Advertisement

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Effects and perceptions of weather, climate, and climate change on outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism in the United States: A systematic review

Abstract

Weather, climate, and climate change all effect outdoor recreation and tourism, and will continue to cause a multitude of effects as the climate warms. We conduct a systematic literature review to better understand how weather, climate, and climate change affect outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism across the United States. We specifically explore how the effects differ by recreational activity, and how visitors and supply-side tourism operators perceive these effects and risks. The 82 papers reviewed show the complex ways in which weather, climate, and climate change may affect outdoor recreation, with common themes being an extended season to participate in warm-weather activities, a shorter season to participate in snow-dependent activities, and larger negative effects to activities that depend on somewhat consistent precipitation levels (e.g., snow-based recreation, water-based recreation, fishing). Nature-based tourists perceive a variety of climate change effects on tourism, and some recreationists have already changed their behavior as a result of climate change. Nature-based tourism suppliers are already noticing a wide variety of climate change effects, including shifts in seasonality of specific activities and visitation overall. Collectively, this review provides insights into our current understanding of climate change and outdoor recreation and opportunities for future research.

Citation: Wilkins EJ, Horne L (2024) Effects and perceptions of weather, climate, and climate change on outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism in the United States: A systematic review. PLOS Clim 3(4): e0000266. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000266

Editor: Fanli Jia, Seton Hall University, UNITED STATES

Received: June 21, 2023; Accepted: February 27, 2024; Published: April 3, 2024

This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Data Availability: No new data were collected for this paper. Information recorded for each paper in this systematic review is available in a supplementary file (S1 Table).

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

1. Introduction

Over 30 years ago, researchers speculated that climate change would affect outdoor recreation in the United States and identified this as a research need [1]. Since then, many studies have investigated the effects of climate change on outdoor recreation and tourism in different settings, geographic contexts, and sectors [2]. Climate change has already substantially affected tourism demand globally, and changes will continue as the climate warms [3, 4]. Changes to visitation patterns or activity participation under climate change can have important economic implications, as well as consequences for the ecosystems that support outdoor recreation [5]. Public lands managers, outdoor recreation and tourism planners, and tourism-related businesses will have to adapt to biophysical changes, as well as to shifts in visitor perceptions and behaviors related to product offerings, timing, activity participation, and safety.

Projecting possible changes to outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism can help managers, planners, and businesses prepare and adapt for future patterns. Although there is considerable research on climate change and public lands, a previous study found that the majority of resource management plans from a U.S. federal agency did not mention climate change [6]. Additionally, climate variables and climate change are rarely mentioned in tourism policy and planning documents across North America [7]. This review aims to help close the science-management gap [recognized by 6, 8] by identifying and synthesizing literature specifically related to climate change and outdoor recreation in the United States.

Understanding how past weather and climate have affected outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism demand can provide clues into how visitors might adapt to future climate change. Weather is defined as the atmospheric conditions at any given time and place, whereas climate is the average weather conditions over long periods of time, often 30-years or more [9]. A previous review found that both geographic context and recreational activities were important for understanding weather impacts on nature-based tourism globally [10]. In that spirit, we focused this review on a single country and analyzed results separately based on the recreational activity studied, similar to Hewer and Gough [11]. In their review, Hewer and Gough summarized 30 years of research of the effects of climate change on outdoor recreation and tourism in Canada, by sector. This approach can be useful for local outdoor recreation planners and managers to get an overview of the current science; it is also helpful for researchers to quickly glean the scope of research and identify areas that could use additional research.

Not only is the impact of climate change on outdoor recreation increasingly recognized as important by agencies that manage public lands [12], but it is also now often discussed in the media [e.g., 13–15]. No single study gives a full picture of how climate change will affect outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism across the United States. However, after more than two decades of research, the literature collectively provides many insights into this topic. This review aims to systematically search the scientific literature and synthesize findings into how weather, climate, and climate change affect outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism in the United States. After summarizing the state of the literature, we also identify gaps and opportunities for future research. Specifically, our research questions are:

  1. How have weather and climate affected outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism in the United States?
  2. How might climate change affect future outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism in the United States?
  3. How do supply-side operators (e.g., park managers, business owners) perceive the impacts of weather and climate change on outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism?
  4. How do the effects of weather, climate, and climate change in the United States vary by recreational activity?

2. Methods

We followed standard guidelines for conducting a systematic literature review [16]. These guidelines include certain measures to report, including how the literature was searched and the types of information recorded. The PRISMA checklist is included as a supplementary file (S1 Checklist). This review was not pre-registered and there is not a review protocol apart from this paper. Information about paper identification, screening, eligibility, and categorization is below.

2.1 Paper identification

We attempted to find all peer-reviewed journal papers analyzing the influence of weather, climate, or climate change on outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism in the United States. We aimed to find papers containing original data (e.g., we did not include review or opinion papers), and papers containing some analyses involving human-dimensions data (e.g., we did not include papers analyzing only climate data without a human component). We searched for papers using two of the most common scientific databases for social science research: Scopus and Web of Science.

We first searched for all papers that included one of the following words in the title, abstract, or keywords: climate change, global warming, climate, weather, or temperature. The papers had to also include one of the following terms in the title, abstract, or keywords: outdoor recreation, nature-based tourism (with or without the hyphen), or park and visitation (the words “park” and “visitation” both needed to appear, but not necessarily together). To try and only find papers that included study locations within the United States, we also limited this search to papers that had at least one author with a U.S. affiliation at the time of publication. Although there are U.S.-based studies without any authors located in the United States, this is somewhat rare; we manually added four studies we were aware of that are in the United States without U.S.-based authors (and fit all other inclusion criteria, described below). The exact search strings we used for both Scopus and Web of Science are included in the supplementary material (Table A in S1 Text),. We conducted this search on December 1, 2021 and it yielded 134 results in Scopus and 70 results in Web of Science. Once we removed duplicates, there were 152 unique papers. We later updated this search on December 13, 2022 to include papers published in 2022, which added 21 results from Web of Science and 22 results from Scopus (a total of 29 unique papers).

This initial search was somewhat narrow in scope and may have missed papers pertaining to specific outdoor activities, so we conducted a second search that was more expansive, where the first keyword was the same list of weather and climate-related terms, while the second keyword could be any of the following: outdoor recreation, nature-based tourism, park and visitation, recreational, hiking, biking, fishing, angling, hunting, wildlife viewing, birding, skiing, ski, snowmobiling, camping, boating, rafting, climbing. This list of terms was developed and refined after exploratory searching to better understand what terms yielded relevant papers. For example, the term “biking” was used rather than “cycling” because in exploratory searching, “cycling” yielded an overwhelming number of papers about environmental or nutrient cycling rather than the recreational activity. We again limited this search to only papers with at least one U.S. affiliated author. The search string for this search can also be found in Table A in S1 Text. This search returned 3,224 papers from Web of Science on December 1, 2021, and 332 additional papers on December 13, 2022. We also manually added a small number of papers we were aware of that were not returned by Web of Science or Scopus searches. There is likely some bias in this review based on this search criteria; namely, activities that were not explicitly searched for may be under-represented. Additionally, since we only searched peer-reviewed journals, studies in the gray literature from state or federal agencies would not be included in this review.

2.2 Paper screening and eligibility

After initial paper identification, we screened papers from the narrow search to determine if they fit all of the inclusion criteria. Our criteria included: (1) peer-reviewed; (2) contains original data; (3) contains human-dimensions data; (4) has at least one study location within the United States; and (5) analyzes perceptions or effects of weather, climate, and/or climate change on outdoor recreation or nature-based tourism. The papers were primarily screened by the lead author, with input from the second author in cases where it was not clear.

We only included papers that contained analyses with human-dimensions data to avoid making speculations on how climate change may affect people without having data related to those people. For instance, a paper investigating the change in snowpack under climate change may have implications for outdoor recreation and skiing, but if the paper did not explicitly address that using human-dimensions data (e.g., visitation data, spending data, interviews, surveys), we would not include it [e.g., 17–19]. Similarly, we did not include papers without original data collection, such as proposed frameworks or conceptual models [e.g., 20, 21]. Additionally, we did not include papers that only looked at climate change mitigation [e.g., 22] or supply-side adaptation. While related and important, supply-side adaptation is outside the scope of this review and we instead refer interested readers to papers by Miller et al. [23] and O’Toole et al. [24] that discuss opportunities for climate change adaptation.

We first reviewed titles to determine if they fit the scope and criteria. We removed all papers where the title clearly did not fit the scope. We then reviewed the abstracts of the remaining papers to see if they met the inclusion criteria. If it was still unclear from the abstract if they fit the inclusion criteria, we searched the full text. In cases where it was not clear if the paper fit the criteria from the abstract, it was usually due to the study location not being mentioned in the title or abstract.

From the second more expansive search on Web of Science, we reviewed the titles (and abstracts, when needed) of the first 1,000 most relevant entries from the initial search, and the 100 most relevant entries from the 2022 search. This only identified an additional 14 papers that fit our criteria, which were not already included from the narrow search. The vast majority of these papers were not social science and did not have a human-dimensions component. We stopped reviewing entries after 1,100 because as we went further down the list there were very few relevant papers (papers were sorted by relevance). Fig 1 shows the number of papers included and reviewed at each step of the process.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. The number of records in our literature search, identified through various sources, and the number of records remaining after screening and assessing for eligibility, used to explore how weather, climate, and climate change affect outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism in the United States.

Reporting template modified from Moher et al. [16]. WoS = Web of Science.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000266.g001

2.3 Categorizing papers

For each paper, the authors read and recorded information related to the research questions, study location and setting, methods, data sources, and results (see Table B in S1 Text for specific information recorded). Papers were categorized based on if they studied weather, climate, or climate change (not mutually exclusive). Papers were also categorized by the activities they studied, and if they studied visitation/recreation broadly, visitor perceptions, or supply-side perceptions. For any recreational activity that had three or more studies, the results were synthesized under a separate subheading in the results; activities with only one or two studies are described together under the heading “other activities.” Table C in S1 Text contains information on each paper in this review, including the results section(s) each paper is reported under. Additionally, a dataset that contains all information recorded about each paper is available as a supplementary file (S1 Table).

Papers were first quantitatively summarized by setting, geographic location, activities studied, human dimensions data types used, broad methods (e.g., quantitative or qualitative), and weather and climate data used; results from each study were then described more qualitatively. When reporting the results of individual papers, we used a value of p ≤ 0.05 to define statistical significance for consistency across this review. For example, if an individual paper said results were significant at p = 0.10, this review would interpret those results as non-significant; thus, very occasionally our reporting differs from the authors’ interpretations. We choose p ≤ 0.05 to define statistical significance because this is the most common p-value threshold used by papers in this review.

3. Results

We begin by providing a descriptive and quantitative overview of the papers included in this review (section 3.1) before focusing on the effects of weather and climate on outdoor recreation. Section 3.2 addresses the first research question of how weather and climate have affected outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism in the United States, while section 3.3 addresses the second research question of how climate change may affect future outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism in the United States. Section 3.4 then answers the third research question on how supply-side operators perceive the impacts of weather and climate change on outdoor recreation and tourism. Finally, section 3.5 addresses how the effects of weather, climate, and climate change in the United States vary by recreational activity. Section 3.6 ends with a summary which compares results from multiple sections.

3.1 Characteristics of the literature

The first paper in this review was published in 2000, with the number of papers on weather or climate change and outdoor recreation in the United States peaking in 2018 (Fig 2). These 82 papers were published in 52 different journals, with most papers published in the Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism (n = 8), Tourism Geographies (n = 5), and the Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration (n = 5). This spike in 2018 may be attributed to the fact that in 2018 the Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration published a special issue on climate change and outdoor recreation, and Tourism Geographies published a special issue on tourism in changing natural environments.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. The papers published by year included in this review that were used to explore how weather, climate, and climate change affect outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism in the United States, and the setting of each paper.

The 82 papers in this review include papers through Dec 13, 2022. Setting categories are mutually exclusive; if one paper had multiple settings, it was included in one of the categories labelled “various.” NPS = National Park Service; NA = not applicable.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000266.g002

Studies took place in various settings, with the most common being national parks and ski resorts (Fig 2). Thirty-one studies examined multiple settings, with the majority centering around a river, Great Lake, or coastal area (e.g., including all public lands and waters along a river). Those in the “various– 2+ different” category included multiple settings across a location, state, or the country, that were not related through a body of water. The “other” category for settings included golf courses, roads, an urban area, a beach park, a national marine sanctuary, and national recreation areas. One study did not have a setting (labeled “NA”) since interviews took place across the United States, without any tie to a particular setting. These studies were spread out across the United States, with the Northeast and the Intermountain West generally having more studies on this topic than the South and Midwest (Fig 3). Maine had the most papers on the effect of weather or climate change on outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism (n = 15), followed by Vermont (n = 9), and Utah (n = 8).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. The number of papers in this review by state that were used to explore how weather, climate, and climate change affect outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism in the United States.

In addition, 16 papers had study sites in 10+ states (not included on the map). The map was created in R using the urbnmpr package, which gets state boundary data from the U.S. Census Bureau [25, 26].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000266.g003

Most papers looked at visitation, visitor spending, visitor perceptions, or supply-side perceptions broadly, without focusing on a particular activity. Of the papers that did focus on a particular activity or activities, the most common were fishing, downhill skiing, water-based recreation, and camping (Fig 4). Each of these are discussed individually in section 3.5. Fewer papers focused on activities such as hiking, biking or hunting. To understand how weather, climate, and climate change may affect outdoor recreation, most papers tended to use visitor surveys or visitation numbers for human dimensions data (Fig 4). Some papers used sales or permit data for a specific activity, qualitative interviews, spending or economic data, or social media data. The “other” category for human dimensions data types includes focus groups, participatory workshops, hunter harvest data, ski resort closures, operating expenditures of parks, various fishing participation datasets from the federal government (created with a mix of methods), business surveys, and observation/satellite imagery/cameras.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 4. The specific activities studied, as well as the types of human-dimensions (HD) data papers used to explore how weather, climate, and climate change affect outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism in the United States.

Although there are 82 papers in the review, numbers do not sum to 82 because not every paper studied a specific activity, and some papers used more than one type of HD data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000266.g004

Overall, 87% of papers (n = 71) used only quantitative methods, 7% of papers (n = 6) used only qualitative methods, and 6% of papers (n = 5) used both quantitative and qualitative methods. Of the papers that investigated recreationists’ preferences or behaviors (rather than supply-side or expert perceptions), 64% (n = 44) used revealed preferences (e.g., modeling historical visitation numbers), 32% (n = 22) used stated preferences (e.g., visitor surveys asking about preferences or perceptions), and 4% (n = 3) used both stated and revealed preferences. Of the 47 papers that investigated revealed preferences (often containing a modeling component), 47% (n = 22) analyzed data at a daily scale, 26% (n = 12) used a monthly scale, 4% (n = 2) used a seasonal scale, 11% (n = 5) used an annual scale, 6% (n = 3) did not use any time scale (instead, aggregating many years of data to represent long-term climate), and 6% (n = 3) used other time scales or a time scale was not applicable for the research questions.

Information on the sources of weather data used in papers in this review and the specific weather and climate variables studied can be found in the supplementary material (Table D in S1 Text). The most popular data sources for weather and climate data were the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and PRISM climate data. Sources of climate projection data can also be found in the supplementary material (Table E in S1 Text), with the most common being previous studies or IPCC reports. All papers in this review are cited and discussed in the sections below.

3.2 Effects of weather and climate on outdoor recreation

Multiple papers investigated the relationship between weather variables and visitation, with a focus on temperature and precipitation. In papers that explored impacts of multiple different weather variables, temperature, particularly maximum temperature, tended to be the best predictor of visitation and tourism spending [27, 28]. The amount of leisure travel and visitation days to parks and public lands tended to be higher in days or months that are warmer [e.g., 29–33]. However, many places did see a temperature threshold above which visitation drops; this threshold varied by setting and location, but tended to be around 25°C (77°F) for U.S. national parks [27, 29, 34].

The effect of precipitation on outdoor recreation and visitation varied. Precipitation was found to have no effect on monthly visitation to desert parks in Utah [27], a positive effect on monthly visitation to a mountain park in Colorado [34], and a negative effect on daily visitation in a national forest in Florida and a national forest in Utah [35, 36]. Related to precipitation, snow depth had a negative impact on visitation to a mountain park in Colorado [37], but a positive impact on visitation to a mountainous trail in Utah that has cross-country skiing opportunities [36]. In addition to temperature and precipitation impacting total visitation numbers, temperature and precipitation also affected where visitors go within parks [38].

Although most papers focused on temperature and/or precipitation, a few explored other weather variables or extreme events (i.e., hurricanes, droughts, floods). In a Florida study, humidity was negatively correlated with forest visitation [35]. Hurricanes negatively affected park visitation, with the hurricane category being a better predictor of visitation than wind speed and duration [39]. Exceptionally dry and wet years did impact total visitation numbers to national parks in the Rocky Mountains, but the effects vary substantially across parks and years, with one study finding no clear trends [40]. Additionally, one study noted that as of 2008, many parks were seeing a shift in spring temperatures and spring visitation, with peak visitation shifting on average 4.6 days earlier in the season from 1979–2008 in parks that saw changes [32].

The above papers all investigated the effects of weather on visitors at either daily, monthly, or annual scales using statistical models or correlations. One paper looked at how the long-term climate (i.e., 30-year weather averages) impacted past general visitation trends on public lands across the continental United States, finding that visitation was higher in warm locations in the winter and spring, but higher in cooler locations in the summer [41].

3.2.1 Visitors’ perceptions of the impact of weather.

The papers in the section above all used historical data and models to understand the relationship between weather and outdoor recreation (revealed preferences), but in four papers visitors were asked directly how they perceived the impact of weather (stated preferences). At a Northeastern island national park, 73% of visitors said the weather was important during their trip [42]. Across Maine, when asked about the influence of specific weather factors on their trip, visitors said sunshine was the most influential weather factor, followed by maximum temperature; wind speed was perceived to be the least important weather variable [43]. Over half of visitors (58%) said the weather was important once on-site at their destination, and 41% said the expected weather was important in choosing their destination [43]. On the contrary, at a national forest in Vermont, visitors overall said weather had a fairly low impact on their trip, and that rain had the largest effect [44]. One mountain park study found that temperature and precipitation were both positively related to visitors’ willingness to pay (although temperature was not statistically significant), while wind speed and cloud cover were not related to willingness to pay [45].

3.3 Projected effects of climate change on outdoor recreation

Since the above sections established that outdoor recreation and park visitation are dependent on weather and climate, it is unsurprising that 95% of National Park Service units are expecting visitation shifts by 2041–2060 under climate change scenarios [29]. Most parks are expected to see an overall increase in visitation (predominately in the off-season and shoulder seasons) and an expansion of the peak visitation season by 13–31 days [29, 46]. Across public lands in the continental United States, decreased visitation in the summer is projected by up to 28% by 2050 under high emissions scenarios due to warming temperatures, while increasing visitation in the winter and spring is expected (by 20% and 8% respectively, under high emissions) [41]. However, there is variation across regions, with Northern regions likely to see the largest winter increases, for instance [29, 41]. In California, one study noted that cooler areas across the state (e.g., coastal and mountainous areas) are likely to become even more suitable for recreation in the summer, while places that are already warm and have less summer visitation are going to become even less suitable as the climate warms [47]. Although these studies mostly consider temperature changes, other factors such as increased risk of heat waves and fire risk may also impact visitation patterns, such as by decreasing summer visitation [48].

Changing visitation patterns will also alter tourism spending patterns and operating expenditures of parks. A study in Maine found that 1.7°C (3.1°F) warming would increase tourism spending by 6%– 14% in the summer and fall, with variable effects in the winter (e.g., small decreases in spending in areas with snow-dependent activities) [28]. As temperatures rise, the cost of managing parks rises, with the largest effects being in states that are warmer (e.g., Hawaii, Florida, Louisiana) [49]. This is likely because warmer temperatures extend the operating season. Under climate change, operating expenditures of state parks are expected to rise between 25% - 61% by 2050 depending on the emissions scenario [49].

3.3.1 Visitors’ perceptions of climate change effects and risk.

Many visitors perceive that climate change may affect their own or others’ recreational behavior. For instance, most visitors to an island park in Maine thought climate change would affect tourism and recreation [42]. The majority cited negative effects, such as sea level rise, temperature changes and more extreme temperatures, and negative impacts to wildlife; fewer visitors noted possible positive impacts, such as warming temperatures positively affecting the environment or wildlife [42]. When given a list of possible effects, visitors to the same island park perceived that extreme weather was the largest risk for potential future travel, followed by the increased presence of mosquitos and ticks due to climate change [50]. People who believed in climate change or had experience with climate change had higher risk perceptions in relation to tourism to the island park [51]. Additionally, nature-based tourists to Maine were more concerned over the impacts of climate change to tourism than non-nature based tourists [43].

When presenting visitors with specific climate change scenarios, two studies found that visitation to the North Shore of Lake Superior is unlikely to change by 2035, with the authors suggesting that there may be changes under longer time horizons [52, 53]. In a mountainous park, a small portion of visitors (9–13%) said they would change their number of visits by 2020 under climate change scenarios, with visitation increasing under moderate warming scenarios but declining under extreme heat (this survey was conducted in 2001, in which case 2020 was in the future) [34, 37]. This was expected to increase both total visits and willingness to pay for a visit by 2020 [34, 45]. In Vermont state parks, visitors intended to visit less if there were increases in maximum temperature, the number of rainy days, or the number of biting insects, but that they would visit more if minimum temperatures increased [54, 55].

Under climate change scenarios in various locations, many visitors said they would change the activities they participate in, the locations they visit, or the timing of their visits [54–56]. Younger visitors were more likely to say they would substitute locations or activities, and winter visitors were more willing to change the timing of their trips than summer visitors [57]. Studies in the Northeast found that place attachment is related to how visitors may respond to climate change, with those who have high place attachment less likely to change their decision to visit the location in the future under climate change [54, 58].

3.4 Supply-side perceptions of weather and climate change

Tourism suppliers (e.g., outfitters, guides, business owners, park/recreation managers) face a multitude of weather and climate change impacts, including biophysical changes and resulting shifts in visitation. Though fewer in quantity, several papers focused on supplier perceptions of climate change to identify concerns and impacts experienced by their organizations. In Maine, tourism suppliers noted a wide range of effects of climate change to coastal tourism; some of the effects perceived to be most significant included increasing visitation, shifts in seasonality, and higher fire risk in the summer [59]. Although many suppliers are experiencing a range of weather and climate related impacts, nature-based tourism stakeholders in Maine felt they had limited control over their ability to react to most impacts, such as changes to ticks, mosquitos, biodiversity loss, and carbon dioxide emissions [60]. Additionally, many tourism suppliers in Maine expressed that, although they were informed about global climate change impacts, there was much more uncertainty regarding local impacts of climate change [61].

On the North Shore of Lake Superior, tourism stakeholders thought that moose populations, lake water levels, and native plants and wildlife species were the natural amenities most vulnerable to climate change [62]. For tourism business owners located along the North Carolina coast, fishing and outdoor recreation businesses (compared to indoor businesses such as food and lodging) felt they were more dependent on climate and weather, and they valued weekly weather forecasts as more important for decision-making compared to longer-term forecasts [63].

For specific activities, many ski resort managers in Utah noted effects from climate change, such as changing patterns of snow and the shortening of the season length [64]. Outfitters and guides for whitewater rafting in Colorado were concerned about the effects of drought on their businesses, and noted that media portrayals of wildfire caused cancellations [65]. Related to fishing, many outfitters, guides, and fisheries biologists/managers in the Yellowstone River watershed already observed changes, such as earlier runoff, increased variability in runoff, and shorter and more intense runoff [66].

3.5 Effects of weather and climate change by recreational activity

3.5.1 Fishing.

Weather and climate change both affect fishing. Air and water temperature were positively related to recreational fishing participation, meaning more people fish when temperatures are warmer [e.g., 67, 68]. However, studies on the Gulf Coast and Atlantic noted that fishing participation declined around 24°C (75°F), with extreme heat over 35°C (95°F) causing sharp declines [67, 69]. Rain was negatively related to monthly fishing permits on the shore of a Great Lake [70], but not significantly and consistently related to daily fishing in the Gulf and Atlantic coasts [69].

Both fishers and outfitters/guides noticed that warming temperatures are associated with disease, reductions in species abundance, and species distribution changes [66, 71]. Specifically, climate change is causing earlier spring runoff and more interannual variability in runoff, which impacts the timing and quality of fishing, as well as the ability to plan fishing trips [66]. As an example of habitat changing, coldwater fishing habitat is expected to decline under a warming climate, which will likely result in fewer fishing days (with a decrease ranging from 1.25 million in 2030 to 6.42 million by 2100) [72]. As an example of species abundances changing, trout fishing is expected to decrease in North Carolina under warming scenarios due to the loss of habitat, causing economic losses [73].

Under climate change, warmer areas (e.g., Gulf Coast) are generally expected to see declines in fishing participation, while cooler areas (e.g., the Northeast) will likely see gains [69, 74] due to the more favorable temperatures. On the North Shore of Lake Superior, under climate change scenarios (that included a sharp decline in the prevalence of brook trout), most anglers said they would not change their total number of trips, but some visitors indicated they would travel elsewhere in the area (21%), travel outside of the area to fish (12%), or stay in the area but change activities (20%) [75]. Outfitters and guides are changing the timing and locations of their fishing trips to respond to changing spring runoff patterns [66].

Many coastal recreational fishers are concerned about the effects of sea level rise, including how that will impact the overall ecosystem health and future fish abundance [76]. Sea level rise is also expected to narrow beaches, which is projected to decrease the overall willingness to pay for fishing, since shore fishers prefer wider beaches [77]. Harmful algal blooms can also affect fishing; one study found that when algal content crossed the advisory threshold, fishing permit sales declined by 13% [70].

3.5.2 Snow-based recreation.

Snow-based recreational activities include downhill skiing/snowboarding, backcountry skiing/snowboarding, Nordic skiing, snowmobiling, and snowshoeing. These activities are all sensitive to temperature, snowfall, and snow depth. Contrary to general park visitation and fishing, for snow-based activities, higher temperatures were correlated with lower visitation numbers [78–81]. This is likely because higher temperatures correlate to lower snowfall and snow depth. Snowfall and snow depth from the previous day are positively related to daily attendance at ski resorts, meaning more people skied when there was more snow [81]. Other studies found similar results, that quarterly snowfall is highly correlated with cash flow at a resort [82], and that snow depth is positively related to daily ticket sales at resorts [80]. For general snow-based recreation (including but not limited to downhill skiing), one study found daily snow depth was positively related to visitation, but daily snowfall was not significant [78]. Generally, snowfall seemed to be significant at larger scales (e.g., months or seasons), but less influential than snow depth on a daily scale.

Many ski resort managers are concerned about climate change, noting that an increase in temperature by 3°C (5°F) or less snowfall at the start of the season would have moderate to extreme effects at the resort [64]. Temperature and snow in a given year were not directly correlated with a resort closing that year, but other factors, such as the ability to make snow, did impact whether or not resorts closed [83]. In a warm year, representative of a high emissions scenario, the season length for downhill skiing declined by about 11 days, visitation declined by about 11% across the Northeast region, and profits decreased by 33% [84]. There is an expected economic loss of $172 - $374 million in consumer surplus by 2060 due to decreased skier visits to U.S. National Forests [79].

Many visitors in the Northeast say they have already substituted activities, locations, or times of visits to resorts due to low snow years. For instance, over 60% of visitors indicated they skied elsewhere due to low snowfall [85], and 75% of visitors indicated they did not participate for a full season due to low snowfall [86]. People with medium involvement in skiing were most likely to change their participation behavior as a result of snowfall, while people with lower involvement were less likely to change their skiing behavior [87].

Under climate change, participation declines are expected for all snow-dependent activities, but the effect is larger for snowmobiling and Nordic or backcountry skiing compared to developed skiing [74]. Almost all locations across the United States are expected to see reductions in the winter-recreation season length in the future (for all snow-based activities), exceeding a 50% decline by 2050 in many locations [88]. The magnitude of projected season length change varies by region, with the Northeast and other lower-elevation areas projected to have the largest declines in future season length. Projections indicate this will result in millions of fewer visits for snow-based activities by 2050 [88]. Many snowmobilers are already noticing these changes, with 45% saying they saw a decline in season length, and 38% saying they have seen a decline in snow depth; of the snowmobilers who noticed these changes, the majority had reduced the amount of time spent snowmobiling due to the conditions [89].

3.5.3 Water-based recreation.

Water-based recreational activities studied include rafting, canoeing, other boating, swimming, and relaxing on the beach or coast. For general beach visitation, cloudy and rainy days decreased daily visitation, but warmer temperatures increased visitation [90]. For coastal recreation, visitors noted that the general climate, including sunshine and temperature, were important for destination selection [91]. The mean ideal air temperature for coastal visitors was 28°C (82°F), with 32°C (90°F) being perceived as tolerably hot, and 37°C (98°F) unacceptably hot. If it becomes uncomfortably hot, the majority of visitors (65%) said they would visit the same location on a different date [91]. Overall, participation in motorized water activities is expected to increase under climate change due to temperature increases, particularly in the North [74], and swimming and boating are also expected to see higher participation in the Northeast [55].

At a reservoir in Oklahoma, temperature was positively related to visitation numbers, up to a threshold of about 27°C (80°F) [92]. Visitation is projected to increase 2.3% for each 0.5°C (1°F) increase, with the largest increases expected in October–May. Reservoir levels also affect visitation, with higher water levels generally having higher visitation, up to a point [92]. In the Southwest, temperature was found to be positively related to reservoir visitation [93]. This study concurred that reservoir water levels were positively related to visitation, but their results were not statistically significant [93].

Water levels and stream flows in rivers affect water-based recreation participation. Reduced river flows decreased the number of people whitewater rafting, but very high flows also reduced the number of participants [65]. Outfitters were thus concerned with the impacts of drought to their businesses [65]. For a canoe race, stream flow impacted the distance expert paddlers were willing to travel, travelling farther to participate during a low stream flow year, possibly due to the challenge [94]. Water quality can also affect water-based recreation, although few visitors to Lake Erie said they would stop visiting, change their activities, or change the timing of their trips due to water quality [95].

3.5.4 Camping.

Generally, camping rates were higher when both minimum and maximum temperatures are higher, with low temperatures around or below freezing having a strong negative effect on participation [96]. Camping rates tended to decline after a threshold of around 34°C (93°F) for maximum temperature [97]. The weather conditions for up to 10 days in advance affected campground occupancy rates, meaning warm temperatures the week before could increase camping rates the following week [98]. Thermal comfort, which combines temperature and dew point, was found to have the largest effect on camping rates, followed by sunshine; precipitation and wind speed also influenced camping rates, to a lesser extent. These variables were all combined to create a camping climate index, which is predictive of camping rates for tent camping as well as recreational vehicle (RV) camping [97, 99, 100].

Notably, one study found that temperature and precipitation thresholds varied by the type of camping, with important thresholds for minimum temperature being 11°C (52°F) for tent campers, 8°C (46°F) for RV campers, and 4°C (39°F) for cabin campers [97]. Tent campers also had a much lower threshold for daily rain [97], and precipitation and minimum temperature were more influential on their visits compared to RV campers or those who stayed in hotels [43]. Given temperature preferences of campers, the number of ideal days for camping has decreased in the South but increased in all other U.S. regions under climate change [97]. Additionally, fire and smoke have been found to cause pre-arrival and post-arrival camping cancellations, but the magnitude of these effects has so far been small [101].

3.5.5 Other activities.

Other activities with only one or two papers include hunting, golfing, wildflower viewing, biking, and hiking. Related to hunting, increases in humidity, temperature, and precipitation reduced daily hunter harvest rates in Alaska, with relative humidity being the most influential [102]. Experts perceived that wind speed was the most important weather variable for hunting, although temperature and extreme events were also viewed to be influential [103].

For golfing, temperature was positively related to participation in Michigan, with maximum temperature being more influential than minimum temperature; precipitation was negatively related to rounds played [104].

The timing of wildflower blooms is dependent on snow and weather conditions, and one study found that in a mountain park, for each 10 days that snow disappeared sooner in the spring, the peak wildflower blooming came 7.1 days sooner, and the seasonal peak visitation occurred 5.5 days sooner [105]. The earlier snow disappearance corresponded with a longer visitation season but a shorter season to view wildflowers [105]. In desert parks, visitation was higher during wet years, and higher in months with precipitation and the months following high precipitation, likely due to the presence of wildflowers and superblooms [106].

The number of recreational urban biking trips and duration of trips was the highest when temperatures were between 21–27°C (70–80°F), with trips dropping slightly when it was warmer than 27°C (80°F), and dropping substantially when it was below 16°C (60°F) [107]. These results indicate there will be more biking under climate change, particularly in the winter and shoulder months (with an increase in biking demand up to 10% expected by 2060). In the summer, the authors found that bikers often changed the timing of trips to morning or night when temperatures were cooler, so total summer participation is not expected to significantly change [107]. Under warming temperature scenarios, one paper projected that both biking and hiking would see declines in Vermont state parks based on visitor perceptions [55]. Extreme weather events were rated by experts to be the most influential weather variable for hiking [103].

3.6 Summary

Table 1 provides a summary and comparison on how temperature and precipitation affect different outdoor recreation activities in the United States, since these are the two weather and climate variables that are commonly studied across activities. This comparison shows that higher temperatures positively affect participation in most outdoor activities (except snow-based activities), up to thresholds that differ by activity. Perceptions of what ideal conditions are, and visitors’ sensitivity to the weather, depends on the activity (Table 1). Given that there is a threshold which visitors consider too hot, places that are already warm are likely to see declines in summer visitation as the climate warms. Even though temperature increases are expected to increase participation in non-snow dependent activities, other impacts related to warming temperatures, such as more variable precipitation, can have negative effects. The effect of precipitation on outdoor recreation varies by setting and activity (Table 1). Additionally, the literature above shows the complex ways in which climate change may affect outdoor recreation, with common themes being an extended season to participate in warm-weather activities, a shorter season to participate in snow-dependent activities, and larger negative effects to activities that depend on somewhat consistent precipitation levels (e.g., snow-based recreation, water-based recreation, fishing).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. A summary of how temperature (temp) and precipitation affect participation in various recreational activities in the United States.

Sample sizes (n) represent the number of studies in this review that each generalization is based on. N/A = not applicable.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000266.t001

4. Discussion and conclusions

Temperatures have risen by 1.1°C globally since 1900, and this has already caused changes to weather and precipitation patterns [108]. In the United States, specific changes include increased heat waves, increased severity of wildfires, decreased snowfall and snowpack, more variable precipitation, and earlier spring runoff [109]. Winter is warming substantially faster than other seasons, and winter warming is especially pronounced in the Northern and Northeastern United States [110]. As shown by this review, these factors already affect outdoor recreation, and are likely to continue altering recreation and nature-based tourism as the climate continues to warm.

Visitor perceptions of ideal conditions will likely influence their outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism behaviors, including trip timing, activity participation, and location selection. Identifying visitor perceptions and intended behavioral changes will be important for tourism managers as they adapt to visitation shifts and attempt to continue to meet visitor needs. Some activities (e.g., those not dependent on snow) and locations (e.g., Northeast, North) will experience higher levels of visitation under climate change, potentially resulting in challenges with managing the influx of visitors. Future research at these types of destinations to identify visitor perceptions of crowding may be useful to managers. Additionally, in instances with high levels of visitation, studying substitution preferences may be useful for regional tourism planning to help spread out visitors spatially or temporally and distribute the economic benefits across seasons or nearby destinations. As the peak visitation season is expanding in many locations, this may require additional staffing and additional funding to keep facilities open longer [49]; protected area managers may also want to consider any ecological implications resulting from a longer peak season [111]. For example, higher visitation in different seasons may cause disturbances to nesting birds or vegetation cover [111].

Knowing how weather affects outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism, and how climate change is then likely to affect recreationists, can help tourism suppliers plan, prepare, and adapt to any changes. Compared to visitor perceptions, relatively few studies investigated supply-side perceptions of climate change in the United States. This is an important gap because tourism suppliers have the capacity to offset some negative visitor perceptions of a destination and enhance the safety of visitors as conditions change. For example, visitors to coastal Florida indicated high intention to change their destination selection if climate change resulted in negatively perceived changes. However, more than half of visitors stated their intention to continue visiting the destination if supplier actions, such as price drops, habitat conservation, and beach erosion and flood protection, were implemented to adapt to climate change impacts [91]. These results are similar to findings from a study in Spain where tourists were in support of beach restoration initiatives to adapt the destination to climate change [112]. Supply-side operators are often first responders in terms of climate change adaptation. To adapt to climate change and alleviate visitor concerns, tourism suppliers need knowledge of local impacts [61] and appropriate decision-making support tools to effectively adapt (e.g., flood maps, visitor preference data) [113–115]. For example, a study of supply-side perceptions in South Africa found that risk perceptions of nature-based tourism suppliers did not always match projected climate change threats in the region [116]. The U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit is one resource that compiles many relevant decision-support tools, some of which can provide insights on a local or regional scale [117]. Additionally, two recent papers compile adaptation suggestions for recreation managers [23, 24].

Collectively, this body of work details methodological approaches used, types of human dimensions data used and sources of weather and climate change data that other researchers interested in this topic could explore. Given that 76 of the 82 studies in our literature review included some quantitative analyses while only 11 included some qualitative analyses, there is a need for additional qualitative studies that can add more depth and context to some of the themes found by quantitative studies. Additionally, this review is complementary to other synthesis papers on weather, climate change and outdoor recreation [e.g., 10]. In 2018, Verbos and colleagues synthesized the literature on the relationship between weather and outdoor recreation globally [10]. They found that there were many factors that influence perceptions and experiences of weather beyond the actual weather conditions, including trip characteristics, site characteristics, experiences with weather, seasonality, and resource characteristics. These factors identified by Verbos and colleagues may be useful to help understand some of the differences found across studies in our review. Our review is distinct in that it details brief results from all studies, including specific relationships, percent changes, temperature thresholds, etc. by activity that are useful to discern commonalities and patterns in findings. Here, we also use the collective results relating to weather to help better understand the potential impact of climate change on outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism.

Although this review focused on the United States, many of the same general trends have been found in other countries (e.g., warmer temperatures being preferred by visitors, up to a threshold) [11]. Review papers from Canada and Austria also noted that increasing temperatures were projected to increase park visitation and create an extended season to participate in warm-weather activities [11, 118]. Research from other counties is also uniform in that findings indicate climate change will decrease the season length and participation in snow-dependent activities [11, 119–122]. Results from the United States generally indicate that there are differences by activity and setting (e.g., desert versus coastal recreation), but the effects of weather and climate change on specific activities and settings may be similar across countries. For example, across three countries, recreationists visiting beaches preferred warmer temperatures than those visiting mountains or urban areas [123]; this review indicated that the same is true in the United States. While the specific preferred temperatures may vary across countries or regions, the general trends are often similar. Although this review was intended to be an in-depth analysis of the literature in the United States, as noted above, many of the results may be applicable in other locations across similar activities and contexts. However, some results are likely to be specific to a country or region. For instance, perceptions of climate change as a general threat vary substantially across countries [124], and this would likely affect perceptions and behaviors of tourists and tourism suppliers regarding climate change and outdoor recreation.

4.1 Limitations and future research needs

In addition to more research on supply-side perceptions of climate change effects, more research is needed for certain activities, settings, and locations. Similar to Verbos and colleagues [10], this review also indicated that there is a need for additional research on how activities such as hunting, biking, golfing, hiking, wildflower viewing, and wildlife viewing may be impacted across the United States by climate change. However, unlike the prior review [10], this study found that activities such as fishing and water-based recreation were fairly well represented in the literature (likely due to a difference in search terms). Although downhill skiing is one of the more extensively studied activities, most of the research on this in the United States is based in the Northeast. Skiing is also popular in the Western United States, but there are few studies that investigate how Western resorts may be affected. Overall, the West Coast has very little research on the impact of climate change on outdoor recreation, especially compared to the popularity of outdoor recreation in these states. Many studies focus on national parks or ski resorts, and there is a need for more research focusing on parks that may attract more local visitors (e.g., state or county parks) or areas that may have more dispersed use (e.g., Bureau of Land Management Lands).

Additionally, most of the papers in this review that analyzed historical data were examining the effect of weather on outdoor recreation rather than climate. Only three papers that analyzed revealed preferences used climate data rather than weather data. Two of these papers used the traditional definition of climate (aggregating weather data from 30-years) [41, 72], while one paper used a 13-year period [47]. There is a need for more research on the effect of long-term climate on recreation behavior, although this can be challenging and requires having data to control for other exogenous factors that affect visitation over long periods of time [41, 47]. However, we would argue that studying the historical effects of weather is still useful to understand how visitor behavior may change under changing climate conditions. There remains a question of whether preferences and behaviors might change in the future as people expect and adapt to a warmer climate in general. For example, a temperature of 25°C (77°F) may be a threshold after which visitation decreases when analyzing past behavior from 1979–2013 [29], but it is unknown if that threshold would remain the same in a few decades, when people may expect or be somewhat adapted to warmer temperatures.

Although this review included 82 papers on the effects of weather, climate, and climate change on outdoor recreation in the United States, results are often hard to directly compare across locations or activities because methodological approaches differ substantially. It is difficult to know whether differing results are attributable to different methods, contexts/locations, or activities studied. For example, some studies analyzed stated preferences (e.g., through surveys asking visitors directly about their preferences), while others analyzed revealed preferences (e.g., through modeling historical data). Only one paper from 2006 directly compared results from stated and revealed preference methods, and the authors found that the difference in visitation behavior derived from stated and revealed preference methods was relatively small and not statistically significant [34]. Additional studies comparing results derived through different methods would be useful to see if the findings from that study, which found stated and revealed preference methods produce similar results [34], is generally true in this line of research. One review from Austria also found that studies analyzing revealed and stated preferences for the effects of weather and climate change on outdoor recreation had generally similar findings (however, methods were different enough that results were not compared statistically) [118]. Although differing approaches all work together to glean different insights, there is a need for additional research to investigate the impacts of weather and climate change across activities or contexts using the same suite of methods for increased comparability.

Even if studies generally use the same suite of methods, for example, using revealed preferences from historical data to understand how temperature affects visitation on a monthly scale, differences in model specifications can have large implications for the results and comparability of studies. Studies that only fit a linear model to the data would likely find that as temperatures increase, visitation continues to increase with no threshold, whereas studies that fit a quadratic model (i.e., curvilinear regression) likely would find temperature thresholds after which visitation declines. This would have important implications for projecting out under future climate conditions, in which case linear models would find visitation continues to increase under the most extreme temperature scenarios, while a quadratic model may show declines [e.g., 34]. Studies involving regression models would benefit from testing multiple model specifications, including linear, quadratic, and cubic relationships [e.g., see 29]. It is also useful to run models at the smallest available temporal unit for which there are accurate data (i.e., models that analyze daily or monthly scales are more useful than annual scales in the context of recreation management). Additionally, climate change effects are often studied individually (e.g., only looking at the effect of increasing temperatures on visitation), but we are living in a world where many things are changing at once (e.g., increasing temperatures, increasing wildfires, and increasing extreme weather events, all at once). While it is challenging to investigate how multiple different factors may interact synergistically to change outdoor recreation patterns, this is an important research need moving forward.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. The PRISMA checklist for this review.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000266.s001

(PDF)

S1 Text. Additional information regarding search strings used, information recorded about each paper in this review, the complete list of papers in this review, and data sources for weather and climate projections that were used by papers in this review.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000266.s002

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Characteristics of the 82 papers used to explore how weather, climate, and climate change affect outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism in the United States.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000266.s003

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Elizabeth Perry for feedback on a previous version of this paper. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

References

  1. 1. Ewert AW. Outdoor recreation and global climate change: Resource management implications for behaviors, planning, and management. Society & Natural Resources. 1991;4(4):365–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941929109380767
  2. 2. Scott D, Gössling S. A review of research into tourism and climate change-Launching the annals of tourism research curated collection on tourism and climate change. Annals of Tourism Research. 2022;95:103409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2022.103409
  3. 3. Gössling S, Scott D, Hall CM, Ceron J-P, Dubois G. Consumer behaviour and demand response of tourists to climate change. Annals of Tourism Research. 2012;39(1):36–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.11.002
  4. 4. Scott D, Hall CM, Gössling S. Global tourism vulnerability to climate change. Annals of Tourism Research. 2019;77:49–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.05.007
  5. 5. Monz CA, Gutzwiller KJ, Hausner VH, Brunson MW, Buckley R, Pickering CM. Understanding and managing the interactions of impacts from nature-based recreation and climate change. Ambio. 2021;50(3):631–43. pmid:33011916
  6. 6. Brice EM, Miller BA, Zhang H, Goldstein K, Zimmer SN, Grosklos GJ, et al. Impacts of climate change on multiple use management of Bureau of Land Management land in the Intermountain West, USA. Ecosphere. 2020;11(11):e03286. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3286
  7. 7. Rutty M, Hewer M, Knowles N, Ma S. Tourism & climate change in North America: regional state of knowledge. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 2022:1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2022.2127742
  8. 8. Carter SK, Pilliod DS, Haby T, Prentice KL, Aldridge CL, Anderson PJ, et al. Bridging the research-management gap: landscape science in practice on public lands in the western United States. Landscape Ecology. 2020;35(3):545–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-00970-5
  9. 9. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administation. What’s the difference between weather and climate? 2020. Available from: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/weather-vs-climate
  10. 10. Verbos RI, Altschuler B, Brownlee MT. Weather studies in outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism: A research synthesis and gap analysis. Leisure Sciences. 2018;40(6):533–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2017.1325794
  11. 11. Hewer MJ, Gough WA. Thirty years of assessing the impacts of climate change on outdoor recreation and tourism in Canada. Tourism Management Perspectives. 2018;26:179–92. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.07.003
  12. 12. Brice B, Fullerton C, Hawkes KL, Mills-Novoa M, O’Neill BF, Pawlowski WM. The impacts of climate change on natural areas recreation: A multi-region snapshot and agency comparison. Natural Areas Journal. 2017;37(1):86–97. https://doi.org/10.3375/043.037.0111
  13. 13. Brady J. Summertime and vacationing isn’t easy. Blame it on climate change. 2021. Available from: https://www.npr.org/2021/08/07/1025185886/summer-time-and-vacationing-isnt-easy-blame-it-on-climate-change
  14. 14. Eddings A. Ohio’s only national park fights climate change: wbur; 2021. Available from: https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/10/18/ohio-national-park-climate
  15. 15. Roth S. Newsletter: Love the national parks? Get ready for them to heat up: Los Angeles Times; 2021. Available from: https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2021-09-23/love-the-national-parks-get-ready-for-them-to-heat-up-boiling-point
  16. 16. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine. 2009;151(4):264–9. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
  17. 17. Lackner CP, Geerts B, Wang Y. Impact of global warming on snow in ski areas: A case study using a regional climate simulation over the interior western United States. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. 2021;60(5):677–94. https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-20-0155.1
  18. 18. Hawkins TW, Smith KL. Historical and Projected Climate Trends Along the Appalachian Trail, USA, and the Implications for Trail Usage. Physical Geography. 2011;32(1):22–51. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3646.32.1.22
  19. 19. Battaglin W, Hay L, Steve M. Simulating the potential effects of climate change in two Colorado basins and at two Colorado ski areas. Earth Interactions. 2011;15(22):1–23. https://doi.org/10.1175/2011EI373.1
  20. 20. Shaw WD, Loomis JB. Frameworks for analyzing the economic effects of climate change on outdoor recreation. Climate Research. 2008;36:259–69. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr00748
  21. 21. Hunt LM, Fenichel EP, Fulton DC, Mendelsohn R, Smith JW, Tunney TD, et al. Identifying alternate pathways for climate change to impact inland recreational fishers. Fisheries. 2016;41(7):362–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2016.1187015
  22. 22. Vander Naald B. Examining tourist preferences to slow glacier loss: evidence from Alaska. Tourism Recreation Research. 2020;45(1):107–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2019.1606978
  23. 23. Miller AB, Winter PL, Sanchez JJ, Peterson DL, Smith JW. Climate change and recreation in the western United States: Effects and opportunities for adaptation. Journal of Forestry. 2022:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvab072
  24. 24. O’Toole D, Brandt LA, Janowiak MK, Schmitt KM, Shannon PD, Leopold PR, et al. Climate change adaptation strategies and approaches for outdoor recreation. Sustainability. 2019;11(24):7030. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247030
  25. 25. Strochak S, Ueyama K, Williams A. urbnmapr: State and county shapefiles in sf and tibble format. R package version 0.0.0.9002, 2024. https://github.com/UrbanInstitute/urbnmapr
  26. 26. United States Census Bureau. Cartographic Boundary Files. 2023. Available from: https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files/time-series/geo/cartographic-boundary.html
  27. 27. Smith JW, Wilkins E, Gayle R, Lamborn CC. Climate and visitation to Utah’s ‘Mighty 5’ national parks. Tourism Geographies. 2018;20(2):250–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2018.1437767
  28. 28. Wilkins E, de Urioste-Stone S, Weiskittel A, Gabe T. Effects of weather conditions on tourism spending: implications for future trends under climate change. Journal of Travel Research. 2018;57(8):1042–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517728591
  29. 29. Fisichelli NA, Schuurman GW, Monahan WB, Ziesler PS. Protected area tourism in a changing climate: Will visitation at US national parks warm up or overheat? PLoS One. 2015;10(6). pmid:26083361
  30. 30. Shih C, Nicholls S. How do weather conditions influence leisure traffic? Evidence from Michigan and implications for climate change. Tourism Analysis. 2012;17(4):431–43. https://doi.org/10.3727/108354212X13473157390641
  31. 31. Henrickson KE, Johnson EH. The demand for spatially complementary national parks. Land Economics. 2013;89(2):330–45. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.89.2.330
  32. 32. Buckley LB, Foushee MS. Footprints of climate change in US national park visitation. International Journal of Biometeorology. 2012;56(6):1173–7. pmid:22109104
  33. 33. Liu P. The effect of temperature on outdoor recreation activities: evidence from visits to federal recreation sites. Environmental Research Letters. 2022;17(4):044037. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac5693
  34. 34. Loomis JB, Richardson RB. An external validity test of intended behavior: Comparing revealed preference and intended visitation in response to climate change. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 2006;49(4):621–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560600747562
  35. 35. Paudyal R, Stein TV, Kc B, Adams DC. Effects of weather factors on recreation participation in a humid subtropical region. International journal of biometeorology. 2019;63(8):1025–38. pmid:30969374
  36. 36. Acharya S, Singleton PA. Associations of inclement weather and poor air quality with non-motorized trail volumes. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 2022;109:103337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103337
  37. 37. Richardson RB, Loomis JB. Adaptive recreation planning and climate change: a contingent visitation approach. Ecological Economics. 2004;50(1):83–99.
  38. 38. Wilkins EJ, Howe PD, Smith JW. Social media reveal ecoregional variation in how weather influences visitor behavior in U.S. National Park Service units. Scientific Reports. 2021;11(1):2403. pmid:33510327
  39. 39. Woosnam KM, Kim H. Hurricane impacts on southeastern United States coastal national park visitation. Tourism Geographies. 2014;16(3):364–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2013.823235
  40. 40. Jedd TM, Hayes MJ, Carrillo CM, Haigh T, Chizinski CJ, Swigart J. Measuring park visitation vulnerability to climate extremes in US Rockies National Parks tourism. Tourism Geographies. 2018;20(2):224–49.
  41. 41. Wilkins EJ, Chikamoto Y, Miller AB, Smith JW. Climate change and the demand for recreational ecosystem services on public lands in the continental United States. Global Environmental Change. 2021;70:102365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102365
  42. 42. De Urioste-Stone SM, Scaccia MD, Howe-Poteet D. Exploring visitor perceptions of the influence of climate change on tourism at Acadia National Park, Maine. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2015.07.001
  43. 43. Wilkins E, de Urioste-Stone S, Weiskittel A, Gabe T. Weather sensitivity and climate change perceptions of tourists: a segmentation analysis. Tourism Geographies. 2018;20(2):273–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2017.1399437
  44. 44. Ferguson MD, Giles G, Ferguson LA, Barcelona R, Evensen D, Barrows C, et al. Seeing the forest for the trees: A social-ecological systems approach to managing outdoor recreation visitation in parks and protected areas. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. 2022;38:100473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2021.100473
  45. 45. Richardson RB, Loomis JB. Climate change and recreation benefits in an Alpine National Park. Journal of Leisure Research. 2005;37(3):307. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2005.11950055
  46. 46. Albano CM, Angelo CL, Strauch RL, Thurman L. Potential effects of warming climate on visitor use in three Alaskan national parks. Park Science. 2013;30(1):37–44.
  47. 47. Manley K, Egoh BN. Mapping and modeling the impact of climate change on recreational ecosystem services using machine learning and big data. Environmental Research Letters. 2022;17(5):054025. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac65a3
  48. 48. Kanazawa M, Wilson BN, Holmberg K. Local consequences of climate change: State park visitations on the north Shore of Minnesota. Water Resources and Economics. 2018;22:50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.2018.01.003
  49. 49. Smith JW, Wilkins EJ, Leung Y-F. Attendance trends threaten future operations of America’s state park systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2019;116(26):12775–80. pmid:31160452
  50. 50. De Urioste-Stone SM, Le L, Scaccia MD, Wilkins E. Nature-based tourism and climate change risk: Visitors’ perceptions in mount desert island, Maine. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. 2016;13:57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2016.01.003
  51. 51. Horne L, De Urioste-Stone S, Seekamp E, Rahimzadeh-Bajgiran P, Rickard L. Determinants of visitor climate change risk perceptions in Acadia National Park, Maine, USA. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. 2021;35:100401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2021.100401
  52. 52. Smith JW, Seekamp E, McCreary A, Davenport M, Kanazawa M, Holmberg K. Shifting demand for winter outdoor recreation along the North Shore of Lake Superior under variable rates of climate change: A finite-mixture modeling approach. Ecological Economics. 2016;123:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.12.010
  53. 53. Hestetune A, McCreary A, Holmberg K, Wilson B, Seekamp E, Davenport MA, et al. Research note: Climate change and the demand for summer tourism on Minnesota’s North Shore. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. 2018;24:21–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2018.10.003
  54. 54. Perry EE, Xiao X, Nettles JM, Iretskaia TA, Manning RE. Park visitors’ place attachment and climate change-related displacement: Potential shifts in who, where, and when. Environmental Management. 2021;68(1):73–86. pmid:33991206
  55. 55. Perry E, Manning R, Xiao X, Valliere W. Multiple dimensions of adaptations to climate change by visitors to Vermont state parks. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 2018;36(2):13–30. https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2018-V36-I2-8308
  56. 56. McCreary A, Seekamp E, Larson LR, Smith J, Davenport MA. Climate change and nature-based tourism: How do different types of visitors respond? Tourism Planning & Development. 2020:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2020.1861079
  57. 57. McCreary A, Seekamp E, Larson LR, Smith JW, Davenport MA. Predictors of visitors’ climate-related coping behaviors in a nature-based tourism destination. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. 2019;26:23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2019.03.005
  58. 58. Wilkins EJ, de Urioste-Stone S. Place attachment, recreational activities, and travel intent under changing climate conditions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 2018;26(5):798–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1417416
  59. 59. Horne L, DiMatteo-LePape A, Wolf-Gonzalez G, Briones V, Soucy A, De Urioste-Stone S. Climate change planning in a coastal tourism destination, A participatory approach. Tourism and Hospitality Research. 2022;23(4):549–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/14673584221114730
  60. 60. Horne LR, de Urioste-Stone S, Daigle J, Noblet C. Using pile sorts to understand perceptions of climate change. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment. 2018;227:175–83. https://doi.org/10.2495/ST180171
  61. 61. Horne L, De Urioste-Stone S, Daigle J. Climate change adaptation and mitigation in the face of Local uncertainty: A phenomenological study. Northeastern Naturalist. 2021;28(sp11):108–28. https://doi.org/10.1656/045.028.s1107
  62. 62. Bitsura-Meszaros K, Seekamp E, Davenport M, Smith JW. A PGIS-based climate change risk assessment process for outdoor recreation and tourism dependent communities. Sustainability. 2019;11(12):3300. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10023300
  63. 63. Ayscue EP, Curtis S, Hao H, Montz B. Forecast and weather-related information used among coastal tourism businesses. Tourism Geographies. 2015;17(4):603–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2015.1053974
  64. 64. Wilkins EJ, Akbar H, Saley TC, Hager R, Elkin CM, Belmont P, et al. Climate change and Utah ski resorts: Impacts, perceptions, and adaptation strategies. Mountain Research and Development. 2021;41(3). https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-20-00065.1
  65. 65. Schoengold K, Shrestha P, Eiswerth M. The joint impact of drought conditions and media coverage on the Colorado rafting industry. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research. 2013;5(2–3):183–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/19390459.2013.811853
  66. 66. Lamborn CC, Smith JW. Human perceptions of, and adaptations to, shifting runoff cycles: A case-study of the Yellowstone River (Montana, USA). Fisheries Research. 2019;216:96–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2019.04.005
  67. 67. Dundas SJ, von Haefen RH. The importance of data structure and nonlinearities in estimating climate impacts on outdoor recreation. Natural Hazards. 2021;107(3):2053–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04484-w
  68. 68. Kendall MS, Williams BL, Winship AJ, Carson M, Grissom K, Rowell TJ, et al. Winds, waves, warm waters, weekdays, and which ways boats are counted influence predicted visitor use at an offshore fishing destination. Fisheries Research. 2021;237:105879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2021.105879
  69. 69. Dundas SJ, von Haefen RH. The effects of weather on recreational fishing demand and adaptation: implications for a changing climate. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. 2020;7(2):209–42. https://doi.org/10.1086/706343
  70. 70. Wolf D, Georgic W, Klaiber HA. Reeling in the damages: Harmful algal blooms’ impact on Lake Erie’s recreational fishing industry. Journal of Environmental Management. 2017;199:148–57. pmid:28527741
  71. 71. McClenachan L, Grabowski JH, Marra M, McKeon CS, Neal BP, Record NR, et al. Shifting perceptions of rapid temperature changes’ effects on marine fisheries, 1945–2017. Fish and Fisheries. 2019;20(6):1111–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12400
  72. 72. Jones R, Travers C, Rodgers C, Lazar B, English E, Lipton J, et al. Climate change impacts on freshwater recreational fishing in the United States. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 2013;18(6):731–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-012-9385-3
  73. 73. Ahn S, De Steiguer JE, Palmquist RB, Holmes TP. Economic analysis of the potential impact of climate change on recreational trout fishing in the southern Appalachian Mountains: an application of a nested multinomial logit model. Climatic Change. 2000;45(3):493–509. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005511627247
  74. 74. Askew AE, Bowker J. Impacts of climate change on outdoor recreation participation: Outlook to 2060. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 2018;36(2). https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2018-V36-I2-8316
  75. 75. Hestetune A, Jakus PM, Monz C, Smith JW. Climate change and angling behavior on the North shore of Lake Superior (USA). Fisheries Research. 2020;231:105717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2020.105717
  76. 76. Estela Brown C, Bhat MG, Rehage J. Valuing ecosystem services under climate risk: A case of recreational fisheries in the Florida everglades. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management. 2020;146(12):04020089.
  77. 77. Whitehead JC, Poulter B, Dumas CF, Bin O. Measuring the economic effects of sea level rise on shore fishing. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 2009;14(8):777–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-009-9198-1
  78. 78. Zhang H, Smith JW. Weather and air quality drive the winter use of Utah’s Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons. Sustainability. 2018;10(10):3582. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103582
  79. 79. Chapagain BP, Poudyal NC, Bowker J, Askew AE, English DB, Hodges DG. Potential effects of climate on downhill skiing and snowboarding demand and value at US. The Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 2018;36(2):75–96. https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2018-V36-I2-8365
  80. 80. Shih C, Nicholls S, Holecek DF. Impact of weather on downhill ski lift ticket sales. Journal of Travel Research. 2009;47(3):359–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287508321207
  81. 81. Hamilton LC, Brown C, Keim BD. Ski areas, weather and climate: time series models for New England case studies. International Journal of Climatology. 2007;27(15):2113–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1502
  82. 82. Tang C-H, Jang S. Hedging weather risk in nature-based tourism business: An example of ski resorts. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research. 2012;36(2):143–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348010388655
  83. 83. Beaudin L, Huang J-C. Weather conditions and outdoor recreation: A study of New England ski areas. Ecological Economics. 2014;106:56–68.
  84. 84. Dawson J, Scott D, McBoyle G. Climate change analogue analysis of ski tourism in the northeastern USA. Climate Research. 2009;39(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr00793
  85. 85. Dawson J, Scott D, Havitz M. Skier demand and behavioural adaptation to climate change in the US Northeast. Leisure/Loisir. 2013;37(2):127–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/14927713.2013.805037
  86. 86. Dawson J, Scott D. Systems analysis of climate change vulnerability for the US Northeast ski sector. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development. 2010;7(3):219–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/1479053X.2010.502383
  87. 87. Dawson J, Havitz M, Scott D. Behavioral adaptation of alpine skiers to climate change: Examining activity involvement and place loyalty. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing. 2011;28(4):388–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2011.571573
  88. 88. Wobus C, Small EE, Hosterman H, Mills D, Stein J, Rissing M, et al. Projected climate change impacts on skiing and snowmobiling: A case study of the United States. Global Environmental Change. 2017;45:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.04.006
  89. 89. Perry E, Manning R, Xiao X, Valliere W, Reigner N. Social climate change: The advancing extirpation of snowmobilers in Vermont. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration. 2018;36(2). https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2018-V36-I2-8307
  90. 90. Marvasti A. Estimating outdoor recreation demand with aggregate data: A revealed preference approach. Ocean & Coastal Management. 2013;71:170–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.09.006
  91. 91. Atzori R, Fyall A, Miller G. Tourist responses to climate change: Potential impacts and adaptation in Florida’s coastal destinations. Tourism Management. 2018;69:12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.05.005
  92. 92. Boyer TA, Melstrom RT, Sanders LD. Effects of climate variation and water levels on reservoir recreation. Lake and Reservoir Management. 2017;33(3):223–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402381.2017.1285375
  93. 93. Duval D, Bickel AK, Frisvold GB. Effects of reservoir levels on Arizona National Recreation Area visitation, visitor spending, and local economies. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12962
  94. 94. Bristow RS, Jenkins I. Travel behaviour substitution for a white-water canoe race influenced by climate induced stream flow. Leisure/Loisir. 2018;42(1):25–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/14927713.2017.1403861
  95. 95. Ferguson MD, Mueller JT, Graefe AR, Mowen AJ. Coping with climate change: A study of Great Lakes water-based recreationists. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration. 2018;36(2). https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2018-V36-I2-8296
  96. 96. Craig CA, Feng S. A temporal and spatial analysis of climate change, weather events, and tourism businesses. Tourism Management. 2018;67:351–61.
  97. 97. Ma S, Craig CA, Feng S. The Camping Climate Index (CCI): The development, validation, and application of a camping-sector tourism climate index. Tourism Management. 2020;80:104105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104105
  98. 98. Craig CA. The Weather-Proximity-Cognition (WPC) framework: A camping, weather, and climate change case. Tourism Management. 2019;75:340–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.06.005
  99. 99. Ma S, Craig CA, Feng S, Liu C. Climate resources at United States National Parks: A tourism climate index approach. Tourism Recreation Research. 2021:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2021.1946652
  100. 100. Craig CA, Ma S. Weather and recreational vehicle camping businesses. Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights. 2022;3(2):100063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annale.2022.100063
  101. 101. Gellman J, Walls M, Wibbenmeyer M. Wildfire, smoke, and outdoor recreation in the western United States. Forest Policy and Economics. 2022;134:102619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102619
  102. 102. Leorna S, Brinkman T, McIntyre J, Wendling B, Prugh L. Association between weather and Dall’s sheep Ovis dalli dalli harvest success in Alaska. Wildlife Biology. 2020;2020(2). https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00660
  103. 103. Verbos RI, Brownlee MT. The Weather Dependency Framework (WDF): A tool for assessing the weather dependency of outdoor recreation activities. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. 2017;18:88–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2017.02.005
  104. 104. Nicholls S, Holecek DF, Noh J. Impact of weather variability on golfing activity and implications of climate change. Tourism Analysis. 2008;13(2):117–30. https://doi.org/10.3727/108354208785664256
  105. 105. Breckheimer IK, Theobald EJ, Cristea NC, Wilson AK, Lundquist JD, Rochefort RM, et al. Crowd‐sourced data reveal social–ecological mismatches in phenology driven by climate. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2020;18(2):76–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2142
  106. 106. Winkler DE, Brooks E. Tracing extremes across iconic desert landscapes: socio-ecological and cultural responses to climate change, water scarcity, and wildflower superblooms. Human Ecology. 2020;48(2):211–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-020-00145-5
  107. 107. Chan NW, Wichman CJ. Climate change and recreation: evidence from North American cycling. Environmental and Resource Economics. 2020;76(1):119–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-020-00420-5
  108. 108. IPCC. Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2021. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf
    • 109. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Climate change indicators in the United States. 2016. Report No.: EPA 430-R-16-004. Available from: www.epa.gov/climate-indicators
      • 110. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Climate change indicators: Seasonal temperature. 2022. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-seasonal-temperature
      • 111. Coombes EG, Jones AP, Sutherland WJ. The biodiversity implications of changes in coastal tourism due to climate change. Environmental Conservation. 2008;35(4):319–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892908005134
      • 112. Enríquez AR, Bujosa Bestard A. Measuring the economic impact of climate-induced environmental changes on sun-and-beach tourism. Climatic Change. 2020;160(2):203–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02682-w
      • 113. Benckendorff P. Envisioning sustainable tourism futures: An evaluation of the futures wheel method. Tourism and Hospitality Research. 2008;8(1):25–36. https://doi.org/10.1057/thr.2008.2
      • 114. Jopp R, DeLacy T, Mair J. Developing a framework for regional destination adaptation to climate change. Current Issues in Tourism. 2010;13(6):591–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683501003653379
      • 115. Seekamp E, Jurjonas M, Bitsura-Meszaros K. Influences on coastal tourism demand and substitution behaviors from climate change impacts and hazard recovery responses. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 2019;27(5):629–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1599005
      • 116. Pandy WR, Rogerson CM. Nature-based tourism and climate change: The risk perceptions of industry stakeholders in the Waterberg, South Africa. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure. 2023;12(2):504–20. https://doi.org/10.46222/ajhtl.19770720.382
      • 117. U.S. Federal Government. U.S. Climate resilience toolkit. 2014. Available from: https://toolkit.climate.gov/
      • 118. Pröbstl-Haider U, Hödl C, Ginner K, Borgwardt F. Climate change: Impacts on outdoor activities in the summer and shoulder seasons. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. 2021;34:100344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2020.100344
      • 119. Steiger R, Damm A, Prettenthaler F, Proebstl-Haider U. Climate change and winter outdoor activities in Austria. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. 2021;34:100330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2020.100330
      • 120. Steiger R, Knowles N, Pöll K, Rutty M. Impacts of climate change on mountain tourism: A review. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 2022:1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2022.2112204
      • 121. Scott D, Steiger R, Dannevig H, Aall C. Climate change and the future of the Norwegian alpine ski industry. Current Issues in Tourism. 2020;23(19):2396–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1608919
      • 122. Steiger R, Scott D, Abegg B, Pons M, Aall C. A critical review of climate change risk for ski tourism. Current Issues in Tourism. 2019;22(11):1343–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1410110
      • 123. Scott D, Gössling S, Freitas CRd. Preferred climates for tourism: case studies from Canada, New Zealand and Sweden. Climate Research. 2008;38(1):61–73. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr00774
      • 124. Fagan M, Huang C. A look at how people around the world view climate change: Pew Research Center; 2019. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-how-people-around-the-world-view-climate-change/