventures and that
entrepreneurial strategies can transform a rural community's culture into something that reflects the strengths of the
local community assets and a shared vision for the future. Appalachian researchers are now publishing a wide
variety of field-based community studies highlighting the small town, entrepreneurial and regional benefits of
adventure tourism activities (Brown & Swanson, 2014; Hackbert & Lin, 2009; Maples et al., 2017; Maples et al.
2015; McSpirit et al., 2014).
Eastern Kentucky communities historically developed subsistence and resource-based economies close to natural
resources, such as forests, minerals, and rivers, and efficiently transport extracted harvested products influencing the
political characteristics and regional social economics (Koo, 2019; Salstrom, 1994). Coal, timber, oil, gas companies

3. situated in Central Appalachia within the Appalachian Mountains are resources that have traditionally profited
dramatically from the natural resources at the expense of exploiting local peoples and destroying the environment
leaving generations in decades-long structure poverty. Besides, as the global economy changed, manufacturing and
quality employment opportunities decreased, and many businesses in eastern Kentucky communities closed or
relocated (Koo, 2019).
The Kentucky Department of Travel, Office of Adventure Tourism (KYT OAT) initiated the Kentucky Trail Town
Program in 2012. The Kentucky Trail Town Program helps communities develop tourist destinations and help
connect trail users to trail systems. The Trail Town Program guides travelers to trails, Food, lodging, campground,
retail stores, museums, authentic art and crafts, heritage assets, entertainment, and other services. The program focal
point is the "trail town," defined as a vibrant destination community near a route-based experience that designs a
trail-based economy that peddles, walks, or paddles into town and welcomes trail users in a hospitable manner. The
development of a trail: stimulates economic growth, improves community cohesion, creates a sense of place, and
respects the environment and cultural heritage (Briedenhann & Wickens, 2004; Comerio & Strozzi; 2019; Ferdinand
& Williams, 2010; Timothy & Boyd, 2006).
Since the early 2000's the "trail town" concept was promoted by the Allegheny Trail Alliance (ATA) and builders of
the Great Allegheny Passage (GAP) in partnership with the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources. The Progress Fund aligned with the program to direct and assist six towns stimulating tourism
experiences for cyclists in the northern Appalachia region of Pennsylvania and western Maryland (Gallagher &
Camp, 2011; The Progress Fund, 2015). Today the GAP rail-to-trail extends 150 miles from Pittsburgh to
Cumberland, Maryland, and Washington DC. Herr (2018) concluded that the GAP trail users ranged from a low of
957,800 to a high estimated 1,017,622 in 2017. The Progress Fund (2015) reports that 41% of businesses stated that
they attribute sales to GAP trail users, and 46% of the enterprises plan to expand due to trail activity. Similar
projects are now scheduled for a 230-mile rail-trail from Parkersburg to Morgantown, West Virginia.
Damascus, Virginia, known as Trail Town USA, is located in the once distressed ARC county of Washington,
Virginia, and served as the initial case study for the KYT OAT. Damascus is uniquely situated as the outdoor
recreation leader due to the convergence of 1) the 2,160-mile Appalachian Trail, 2) the intersection of the Iron
Mountain Trail, 3) U.S. Bicycle Route 76 cyclists, and 4) the Hall of Fame 34-mile Virginia Creeper Trail (rail-to-
trail) that connects Abington and White Top Station, Virginia. Damascus had a population of less than 800
(Medeiros, 2007). In 1978 the city revenue was $90,350. Revenues have grown to $1,177,600 in 2016, primarily
driven by a trail-based economy. The aggregated net economic value and total economic impact on the trail systems
make trail towns similar to Damascus, a precious asset for trail users. The local communities that benefit from
expenditure conclude Bowker, Bergstrom, & Gill (2007). Scholars have advocated that Kentucky can combine
natural resources and recreational tourism to shift the distressed Appalachian region's economic activity in similar
methods (Maples et al., 2017; Scott et al., 2017, Hackbert, 2015).
The KYT OAT program core was built upon the idea that these Appalachian geographically advantageous
communities can benefit from increased adventure tourism opportunities alongside recreational trails and rivers. As
of 2020, 27 Kentucky Trail Town applications have been celebrated and certified. These small rural towns that seek
and become certified are predominantly located in ARC distressed counties. Community leaders design locally
based trail systems along renowned recreational trails in national forests and state parks, along a river or significant
bicycling routes, or in other recreational areas such as rails-to-trail locations as illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1 - 2020 Kentucky Department of Tourism Office of Adventure Tourism (KYT OAT) Certified Trail Towns

4. The City of Berea, Kentucky, aligned with the KYT OAT Program based upon building on the historic arts and
crafts cultural tourism assets and opportunity to create an adventure tourism trail-based economy. After an
introduction to the Community Capital Framework (CCF) proposed by Cornelia and Jan Flora, the Berea College
Entrepreneurship for the Public Good (EPG) Program students researched the local historical sites, businesses and
other ementities to propose a model for certification (Flora & Flora, 2004; Kline, 2017; Kline et al., 2019). Table 2
demonstrates community assets discovered by EPG students who drove cultural, heritage, and nature-based auto
tours in Western North Carolina (WNC), exploring the craft galleries, studios, farms, gardens, and countryside inns
and eateries.
Table 2 - Examples of community assets uncovered by EPG students 2009 - 2016
Natural: Water bodies, interesting or various topography, geological formations, landscapes,
flora, and fauna, wildlife
Cultural: Cultural heritage, industrial heritage, artists and arts programs, historic sites and
markers, folklore, foodways, social norms
Human: Entrepreneurial knowledge, skills, self-esteem, self-image, worldview, attitude

5. Social: Propensity of residents to form relationships within similar and dissimilar groups;
power elites, marginal groups; groups can be formal or informal relationships
Political: Power of individuals or groups to act within the community, the level of voice they
have within the community
Financial: Micro-financing programs, financial literacy programs, level of discretionary
income, and residential and tourism spending by segments within the community
Built: Hard infrastructures such as roads, sidewalks, bike pathways, fences, a river walk,
historical buildings, and restorations; architecture
In tourism, the CCF model was applied to build capital improvements within the American Small Town Program
identified as HandMade in America (HandMade). In 2003 HandMade was ranked one of the top 24 nonprofit
organizations in the nation. Within the HandMade town program, over 600' markers of cultural and historical
heritage' identified as a physical representation of Appalachian culture were identified, routes and maps created in
rural communities of less than 4,000 in population. The WNC town population, geography, dispersion, and
economically distressed setting were like the economic challenges in eastern Kentucky Trail Towns identified in
Table 1. The trail-oriented development of the HandMade connecting 600 craft studios, architecture sites, historical
inns, bakeries, local restaurants, and cultural heritage assets are shown in Map 1.
Map 1 – Geographic dispersion of six WNC towns
Geographic dispersion of six WNC towns traveled by EPG students to review the cultural heritage assets. 1
= Hayesville; 2 = Chimney Rock; 3 = Mars Hills; 4 = Bakersville; 5 = Crossnore; 6 = West Jefferson.
The 20 EPG students used two wayfinding guidebooks, The Craft and Heritage and Farms, Gardens Countryside
Trails, as navigation tools to describe and direct visitors along the WNC auto routes during the summers of 2010 –
2014. HandMade assets included historical inns, heritage sites, bakeries, farms and gardens, garden art, art studios,
local food-to-table restaurants, and hiking trails. Students interviewed business owners to discern sustainable
business models. The EPG students identified and took photos of arts and crafts memorabilia created by a local artist
as a tangible keepsake. Students interview visitors in the region to gain visitor insights, motivation, and decisions to
come to the area, the length of stay, spending patterns, and satisfaction levels. Students also met with the author of
The Craft and Heritage and Farms, Gardens Countryside Trails guidebooks, to share their own visitor experiences.
In exchange, the author taught the students how to write comments and reviews on social media platforms
summarizing the personal visitor experience.

6. The EPG field-based research purpose was to replicate the visitor's decisions and travel patterns as a one-stop
resource from the visitors' perspective. The aim was to identify and communicate a visitor's journey, findings, needs,
high-value experiences, and activities to support trail-based small-town communities' design. Each evening in the
summer program, EPG students developed "traveler personas" of what they experienced as visitors to other EPG
team members. The data analysis "traveler personas" were derived from communicating to Kentucky civic leaders
and tourism managers the field-research findings.
Table 3 displays the driving routes published in the Craft Heritage Trails (Fields & Hurst, 2003) and Farms,
Gardens, and Countryside Trails of Western North Carolina (Love et al., 2002) and types of small businesses on the
tourist trails.
Table 3 - Businesses Types along Craft Heritage Trails of Western North Carolina
High Country Ramble: 13 Craft Studios, 22 Craft Galleries, 1 Historic Sites, 8 Restaurants, 15 Lodging,
11 Special Attractions.
Circle the Mountains: 41 Craft Studios, 20 Craft Galleries, 1 Historic Sites, 4 Restaurants, 9 Lodging, 4
Special Attractions.
Farm to Market: 3 Craft Galleries, 6 Historic Sites, 4 Restaurants, 3 Lodging, 9 Special Attractions
Mountain Cities: 42 Craft Studios, 27 Craft Galleries, 3 Historic Sites, 18 Restaurants, 22 Lodging, 17
Special Attractions.
String of Pearls: 13 Craft Studios, 22 Craft Galleries, 3 Historic Sites, 5 Restaurants, 16 Lodging, 4
Special Attractions.
Cascades Trail: 17 Craft Studios, 10 Craft Galleries, 0 Historic Sites, 4 Restaurants, 8 Lodging, 5 Special
Attractions.
Shadow of the Smokies: 20 Craft Studios, 18 Craft Galleries, 7 Historic Sites, 6 Restaurants, 13 Lodging,
6 Special Attractions.
The Lake Country: 7 Craft Studios, 7 Craft Galleries, 2 Historic Sites, 2 Restaurants, 5 Lodging, 3 Special
Attractions.
Farms, Garden & Countryside Trails of Western North Carolina
Quilt Top Ramble: 17 Farm, 10 Garden, 7 Trail, 4 Festival, 14 Lodging, 12 Restaurant, 12 Special
attraction, 8 Garden Art
Jewels & Gem Meander: 14 Farm, 13 Garden, 5 Trail, 2 Festival, 17 Lodging, 4 Restaurant, 9 Special
attraction, 7 Garden Art
Arbors & Orchards: 11 Farm, 32 Garden, 14 Trail, 6 Festival, 24 Lodging, 12 Restaurant, 17 Special
attraction, 18 Garden Art
Whistlestop Tour: 9 Farm, 14 Garden, 24 Trail, 3 Festival, 26 Lodging, 18 Restaurant, 21 Special
attraction, 14 Garden Art
Foothills Forays: 7 Farm, 16 Garden, 15 Trail, 5 Festival, 16 Lodging, 16 Restaurant, 21 Special
attraction, 11 Garden Art
Water Ways Tours: 8 Farm, 12 Garden, 6 Trail, Festival, 12 Lodging, 4 Restaurant, 5 Special attraction, 4
Garden Art

7. The building of the (WNC) route-based experiences, the Berea College EPG students traveled back to the Kentucky
River Area Development District to share the community capital framework developed within the WNC tourism
setting. The result supported the in-depth citizen interviews, traveler personas, asset inventory and mapping,
community participation, and empowerment advocated by Appalachian scholars (Berry et al., 2015; Tarus et al.,
2017; Floria et al., 1993).
In 2012 the author was introduced to the Director of the KYT OAT Trail Town Program and urged to travel to
Damascus, Virginia, to investigate the trail-based economic model. The Damascus field research included meetings
with elected officials, conferences with tourism administrators, the visitor's bureau and convention officials, and
discussions with small business owners on the trail impacts on their business activity and trail users' interviews.
Table 4 lists the Damascus business visited by EPG students in the 2014 -2019 summer program.
Table 4 - Damascus Business Owner interviews and onsite visits
B & B, Inns and other accommodations Dining, Drinks, and Food
Appalachian Trail Town Inn Damascus Old Mill Inn
Damascus Old Mill Inn Damascus Pizza Co Bar & Grill
Hikers Inn Mojo Trail Café and Coffeehouse
Shoppe
A River’s Edge Damascus Brewery
Woodchuck Hostel Pizza Plus
Virginia Creeper Lodge 7 Trails Grill
Between the Trails Damascus Diner
A Humble Abode Off the Beaten Path Ice Cream
The Broken Fiddle Hostel and Inn In the Country
Dancing Bear B & B
Larry Fox LLC Outfitters and Misc.
Maple Tree Manor Hooked
Netti J’s River View Inn Bicycle Junction
Oak Leaf Bungalow The Bike Station
Oma's Cottage Blue Blaze Bike and Shuttle Service
Orchard Hill Cottage Virginia Creeper Bike Rental/Shuttle
Duck House / Duck Nest Shuttle Shack
Crazy Larry’s Adventure Damascus
In summer 2014, EPG students also visited the Kentucky Trail Towns of Livingston, Olive Hill, London,
Manchester, and Morehead to assess trailheads, trails, routes, wayfinding systems, and business amenities and
services. Themes of the Trail Town impact emerged through repeated communications and terminologies from
informants in WNC, Virginia, West Virginia, and eastern Kentucky. The EPG students presented the field-based
results of their summer 2014 academic work, industry report examinations (UKCAFEDLA 2014; Vaughn and
Melton, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c), and community partnership research to the Berea Tourism Commission in November
(Hackbert, 2014). The presentation spawned the Berea Trail Town Committee in February 2015, and Mayor
Connelly notified the KYT OAT of the City of Berea's intent to apply for official trail town status.
In March 2015, the City honored hiker Curtis Penis. Penis followed in the footsteps of his five-time great
grandfather Joshua Penix over 1778-1779, hiking for 16-days, along the 200-mile trail that Daniel Boone and his
party hacked through in 1775 from Kingsport Tennessee through the Cumberland Gap and into Central Kentucky.
The original Daniel Boone journey culminated in Fort Boonesborough in northern Madison County, overlooking the
Kentucky River. The Berea Trail Town Committee honored Penix in a public gathering.

8. In May 2015, EPG students presented the hiking, biking, kayaking, and rock-climbing field-based research and the
formation of five City of Berea Trail Town sub-committees to the Madison County Fiscal Count. Then, I secured a
letter of intent from the Executive Judge to apply for official Trail Town status. The Madison County Trail System
was designed for bike, hike, bike-hike, and water venues. The EPG students in June presented the field-based results
of the Trail Town Committee work and Committee Action Plan to (a) the Kentucky Department of Agriculture, (b)
the Kentucky Arts Council, (c) Kentucky Heritage Council and Mainstreet Program, (d) the Kentucky Small
Business Development Center and (e) finally to the Office of Regional Stewardship at Eastern Kentucky University
for their approval and letter of support.
The Trail Town Committee submitted the formal Trail Town 142-page application for KYT OAT certification in
June 2015. In August 2015, the Trail Town Committee completed a "walk through" with two KYT OAT officials to
identify the remaining "Kentucky Trail Town Certification Checklist" items (KYT OAT, 2015). In September, the
Trail Town Volunteer Committee completed two additional cycling trial runs to prototype the trailhead location,
signage, maps, descriptive routes, and hospitality. Two adventure hiker groups from outside the area conducted a
"test the trail signage, makers and hospitality" on the Pinnacle at Indian Fort Mountains. After, committee leaders
submitted the results to KYT OAT with 27 pages of maps and trail experience descriptions.
The Trail Town action plan became operational through the rigorous application and certification process. Elements
of the application included a cultural asset inventory assessment, the wayfinding system (signage), records of
merchants' participation, a youth engagement action plan, and a public relations and education committee to guide,
develop and create promotion plans. The City of Berea Trail Town Committee proposed cycling, hiking, and
waterways recreational trails for beginners, intermediate, and advanced adventure tourism and recreationists. The
Kentucky Department of tourism finalized the certification in December of 2015.
This research article aims to report the economic impact of one trail system, the hikers at the Pinnacles Trials at Indian
Fort Mountain. Study objectives were to examine hiker characteristics and expenditures related to visits to the Pinnacle
Trails in 2017 and 2018. This baseline data evaluated the estimated economic impact on the City of Berea, Kentucky,
over two years. A separate study also examined the health impact of the city trails simultaneously (Summers et al.,
2019) of this study. This study's purpose was two-fold: 1) to collect hiker demographic information, and 2) to estimate
the economic impact of the trails.
The Pinnacles at Indian Fort Mountain
The Pinnacles at Indian Fort Mountain in Berea, Kentucky, is one of 8,400 parcel acres owned by Berea College and
managed by the Department of Forestry (Patterson, 2018). Dating back to 1897, the College Forest is one of the
oldest managed private forests in the United States. The College Forest provides the framework as a learning
laboratory for water production, archaeological and cultural significance dating to 500 BC-500 AD, timber
management, adaptive and sustainable management. The Pinnacles also provide over 20 miles of hiking and walking
trails open to the public for day use only. The trail system begins at the Main Trailhead adjacent to the College
Forestry Center constructed in 2017 with parking, accessible restrooms, potable water, lighting, a trailhead with a
family of directional signs reflecting several trails. Most trail users begin at the main trailhead and parking area and
choose up to seven trails to hike. Hiking participants move upward to The Indian Fort Mountain overlook. See
Figure 1. The beginning portion of the hike includes a 0.5-mile walk followed by an elevation climb of 461 feet.
Directional connector signs indicate the hikers' distance from East Pinnacle trail to Eagles Nest, Buzzards Roost.
There are navigational signs for the more advanced hiker to the Kelly Trail, Robes Mountain, and Basin Mountain.
Returning to Indian Fort Mountain and the Indian Fort Lookout, hikers experience directional connector signs to
Devil's Kitchen, the Upper East-West Trail to the West Pinnacles, and back down to the West Barton Trailhead.
This study examines the Pinnacles' economic impact as one step to establish hikers' expenditures and demographic
profiles. The Pinnacles serves a recreational area for a diversity of recreationists, and each hiking trail user has a
different personality, attitudes, values, lifestyles, and habits important to hikers (Bichis-Lupas et al., 2001). In 2017
and 2018,

9. Figure 1 – The Pinnacle Trails at Indian Fort Mountain
In 2017 and 2018, interviews were conducted on day hikers at the main trailhead from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. in May,
June, and July. Each year, two weekend days and one weekday were chosen based on weather. A combination of
Eastern Kentucky University and Berea College faculty and students collected the data. The Institutional Review
Board for human subjects at Eastern Kentucky University approved the study on May 27, 2017. After the primary
author changed institutions, the Institutional Review Board for human subjects at Berea College approved the survey
on March 16, 2018, to continue the four-year project.
METHODS
Data Collection
Berea College and Eastern Kentucky University faculty and students collected the data in 2017 A and 2018. The
survey gathered information on hiker's trip characteristics and demographics. Manual hand counts determined trail
usage as well. Also, infrared sensors counted the number of users during the study period. Origin, destination, and
round-trip data from surveys were analyzed in tandem with the hand counts to estimate the number of annual visits.
Intercept Survey
The project used a reliable and valid intercept survey adopted from the American Tobacco Trail' rails to trails"
conversion research (Cook et al., 2016). This 18-question survey gathered data regarding trip details, expenditures,
residence, and demographic information. In 2017, 93% of those approached completed the survey and 94% in 2018.

10. Annual Users
Infrared sensors (Trafx Infrared Trail Counter Generation 4, 2017) counted the number of hikers during the study
period June 2016– June 2018. Origin, destination, and round-trip data analyzed in tandem with the infrared sensors
develop an estimate of the number of annual visits and hikers' spending impact. The average number of trail users
over the twelve months is displayed in Table 5.
Statistical analysis
The infrared trail counters data was uploaded and analyzed quarterly. All data were entered in Microsoft Excel,
screened for errors, and then uploaded into SPSS (SPSS Version 25, 2019). Descriptive statistics summarized the
data. An independent t-test determined mean differences in the number of dollars spent in the City of Berea in 2017
versus 2018. An ANOVA determined the significance of expenditures by residents versus non-residents.
RESULTS
In 2017, 82-day hikers participated in the first year of the study. Ninety-five (95.1) percent of trail users were white,
and 4.9% identified from another ethnic background. Most users were under the age of 60 (93%). In 2017, 77% of
the people surveyed identified as non-locals.
In 2018, 186-day hikers completed the survey. In 2018, 91.4% of trail users were white, and 8.6% were Black,
Asian, or other. In 2018, non-residents composed 69% of the sample. In both 2017 and 2018, the percentage of
males and females was almost 50% males and 50% females, and 88% of trail users were between 18 and 60 years of
age. No significant differences existed between demographics in 2017 and 2018. In both 2017 and 2018, when
asked why hikers were using the trail, all (100%) of the hikers reported using the route for exercise or physical
activity. The demographics from 2017 and 2018 summarized in Table 5.
Table 5. Demographic characteristics of trail users
Variable 2017 (n = 82) 2018 (n = 186)
Gender
Female 49% 52%
Male 51% 48%
Age Group
Adults 93.4% 89.2%
Older Adults 6.6% 10.8%
In a group – yes 71% 48%
In a group – no 29% 52%
In 2017, 90 trail users completed the intercept survey. When asked, "Related to this trip, how much money will you
spend in the City of Berea?" the average user reported $6.06 (range $10-$60). In 2018, the average expenditures
related to this trip significantly increased to $15.83 (range $2-$275). Table 6 displays the independent t-test results.
Table 6. Related to today's trip, how much money will you spend in the City of Berea?
Year Sample Size M SD Range P-value
2017 82 5.93 12.39 0-60 .014*
2018 186 15.83 34.99 0-275
Note: M = Dollars, SD = standard deviation in dollars, * significant difference between overall expenditures and year.
Estimated Annual Number of Trail Users and Economic Impact
Table 7 displays the estimated number of annual users collected from the infrared sensors. Throughout the year, the
Pinnacle trailhead serves as the location for two major craft fairs held in July and October. Also, trail usage
increases during the spring, summer and fall, and decreases during the winter months. From June 2017 – June 2018,
the Pinnacle trails averaged 5,005 users per month. Nine rain days were identified in June 2018.

11. Table 7. Estimated number of users of Pinnacle trail from 2017 – 2018
Number Of Trail
Users
Month Monthly High/Low Rain Days
June 2017 9135 84/62
July 9 11,180 87/66
August 9 3257 86/65
September 7 5080 80/59
October 7 3899 69/48
November 6 3635 58/39
December 8 1621 48/30
January 9 1885 46/26
February 8 1859 49/29
March 7 3733 59/37
April 9 4781 70/46
May 9 4623 77/54
June 9, 2018 5373 84/62 9
Total annual users 60,061
Average monthly 5,005.08 (round up to an average of 5,005 trail users/per month).
The estimated annual number of trail users to the Pinnacles was 60,061. A broad and basic estimate of the economic
impact from trail use was $950,765 dollars (60,061 users X $15.83 = 950,765.63).
Locals and non-locals
To estimate the economic impact by locals versus non-locals, hikers were asked 'where they are from". Due to
Berea's proximity to two important cities within 50 miles, users from Richmond, KY, and Lexington, KY, were
categorized separately from other in-state and out of state visitors. Figure 2 visually depicts the frequency and
distribution of the residents and non-resident trail users. The 2017 and 2018 were combined for the analysis. The
study results did not yield a significant difference in expenditures based on local and non-local (Table 8).
Figure 1. Distribution of residents and non-resident trail users.

12. Table 8. The difference in dollars spent in the City of Berea by residence and year (ANOVA).
Category 2017 & 2018
Sample Size Mean SD p-value
Residence
City of Berea 76 7.72 17.93 0.119
Within 50 miles 74 9.47 12.94
In-state 96 17.66 37.02
Out of State 21 21.29 59.63
The total available market of visitors to the Pinnacle Trail at Indian Fort Mountain in 2017 and 2018 was 60,000-day
hikers obtained by an infrared scanner on the trailhead. Day hikers have an estimated economic impact of $950,765
annually at $15.83 in 2018, spending per person per day. The total serviceable available visitor market of non-local
day hikers sampled at the Pinnacles is 41,442 annual hikers with estimated spending forecasted at $656,027
annually. These figures are comparable to a non-local day hiker spending at national forests with a low of $14.15 to
a high of $24.77 per person per day.
DISCUSSION
This study's primary objective is to formalize the methodology for assessing the impact of the Trail Town hiking
system on a small rural community, focusing on the recreational demand and spending impacts. This study had two
primary outcomes: (1) to estimate the volume of hiker visits to the Pinnacle Trails, and (2) describe prominent
characteristics of those visits, including activity patterns, visitor demographics, and satisfaction. The data were used
to estimate the economic impact of use by non-local trail users. The primary study outcome reports that in 2017 and
2018, there were an estimated 60,000 trail users per year to the Pinnacle Trails at Indian Fort Mountain. These users
provided a potential economic impact of $950,000 to the City of Berea, Kentucky. The vast majority of hikers come
from non-local individuals.
This research is consistent with others reporting an increase in expenditures per person over time (Outdoor
Foundation, 2018; White et al., 2016). The results of this study indicate that visitors and trail users are not the same
concerning expenditures. This research parallels local hiker restaurant expenditure findings for day trips range from
$5.22 to $6.53, and non-local hiker restaurant spending averages range from $14.15 to $24.77 (White et al., 2016).
As other researchers report, the further hikers travel, the more money they say in the City (Bowker, Bergstrom, &
Gill (2007).
This research corresponds with other outdoor recreation visitor expenditures in national forests. The results of this
study indicate Pinnacle Trail local and non-local visitor spending (dollars per person per day) aligned to categorical
spending at national forests and parks (Bowker, Bergstrom, & Gill (2007). The total non-local day trip hikers
spending for low is $47, average $57 and high of $70. For local day trips to the national forest, the day hikers spend
a low of $26, middle $24, and high of $20 per person per trip.
This research is also consistent with the objective methods to estimate Beiler et al. (2013). The survey results,
including automatic counting equipment and intercept survey results, showed that trail demand was highest in
summer and when the outside temperature was warmer. This information regarding trail demand may be used in the
future to take advantage of visitors strategically. For example, creating an online promotion program in July and
August: weather is warmer, people may be on vacation, and off from regular schooling may be more beneficial.
This information is essential at different levels. It is significant for the Trail Town Committee, the City of Berea
Tourism Department, the College Forestry Department, and the KYT OAT for policy, planning, research, and year-
by-year comparisons. Moreover, the hikers themselves are often interested in such information, and as citizens, they
have an interest and a right to know about area visitation patterns. Better quality information increases the
opportunity for prudent management and sustainability. For the Trail Town civic leadership to make efficient and
well-founded decisions, the Trail Town Committee needs to report civic councilpersons and elected officials on why
visitors choose the Pinnacle Trail and what makes the area attractive. The City of Berea Tourism Department and

13. civic leaders and elected officials need to know, at a minimum, how many people use the city trails, when and why
locals and non-local are motivated to participate, and the various spending patterns. High-quality trail use
information benefits the Tourism Department for estimating impact, and cross-marketing opportunities for spending
categories and the results of imposed local restaurant and hospitality taxes contributing to economic development.
Finally, ad hoc information gathering can lead to inaccurate and non-comparable results.
This study contributes to the emerging scholarship of annual Kentucky recreational users' participation in Kentucky
Trail Towns activities (Maples et al., 2015; Maples et al., 2017; Maples; et al., 2019; Scott et al., 2015). The
Outdoor Outdoor Industry Association (2017) reported that Kentucky's outdoor recreational economy contributes
120,000 jobs, generates $12.5 billion in consumer spending, and $756 million in state and local tax revenue
annually. The KYT OAT can now report to the Commonwealth elected official's Kentucky Trail Town Program
outcome affecting policy, planning, research, and year-by-year comparisons. The research methodology permits
replicability and economic linkages to other national forests to help to determine resource allocations.
Future Research
First, expand the methodology to align with the National Visitor Use Monitoring Program (English et al. 2019) to
include visit number, trip-type, trip spending to describe the economic impact, and the effects of recreational
spending within gateway communities 50 miles is beneficial. Survey question expansion could include the primary
purpose of the visit, when and plans for the holiday, places the respondent has been or plans to visit on the trip to the
recreational site, and the expansion of satisfaction attributes. Additional questions to include spending categories
such as motel and hotels, camping, restaurants, Food, gas, equipment, souvenirs, and other expenses.
Second, in the future, survey data could use technology, Q.R. codes, and forced responses to ease survey use and
minimize unusable data. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service's National Visitor Use Monitoring
(NVUM) models has three survey types and outcomes. The first outcome includes demographics, visits, and
activity. The second outcome is related to economic questions, and lastly, the hikers reply on satisfaction and facility
conditions (English et al., 2019). The Berea College Forestry Department may find the availability of hiker stated
importance and performance for satisfaction aspects helpful as managers make decisions regarding the Pinnacle
Trails' various elements.
Third, the methodology consideration could include multiple future effects of the direct expenditure by hikers. In
previous related studies (Maria Raya 2018; Woodfin, 2010), researchers report that direct hiker cost is multiplied by
1.63, considering the indirect and persuasive effect on the local economy.
Fourth over the past several years, there has been increasing interest in using social media and crowd-sourced data to
estimate recreational use (Chi-Ok & Hammitt, 2010; Sessions et al., 2016; Tenkanen et al. 2017; Toivonen et al.,
2019; Wood et al., 2020). An area to explore is integrating such digital data for market and non-market purposes
(Lal et al.; 2020; Wilkins, 2020). There is little empirical research to guide recreational managers on social media
platforms and the information preferences recreational desire to on various platforms.
Finally, recreational visitor counting methods have expanded. Researchers and local communities should consider
the counting goals (accuracy, visits by activity and visitor segment, type of area, seasons covered, and resources
available). Staffing and other resources available restricts the choice of method and the extent of the counting.
Electronic and mechanical counters are appearing on trail-oriented systems. Kajala (2007) reports that visitor
numbers can be obtained utilizing direct, indirect, and automatic methods. Sensor types in trail counting equipment
include optic sensors, pyroelectric sensors, ultrasound equipment, radio transmitter sensors, seismic, and inductive
sensors. Policy and trail planning decisions across recreational areas for monitored trail usage are useful when
similar measures, questions, and indicators are applied. Trail comparison between areas becomes possible even if
the sites are very different. In addition to quantitative data on the number of visits to the regions (visitor counts), the
qualitative visitor information permits comparable analysis. Regardless of the ownership of the recreational assets,
Trail stakeholders can apply similar data to monitor the areas' usage and costs.
CONCLUSIONS

14. Outdoor recreation using existing natural resources, including hiking, has attracted visitors to rural areas, including
Appalachia. There are numerous stakeholder benefits. Hiking can have associated economic, direct, and multiplier
impacts. Hiker trails also promote public health and fitness. The destination trails support, retain, and create small
businesses and build local economies. The route can add to the destination experience by providing nonprimary trip
visitors secondary reasons for the visitor being away from home to experience an opportunity to extend the day trip
to an overnight stay. Hiking destinations can increase cross-over effects on other tourism segments such as arts,
culture, and heritage tourism. Finally, hiking development sites provide environmental benefits by protecting natural
resources and animals.
Limitations
The study is not without limitations. First, in 2017 the sample size was small and less than 100. Second, every year,
in May, June, and July, the trail user information is gathered. Trail users' data in fall, winter, or spring trail users are
unavailable. Without this information, the authors can only estimate the number of visitors in the summer rather than
the annual estimate. Finally, yearly users are underestimated. The infrared sensor does not capture hikers as they
pass the trailhead side by side.
REFERENCES
Beiler, M., Burkhart, K., & Nicholson, M. (2015). Evaluating the impact of rail-trails: A methodology for assessing
travel demand and economic impacts. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 9(7), 509-519.
Bennett, N., Lemelin, R. H., Koster, R., & Budke, I. (2012). A capital assets framework for appraising and building
capacity for tourism development in aboriginal protected area gateway communities. Tourism Management, 33(4),
752-766.
Berry, C., Obermiller, P. J., & Scott, S. L. (Ed.). (2015). Studying Appalachian Studies: Making the path by walking.
University of Illinois Press.
Bichis-Lupas, M., & Moisey, R. N. (2001). A benefit segmentation of rail-trail users: Implications for marketing by
local communities. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 19(3), 78-92.
Blackstock, K. L., Kelly, G. J., & Horsey, B. L. (2007). Developing and applying a framework to evaluate
participatory research for sustainability. Ecological Economics, 60(4), 726-742.
Bowker, J. M., Bergstrom, J. C., & Gill, J. K. (2004). The Virginia Creeper Trail: an assessment of user
demographics, preferences, and economics. Retrieved from March 1, 2020, from
https://www.dcr.virginia.gov/recreational-planning/document/userdems-vct.pdf.
Bowler D.E, Buyung-Ali L.M, Knight T.M, (2010) A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health
of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health 10, 456–466.
Brown, D.O. & Swanson, J.R. (2014). Agritourism activity participation motivations in Kentucky, International
Journal of Hospitality and Event Management, 1(2), 135-146.
Briedenhann, J., & Wickens, E. (2004). Tourism routes as a tool for the economic development of rural areas—
vibrant hope or impossible dream? Tourism Management, 25(1), 71-79.
Brown, R. (April 2, 2019). "Kentucky Reels in Billions from Outdoor Recreation." The Lane Report. Retrieved from
https://www.lanereport.com/112082/2019/04/kentucky-reels-in-billions-from-outdoor-recreation/.
Brownstein, R. (2015). How has technology changed the concept of community? The Atlantic. Retrieved March 1,
2020, from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/community-in-the-digital-age/408961/.
Chi-Ok, O., & Hammitt, W. E. (2010). Determining economic benefits of park trails: Management implications.
Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 28(2), 94-107.

15. Choi, F. & T. Marlow. 2012. The value of America's greatest idea: Framework for total economic valuation of
National Park Service operations and assets and Joshua Tree National Park total economic value case study. A
report provided to the National Park Service, developed for the Policy Analysis Exercise Requirement at the
Harvard Kennedy School of Government, 87.
Cook, T., O'Brien, S., Jackson, K., Findley, D., & Searcy, S. (2016). Behavioral effects of completing a critical link
in the American Tobacco Trail. Transportation Research Record 2598, 19–26.
Comerio, N., & Strozzi, F. (2019). Tourism and its economic impact: A literature review using bibliometric
tools. Tourism economics, 25(1), 109-131.
Corning, S. E., Mowatt, R. A., & Chancellor, H. (2012). Multi-use trails: Benefits and concerns of residents and
property owners. Journal of Urban Planning & Development, 138(4), 277-285.
Cromartie, J. (2018a). Components of population change, Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-
economy-population/population-migration/components-of-population-change/.
Cromartie, J. (2018b). Shifting geography of population change. Retrieved from
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/population-migration/shifting-geography-of-population-
change/.
Davies, A. (2009). Kentucky's rural/urban landscape. Kentucky Annual Economic Report, 25-34, Lexington, KY:
University of Kentucky.
Eller, R. (2008). Uneven Ground. The University of Kentucky Press.
English, D. B., White, E. M., Bowker, J. M., & Winter, S. A. (2019). A Review of the Forest Service's National
Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) Program. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 1-27.
Ferdinand, N., & Williams, N. L. (2010). Tourism memorabilia and the tourism experience. The tourism and leisure
experience: Consumer and managerial perspectives, 202-217.
Fields, J. & Hurst, B. (2003). The draft heritage trails of western North Carolina (3rd
edition) Asheville, NC:
HandMade in America.
Flora, C. B., & Flora, J. L. (1993). Entrepreneurial social infrastructure: A necessary ingredient. The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 529(1), 48-58.
Gallagher, M, & Camp, A. (2011). Trail town benefits from visitors spending: Enhancing trail tourism along the
Great Allegheny Passage. American Trail, Summer 2015, 10-11. Retrieved from
https://www.americantrails.org/resources/trail-towns-on-great-allegheny-passage-benefit-from-visitor-spending.
Godtman Kling, K., Fredman, P., & Wall-Reinius, S. (2017). Trails for Tourism and Outdoor Recreation: A
Systematic Literature Review. Tourism, 65(4), 488-508.
Goldenberg, M., Hill, E., & Freidt, B. (2008). Why individuals hike the Appalachian Trail: A qualitative approach to
benefits. Journal of Experiential Education, 30(3), 277-281.
Hackbert, P.H. & Lin, X. (2009). Equestrian Trail riding: An emerging economic contributor to the local rural
Appalachian economy, Journal of Business Case Studies, 5(6), 47-58.
Hackbert, P.H. (2014). A Report to Support a Letter of Application to the Kentucky Trail Town Program for the
City of Berea, Madison County KY. (Available from the author).

16. Hackbert, P.H. (2015, April 22). Could the Kentucky Trail Town Program be an Answer to Economic Development.
(Oral Presentation). Appalachian Studies Conference, East Tennessee State University.
Hackbert, P.H. (2018, July 25). Multi-State, Multiuse Trail System as Tools for Community Economic Development
(Oral Presentation). Community Development Society's Annual International Conference, Detroit, Michigan.
Haefele, M., Loomis, J., & Bilmes, L. J. (2016, June 30). Total economic valuation of the national park service
lands and programs. Report. Fort Collins, Colorado.
Hartig, T. (2006). Using greenways to amplify the health benefits of physical activity, Paper presented at the
Technical Conference Greenways, on Europe, Girona, Spain.
Herr, A.R. (2018). Analysis of 2017 Trail Usage Patterns along the Great Allegheny Passage. The Progress Fund.
Retrieved from
https://gaptrail.org/system/resources/W1siZiIsIjIwMTgvMDkvMTAvMjAvNTcvMDgvNTQ0LzIwMTdfR3JlYXRf
QWxsZWdoZW55X1Bhc3NhZ2VfVHJhaWxfQ291bnRfRmluYWxfUmVwb3J0LnBkZiJdXQ/2017%20Great%20
Allegheny%20Passage%20Trail%20Count%20Final%20Report.pdf.
Kaczynski, A.T., & Henderson, K.A. (2007) Environmental correlates of physical activity: A review of evidence
about parks and recreation, Leisure Studies, 29(4), 315-354.
Kajala, L. (2007). Visitor monitoring in nature areas: A manual based on experiences from the Nordic and Baltic
countries. Nordic Council of Ministers.
Kentucky Department of Travel, Office of Adventure Tourism.,(KYT OAT). (2012). 3-Trail town guide and
overview. Retrieved from http://www.krta.ky.gov/documents.php
Kentucky Department of Travel, Office of Adventure Tourism, (KYT OAT). (2015). Kentucky Trail Town Program
Workbook. Retrieved from https://studylib.net/doc/10228096/kentucky-trail-town-program-workbook.
Kentucky Department of Travel, Office of Adventure Tourism, and Bluegrass Area Development District, (KYT
OAT BADD). (2014). Cross Kentucky master trail plan: A how-to-guide for trail development. Retrieved from
April 1, 2019, from http://bgadd.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Trails_Plan_Complete.pdf.
Kingsolver, A. E. (2018). "Placing" futures and making sense of globalization at the edge of Appalachia. In Billings,
D. B., & Kingsolver, A. E. (Eds.). Appalachia in a regional context: Place matters. Lexington, KY: The University
Press of Kentucky.
Kirkland, J., White, E., & Kline, J. (2018). How much fun? Evaluating economic implications of recreation in
national forests. Science Findings, 208. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. 5 p.
Kline, C. (2017). Applying the community capitals framework to the craft heritage trails of western North Carolina.
Journal of Heritage Tourism, 12(5), 489-508.
Kline, C., McGehee, N., & Delconte, J. (2019). Built capital as a catalyst for community-based tourism. Journal of
Travel Research, 58(6), 899-915.
Koo, J. (2018). Visibility of sustainable development efforts: assessment of Kentucky Trail Towns. Journal of
Sustainable Development, 11(6), 187-204.
Lal, B., Ismagilova, E., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Kwayu, S. (2020). Return on Investment in Social Media Marketing:
Literature Review and Suggestions for Future Research. In Digital and Social Media Marketing (pp. 3-17). Springer,
Cham.

17. Love, J.J. Hunter, E., White, M.L., & Sawyer, L.M. (2002). Farms, gardens, & countryside trails in Western North
Caroline, Asheville, NC: HandMade in America,
Maples, J.N., Sharp, R.L., & McSpirit, S. (2015). Economic impact of the Cloudsplitter 100 footrace event, Report
delivered to Susan Howell (event organizer) Elkhorn City, KY (available from authors).
Maples, J.N., Sharp, R. L., Clark, B. G., Gerlaugh, K., & Gillespie, B. (2017). Climbing out of poverty: The
economic impact of rock climbing in and around eastern Kentucky's red river gorge. Journal of Appalachian
Studies, 23(1), 53-71.
Maples, J., Bradley, M., Giles, S., Leebrick, R., & Clark, B. (2019). Climbing out of Coal Country: The Economic
Impact of Rock Climbing in West Virginia's New River Gorge. Journal of Appalachian Studies, 25(2), 184-201.
Maria Raya, J., Martínez-Garcia, E., & Celma, D. (2018). Economic and social yield of investing in hiking tourism:
the case of Berguedà, Spain. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 35(2), 148-161.
McSpirit, S., Sharp, R. L., Bradley, M., Beavens, M., Phillips, M., Bogard, D., ... & Barton, S. (2014). Prospects and
potential for tourism/adventure tourism economy in Elkhorn City, KY: Challenges and opportunities. Report
delivered to the Elkhorn City Heritage Council and Breaks Interstate Park, Elkhorn City, KY.[Available from
authors].
Medeiros, B. (2007). The Friendliest Town in the trail, [Available from author].
Miloradov, K. A., Romanishina, T. S., Kovalenko, A. A., Bondarenko, N. G., & Andrianova, J. V. (2018). An
Efficient Strategy for the Development of Tourism at Regional Level. European Research Studies Journal, 21(4),
208-221.
Moore, R. L., & Ross, D. T. (1998). Trails and recreational greenways: corridors of benefits. Parks & Recreation
(Ashburn), 33(1), 68-79.
Mundet, L.L., & Coeders, G. (2010). Greenway: A sustainable leisure experience concepts for both communities
and tourists. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(5), 657-674.
Oswald Beiler, M., Burkhart, K., & Nicholson, M. (2015). Evaluating the impact of rail-trails: A methodology for
assessing travel demand and economic impacts. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 9(7), 509-519.
Outdoor Foundation (2018). 2018 Outdoor Recreation Participate Report. Outdoor Foundation Washington DC.
Outdoor Industry Association (OIA). (2017). Outdoor Industry Recreation Economy 2017,
Outdoor Industry Association, Boulder CO. https://outdoorindustry.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/OIA_RecEconomy_FINAL_Single.pdf.
Patterson, C. (2018). A Century of History of the Forestry at Berea College. Berea College Printing Services, Berea
KY.
The Progress Fund, The Trail Town Program (2015). Trail User Survey and Business Survey Report, Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/hackbertp/Downloads/2015-GAP-Report%20(2).pdf.
Salstrom, P. (1994). Appalachia's Path to Dependency: Rethinking a Region's Economic History, 1730-1940.
University Press of Kentucky.
Sessions, C., Wood, S. A., Rabotyagov, S., & Fisher, D. M. (2016). Measuring recreational visitation at U.S.
National Parks with crowd-sourced photographs. Journal of environmental management, 183, 703-711.
Scott, S. L., Bradley, M. J., & Maples, J. (2016). Increasing rural tourism: A demographic profile of visitors to an
OHV park in rural Kentucky.

18. Scott, S.L., McSpirit, S, and Foley, J. (2017). Promoting Outdoor Recreation and Adventure Tourism on the Russell
Fork: An academic-Community Partnership Report. Journal of Appalachian Studies, 23(2); 170-180.
Summers, L.A., Heggen, S., and Hackbert, P.H. (2019). "The Effects of Multiuse Trails on Physical Activity and
Health in a Kentucky Trail Town: A Pilot Study. KAHPERD Journal 56 (2), 25-38.
Tarus, L., Hufford, M., & Taylor, B. (2017). A green new deal for Appalachia: Economic transition, coal
reclamation costs, bottom-up policymaking (Part 2). Journal of Appalachian Studies, 23(2), 151-169.
Tenkanen, H., Di Minin, E., Heikinheimo, V., Hausmann, A., Herbst, M., Kajala, L., & Toivonen, T. (2017).
Instagram, Flickr, or Twitter: Assessing the usability of social media data for visitor monitoring in protected areas.
Scientific reports, 7(1), 1-11.
Timothy, D. J., & Boyd, S. W. (2006). Heritage tourism in the 21st century: Valued traditions and new
perspectives. Journal of heritage tourism, 1(1), 1-16.
Toivonen, T., Heikinheimo, V., Fink, C., Hausmann, A., Hiippala, T., Järv, O., ... & Di Minin, E. (2019). Social
media data for conservation science: A methodological overview. Biological Conservation, 233, 298-315.
Tourism, A. (2014). Global Report on Adventure Tourism.
University of Kentucky College of Agriculture, Food and Environment Department of Landscape and Architecture
(UKCAFEDLA). (2014). Gateway to the Gap, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Vaughn and Melton (2014a). Kingdom Come Trail Feasibility Study. Vaughn and Melton, Pikeville, KY.
Vaughn and Melton (2014b). Buckhorn Lake Trail System Feasibility Study, Vaughn, and Melton, Pikeville KY.
Vaughn and Melton (2014c). Buckhorn Lake Trail Feasibility Study, Appendix N – Funding Sources & Financing
Options, Vaughn and Melton, Pikeville KY.
Vazzana, C. M., & Rudi-Polloshka, J. (2019). Appalachia Has Got Talent, But Why Does It Flow Away? A Study
on the Determinants of Brain Drain From Rural USA. Economic Development Quarterly, 33(3), 220-233.
White, E., Bowker, J. M., Askew, A. E., Langner, L. L., Arnold, J. R., & English, D. B. (2016). Federal outdoor
recreation trends: effects on economic opportunities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-945. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Station. 46 p., 945
White, E.W. (2017). Spending patterns of outdoor recreation visitors to national forests. Gen. Tech. Report PNW-
GTR-961. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Wilkins, E. J., Smith, J. W., & Keane, R. (2020). Social media communication preferences of national park visitors.
Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 19(1), 4-18.
Wood, S. A., Winder, S., Lia, E., White, E., Crowley, C., & Milnor, A. (2020). Next-generation Visitation Models
using Social Media to Estimate Recreation on Public Lands.
Woodfin, B. (2010). Maximizing the benefits of walking tourism. Economic impact of walking tourism in West
Cork. West Cork Development Partnership.
World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2014). The global report on adventure tourism. Retrieved from
https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/book/10.18111/9789284416622.