Hiking Statistics Updated November 2026

Human Written & Fact Checked · Updated

100 Backpacking Statistics for 2026

If you want to understand backpacking, begin by separating an overnight walk from a long-distance completion. Someone trying a hut trip and someone walking an entire national trail belong in the same broad conversation, but their participation measures answer different questions.

Here, backpacking means hiking with an overnight or multiday component, not budget travel between cities. The evidence combines New Zealand's historical adult participation survey, recent outdoor-community equipment research and Appalachian Trail completion records. Each source keeps its own population and period. There is no implied global backpacker count.

Headline figures

  • 2019 NZ adult survey: Annual overnight-walk participation among New Zealand adults was 22%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • 2019 NZ adult survey: Monthly overnight-walk participation among New Zealand adults was 8%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • 2019 NZ adult survey: Stimulation Actives: annual overnight-walk participation was 43%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • 2019 NZ adult survey: West Coast residents: annual overnight-walk participation was 28%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • 2025 Appalachian Trail all reported full-trail completions: 834. (Appalachian Trail Conservancy, Feb 2026)
  • 2025 Appalachian Trail published northbound completion rate: 25%. (Appalachian Trail Conservancy, Feb 2026)
  • 2025 Appalachian Trail section-hiker reported completions: 116. (Appalachian Trail Conservancy, Feb 2026)
  • 2026 NZ outdoor-community survey: Would carry emergency shelter on overnight or multiday trips: 78%. (NZ Mountain Safety Council, Feb 2026)
  • 2026 NZ outdoor-community survey: Overnight non-carriers relying on a planned hut stay: 57%. (NZ Mountain Safety Council, Feb 2026)
  • 2025 NZ outdoor-community survey: Always treat hut water: 27%. (NZ Mountain Safety Council, Mar 2025)
  • 2025 NZ outdoor-community survey: Always treat natural-source water: 18%. (NZ Mountain Safety Council, Mar 2025)
  • 2025 NZ outdoor-community survey: Boiling as a water-treatment method: 79%. (NZ Mountain Safety Council, Mar 2025)

How does overnight walking vary by outdoor audience?

Frequent participation is a smaller market than occasional participation. DOC and UMR's audience segments help separate those patterns without assuming every adult who tried an overnight walk became a regular backpacker.

Which segments reported annual overnight walks?

  • Enthusiastic Actives: annual overnight-walk participation was 40%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Mindful Actives: annual overnight-walk participation was 21%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Social Actives: annual overnight-walk participation was 18%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Home-Close Actives: annual overnight-walk participation was 14%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Other Things Actives: annual overnight-walk participation was 10%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)

Annual participation differed across the survey's outdoor audience segments. Each percentage below uses the named segment as its denominator, instead of the total number of overnight walkers. The figures come from an adult New Zealand survey conducted in 2019, not a current booking system. Segment names reflect the researchers' classification of relationships with the outdoors. They should not be treated as fixed personal traits. These results offer a historical audience benchmark, while present demand would require newer comparable research.

Which audiences walked overnight on a monthly basis?

  • Stimulation Actives: monthly overnight-walk participation was 23%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Enthusiastic Actives: monthly overnight-walk participation was 18%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Mindful Actives: monthly overnight-walk participation was 3%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Social Actives: monthly overnight-walk participation was 3%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Home-Close Actives: monthly overnight-walk participation was 4%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Other Things Actives: monthly overnight-walk participation was 3%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)

Monthly participation concentrated more strongly in the activity-oriented segments. The measure records participation frequency, not how many nights a person spent away or how much equipment they carried. DOC's category covers overnight and multiday walks. It does not distinguish tent camping from huts, guided trips from independent travel, or short itineraries from expedition-length journeys. That breadth is useful for describing participation, but limits its use as a forecast for a specific backpacking product or accommodation type.

Where did overnight-walking participants live?

Home region and hiking destination are different variables. This table describes residents' participation anywhere in New Zealand; it cannot establish which region attracted the most visitors or had the busiest tracks.

Which regions had higher annual estimates?

  • Auckland residents: annual overnight-walk participation was 27%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Taranaki residents: annual overnight-walk participation was 27%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Marlborough residents: annual overnight-walk participation was 25%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Nelson residents: annual overnight-walk participation was 24%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Northland residents: annual overnight-walk participation was 22%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Gisborne residents: annual overnight-walk participation was 22%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Canterbury residents: annual overnight-walk participation was 22%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)

Several regions showed similar annual participation estimates. The original report cautions that regional sample sizes affect how confidently apparent differences can be interpreted. These are historical shares of residents, not annual trip totals. A respondent could have completed a walk outside their home region. Nearby percentage values should not become a definitive ranking, especially where the report identifies small samples. Population differences also mean that participation rates alone do not reveal the number of participating adults.

What did the remaining annual estimates show?

  • Otago residents: annual overnight-walk participation was 22%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Southland residents: annual overnight-walk participation was 22%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Waikato residents: annual overnight-walk participation was 18%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Wellington residents: annual overnight-walk participation was 18%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Bay of Plenty residents: annual overnight-walk participation was 17%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Tasman residents: annual overnight-walk participation was 17%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Manawatu-Whanganui residents: annual overnight-walk participation was 16%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Hawke's Bay residents: annual overnight-walk participation was 15%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)

The other regional estimates extend the picture across the country. They retain the same activity definition and survey period as the regions discussed above. Comparing like-for-like questions within a survey is more defensible than mixing these estimates with visitor counts collected later. Even here, sampling uncertainty limits fine distinctions. No regional rate establishes how far respondents travelled, whether they camped, or which organisation maintained the route they used.

Where was monthly overnight participation reported?

  • Marlborough residents: monthly overnight-walk participation was 13%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Taranaki residents: monthly overnight-walk participation was 12%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Auckland residents: monthly overnight-walk participation was 11%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • West Coast residents: monthly overnight-walk participation was 9%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Gisborne residents: monthly overnight-walk participation was 8%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Waikato residents: monthly overnight-walk participation was 7%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Northland residents: monthly overnight-walk participation was 6%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Wellington residents: monthly overnight-walk participation was 6%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)
  • Bay of Plenty residents: monthly overnight-walk participation was 5%. (DOC / UMR, Mar 2020)

Monthly estimates describe a more frequent pattern locally. The selection below reproduces the upper published monthly table, instead of every region. Do not multiply these rates to estimate annual nights away. A participation frequency is not a trip diary, and the survey does not specify the duration of each outing. Residence remains the denominator throughout this comparison.

What do long-distance completion records measure?

A recorded finish is an achievement, not a census of everyone who entered a trail. ATC's dated tables distinguish counting locations, travel directions and self-reported completions, and those categories need to remain separate.

How did northbound and southbound counts differ?

ATC publishes counts at different locations alongside reported completions and its own completion-rate estimates. These measures describe different stages and reporting processes, instead of a perfectly tracked cohort. Do not subtract a finish report from a trailhead count to infer verified withdrawals. Counting methods and reporting coverage differ. The dated table is the source used here; conflicting figures in other ATC publications are not averaged into it.

How were flip-flop and section journeys represented?

The tables also recognise non-linear itineraries and journeys completed over longer periods. Harpers Ferry counts are particularly important to interpret in the context of route direction. ATC defines a thru-hike by completing the trail within a year, while section hikers can accumulate their journey over longer periods. A flip-flop hiker may begin near the middle, so a Harpers Ferry count is not automatically a halfway milestone. These records describe recognised full-trail travel and selected counting points, not every backpacking trip along the Appalachian Trail. A section-hiker count at a visitor centre also does not identify how much of the trail that visitor has completed.

How have reported full-trail completions varied?

Reported completions vary substantially between years. The historical table includes a period when public-health disruption affected both hiking and the administration of recognition. Recognition paused during the pandemic, and the visitor centre also experienced closure. The unusual series should therefore not be interpreted as an uninterrupted measure of underlying interest. These are current published historical totals, which can differ from earlier releases as records change. They do not establish annual trail visitation or a worldwide trend in backpacking.

What shapes overnight emergency-shelter decisions?

Hut accommodation can influence packing, but a planned bed is not the same variable as carrying emergency shelter. MSC's community research shows both the equipment respondents recognised and the assumptions behind their choices.

Why did some respondents leave shelter behind?

Some respondents reported not carrying shelter, while others were uncertain about their practice. The reasons panel asked a separate group why they did not take it on overnight or multiday trips. Carriage responses used the full survey base; reasons used a smaller base of people answering that question. Rounded carriage categories do not sum perfectly, and reasons can overlap. None of these responses verifies what was actually in a pack or whether an individual later needed shelter. The findings identify planning beliefs instead of measured incident risk.

Which types of shelter did respondents recognise?

Respondents identified a range of items as emergency shelters. Recognition is distinct from ownership, carriage, or a judgment that every item offers equivalent protection in all conditions. The questionnaire records perceptions, not laboratory performance. Choices can overlap. These perceptions cannot rank product performance. Actual suitability depends on the trip and how an item is used; the percentages do not measure those conditions or demonstrate that respondents could deploy each item effectively.

What information did people want about shelter?

Weight, comparisons and hands-on use were among the information needs reported. These responses identify topics that participants wanted explained, instead of measured deficiencies in their knowledge. The source does not provide a separate respondent denominator for this panel, so the percentages are retained without inferred headcounts. Someone requesting a comparison might already own suitable equipment. Similarly, asking about poor-weather performance does not show that a person has previously been exposed without protection. The research provides a basis for plainer explanations, while the effect of any education would require separate evaluation.

How did outdoor participants approach drinking water?

Water decisions in a survey are reports of behaviour and belief, not tests of water quality. MSC's findings are useful precisely when the treatment question is kept separate from the reasons people sometimes decide not to treat.

Which treatment practices and methods were reported?

Respondents described both treatment habits and the methods they used. The method question had a different response base, and people could report more than one method. The source's wording "do not treat" is retained without strengthening it into an absolute lifetime claim. A reported method does not show how consistently or correctly it was used. These observations describe a self-selected outdoor community, instead of all backpackers or all New Zealand residents, and they cannot establish the safety of water at a particular hut or stream.

What influenced decisions about untreated hut water?

Among respondents who did not always treat hut water, physical cues and advice influenced decisions. Multiple reasons could be selected. These cues are not water-quality measurements. The denominator excludes respondents who always treated hut water, so these percentages cannot represent all hut visitors.

What influenced decisions about natural-source water?

Respondents who did not always treat natural-source water often referred to upstream conditions and the appearance of the source. This is a selected set of reasons from the original panel. The findings record judgments, not confirmation that an upstream catchment was free of contamination. Clear or flowing water is a perception-based cue in this questionnaire, not an outcome from testing. The survey also does not connect these individual answers with subsequent illness. Describing the distinction accurately makes the research useful for understanding behaviour without converting it into medical advice or a claim about any particular route's water supply.

Glossary

Methodology and sources

Every figure on this page comes from the organisation that produced it: regulators, statistics offices, public bodies, research institutes, and companies reporting their own data or surveys. Each one links to the original report or dataset and carries its release date. Survey results keep their population and fieldwork period, and financial figures keep the measure the producer used. Figures from different producers are not added together or ranked against each other. The page is reviewed monthly and updated when a producer releases newer data.