What does it mean? The double rainbow of outdoor recreation’s $1 trillion valuation

We saw it. We stared. And we wondered. At a distance, it was magnificent and staggeringly beautiful. And up close, it was almost incomprehensible. What does it all mean?

Last month, the annual calculation of the outdoor recreation economy, as calculated by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (aka, the BEA), dropped out of the sky and landed in our LinkedIn feeds with a remarkable news-grabbing splash. Outdoor recreation, in all its diversified glory, had blown past the $1 trillion level for the first time.

Released each November since 2017, the BEA Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account report is by far the best tool ever created for outdoor recreation advocacy. It has history to lean on (an origin story that stems directly from efforts by REI and OIA in the early 2010s ) and it has the legitimacy that only a government seal can provide. But most importantly, it gets people talking.

While some of those people talking embraced the chance to dive in beyond the headline (like Colin at the Rock Fight and Kyle at Here and There), the overall reaction to the BEA report was a lot like how the average person responds to a gear review. Which means they read it after they’ve made a decision, and parse the words and numbers as a reflection of themselves, their choices and their own identities. 

But the importance of the outdoor sector topping $1 trillion is not about justifying or explaining past behavior, or even somehow celebrating how this economic category has finally “arrived.”  It’s about the hundreds (and possibly thousands) of conversations that will stem from it,  many of which will be tied to massive amounts of money and will inform some truly impactful decisions about our lands and waters. 

In other words, it’s not the size of the outdoor sector numbers that matter, it’s how they’ll be used.

1) They’ll (definitely) be used to justify making the pie bigger

The easiest answer is always the simplest one. The BEA’s $1 trillion number, which is by itself a view from 30,000 feet, will be used to inform other decisions made at altitude. The data will 100% be used at the federal level, where effective advocacy groups such as Outdoor Recreation Roundtable will lean heavily on topline numbers to advocate for federal spending that makes outdoor sector pie a bit bigger. While it’s important to appreciate the role of federal advocacy, it’s also key to realize that money approved by the feds will eventually get spent based on some very deliberate choices about how to slice up the pie, which for the most part gets done at the state and local level.

2) They’ll (likely) be used as a local investment guide

While the contents of the BEA study are certainly important, what’s just as important is the time frame when those numbers are released. The BEA’s outdoor economy calculations come out every November, at the tail end of many other BEA sector estimnates. This is a key time frame, as both state legislatures as well as Congress typically starts convening early in the new year. Which means that a lot of noise made in November helps open doors to budget conversations in January.

And when it comes to spending governmental dollars, most legislators probably think a lot like individual investors. For instance, when you or I have a little extra to spend or invest (say, $10k that we’re considering putting into a mutual fund) , we typically look at a variety of different options as well as their past performance and future potential. The same holds true for policy makers who will surely use the BEA figures as part of their own due dlligence on key decisions.

Some of those legislators may look at the big BEA numbers and use it to inform big commitments to recreation infrastructure or public lands. Others may look at the BEA’s hyper-specific breakdowns as they choose between their own hyper-specific decisions. In both cases, they’ll want to get the biggest return on their investments, which will likely guide them to the biggest pools of money in the BEA report. Which is great news if you’re into the leading growth categories of the recent BEA numbers (like RVs or boating) but maybe not so much if you’re into one of the smaller areas (like canoeing or rock climbing).

3) They’ll (probably) be used as an open door to tax talks 

How hard is it for a politician to see a trillion dollars and not want to tax it? Probably about as hard as it is to look at the overall growth of outdoor recreation participation (and impacts) in the last 5 years and not be willing to consider it at all. Like it or not, the tax conversation is coming your way, and possibly very soon.

It’s important to note that the traditional “Outdoor Industry” (the one that grew up around the old Outdoor Retailer shows) has long pushed back on the idea of a “backpack tax” because of high tariffs already paid on goods made overseas. But it’s also important to note that this group is just one small portion of a massive sector that just topped a trillion bucks.

For an increasing number of voices in the room, there’s a straight line connecting a $1 trillion outdoor economy figure and a growing gap in funds for local stewardship on both public and private lands. But to have that conversation in a well informed and meaningful way — that one about the actual needs vs. the potential benefits — you really need a crisp understanding of the outdoor recreation economy at the local level. Which is a lot harder than it sounds.

4) They’ll (hopefully) help close the data gap at the local level

If you want to walk into your local statehouse to support the preservation of a local climbing crag (or defend the outdoor sector against a proposed tax) you don’t need a bigger number, you need a more specific one. You need to be able to connect the dots from the trillion dollars at the highest level to the town square at the most local.

One thing that the BEA data spotlights for me … every November … is how awesome it would be to have this same level of comprehensive depth at the local level, as well as how little of it we actually have. While there are some one-off studies here or there on the economic impacts of a new trail system or a new park, those typically happen in just the wealthiest communities who’ve already committed to outdoor recreation, occur with startling infrequency, and are understandably hyper-focused in order to get the best possible results.. The studies are also generally conducted one at a time (as budget permits, which isn’t often), and rarely, if ever, include a baseline study in advance.

We get it, of course. It’s a lot easier to find budget for a shovel-ready project than hiring a bunch of data nerds to explain its real and potential impacts. But times are changing, and while public money has been abundant in the last couple years, that pipeline is already starting to slow. And when things get even tighter, it’d sure be nice to have real and recent numbers on the local impact of different types of outdoor recreation, numbers that show the baseline economy of a community both before and after and investments, numbers that show compatibility of outdoor recreation infrastructure with some types of development, and numbers that show how outdoor recreation in pristine environments has its own significant value as well.

5) They’ll (someday) open the door to the public health conversation

In addition to needing to go deeper with local economic impact data, the outdoor sector would be well served to venture into other areas of number crunching as well.

Case in point: In the same year that the outdoor recreation economy topped $1 trillion, we the people of the United States surpassed another noteworthy figure – spending $4.3 trillion in health care costs. These two striking figures should be seen together more often.

The good news is that the idea of connecting first-step investments in outdoor recreation to the last-mile benefits of public health is already out there and has already begun attracting lots of great minds to the challenge. The bad news is, there’s still a long, long way to go,

You and me and the old guy in his fishing skiff all know that there are undeniable physical and mental health benefits to outdoor recreation, of all kinds and in all places. No question. No argument.

We also know – but we don’t talk about very often – how some activities deliver a different type of health benefit than others. Like how the experience of hiking in a wilderness area provides a different benefit than playing Pickleball, or how the expansion of a nearby singletrack trail network provides a different benefit to the overall health of a community than the expansion of a nearby RV park. 

Through the lens of the BEA economic impact numbers – with no other data points to inform us – local decisions will always tilt toward the biggest dollar signs. Like they say, when the only tool you’ve got is a cash-wrapped hammer, everything starts to look like a golden nail.

But imagine a world where the money part (supported by data) is discussed with the same depth and vigor as the health part (also supported by data). Where we have at our fingertips a wealth of integrated health and economic figures at both the national and local levels. Where we have the ability to engage in a very different type of conversation with decision makers about the nuanced differences between a wide variety of outdoor recreation investments. And where can easily justify our budgetary choices in both pure conservation as well as hard infrastructure.

Now, that would lead to a true pot of gold … maybe even two of them … at the end of a very beautiful double rainbow.