top of page
Search

Seasonality, Contract Mix, and Yield: A Modern Feasibility Model for RV Parks


Industry Overview and 5-Year Outlook


The U.S. RV park and campground industry has matured into a stable, income-producing real estate sector with steady growth. According to the Loan Analytics database, industry revenue reached $10.9 billion in 2025, reflecting a 2.5% annual increase, and is projected to expand at roughly 1.9% CAGR over the next five years to about $11.9 billion by 2030. This modest growth trajectory – slightly above inflation – comes after an unprecedented pandemic-era camping boom. During 2021–2022, domestic travelers turned to RV parks in record numbers, pushing 2021 occupancy to near 100% at many parks and lifting revenues well above pre-2020 levels. While 2023 saw a slight normalization (occupancies dipped as some travelers returned to flying and hotels), demand remains elevated versus pre-pandemic norms. Early 2024 data confirmed a rebound: major operators like KOA reported surging advance reservations, and 56% of campers struggled to find available sites in 2024 due to full bookings from our partner studio. In short, supply is still catching up to demand, creating a favorable backdrop for park owners.


Table 1 – 5-Year Industry Forecast (2025–2030) below summarizes key projections for the U.S. RV park sector, based on industry data and reasonable assumptions. Total industry revenue is expected to grow slowly but steadily, in line with broader economic trends. Average occupancies should remain robust – hovering in the mid-60% range nationally and rising gradually as shoulder seasons strengthen – given the persistent popularity of road travel and limited new park construction. Rate growth is anticipated to roughly track inflation, with average daily rates (ADR) for transient stays increasing from around $50 in 2025 to the mid-$50s by 2030, and monthly/seasonal site rents (for long-term guests) rising from roughly $400 to the mid-$400s over the same period. These forecasts assume a stable macroeconomic environment; any major swings in fuel prices or consumer income (analyzed later) could shift these figures.

Year

Industry Revenue (US$ billions)

Avg. Occupancy (nationwide)

Avg. Daily Rate (Transient/Overnight)

Avg. Monthly Rate (Long-Term)

2025

$10.9B

65%

$50

$400

2026

$11.1B

66%

$51

$410

2027

$11.3B

66%

$52

$420

2028

$11.5B

67%

$53

$430

2029

$11.7B

68%

$54

$440

2030

$11.9B

69%

$55

$450

Sources: Loan Analytics database (industry revenue); KOA & industry surveys (occupancy); IBISWorld/LA database (rate estimates). Assumes ~2% annual rate inflation and strong demand maintaining high occupancy.


Even at a “mature” growth rate, the investment thesis for RV parks remains compelling: these assets are generating consistent cash flows with occupancy averaging ~60–70% of sites occupied annually and peak-season utilization near full capacity in many markets. The industry’s growth is fueled by enduring lifestyle trends (road trips, outdoor recreation) and favorable demographics, which we explore next. Lenders and investors can take comfort that RV parks are a stable or even recession-resilient asset class – during economic downturns, many Americans “trade down” to driving vacations and camping, keeping RV park revenues comparatively steady. Indeed, an RV vacation can be 25–60% cheaper than a fly-and-hotel trip, directed from our partner studio, so high inflation or tight budgets often lead travelers to campgrounds rather than cancel trips altogether. (Notably, a 2022 RVshare survey found that even with fuel prices surging, only 2% of travelers would cancel vacations due to inflation – most planned to travel as much or more, adjusting their trips to save money in other ways.) Overall, the 5-year outlook is stable: modest revenue growth, high occupancy supported by demand outpacing new supply, and gradually rising rates – a solid foundation for underwriting long-term RV park loans.


Seasonality and Geographic Considerations in Demand


One of the most critical factors in RV park feasibility is seasonality: usage swings dramatically between peak and off-peak periods, especially in temperate climates. RV parks in northern and mountain states or the upper Midwest/Appalachia typically operate on a 6–8 month season (spring through fall), often closing or running minimal services in winter due to weather. These parks might reach near 100% occupancy in July–August and on holiday weekends, yet drop to near-zero occupancy in frigid winter months. In contrast, Sunbelt parks (e.g. Florida, South Texas, Southern California) enjoy year-round or extended-season operation, with high occupancies in winter (attracting snowbirds escaping the cold) and only slight “off-season” dips during hot summer months. The geography of demand is thus highly seasonal: Midwest and Appalachian campgrounds see intense summer peaks and dormant winters, whereas parks in mild climates can spread revenue more evenly across the year.


To illustrate, consider two hypothetical parks of similar size and quality:

  • Rural Midwest Campground (Seasonal) – Open May through October (6 months). This park might fill ~95% of its sites on average during those summer months (peak weeks fully booked), but be closed or empty the rest of the year. When annualized, that equates to roughly ~50% occupancy on a full-year basis. The operator must earn the bulk of annual income in half the year, banking enough cash from the busy season to cover fixed expenses through the off-season. Many northern parks do exactly this, relying on careful cash management: “successful operators stash profits from peak summer to sustain the winter” when little revenue comes in. Highly seasonal locales often face profitability challenges for this reason – they must either charge premium rates in season or add off-season income streams to avoid barely breaking even.

  • Southeast Resort RV Park (Year-Round) – Open all 12 months in a mild climate. This park might average ~60% occupancy over the full year, with smaller seasonal swings (perhaps 80–90% in peak winter and spring, dipping to 40–50% in the slower summer). With continuous operation, revenue is earned year-round. Parks in Florida and similar markets often see strong occupancy for 8–10 months a year thanks to retirees in winter and vacationers year-round. These properties can achieve superior operating margins because they utilize their assets continuously and don’t have long periods of zero income.


Regional differences in performance are therefore significant. Parks in the Midwest and Appalachia – regions rich in natural beauty and rural getaways – attract heavy summer demand from nearby urban populations, but investors must account for the shorter operating season and weather volatility. For example, a park in the Smoky Mountains or Upper Michigan might only generate revenue for part of the year and could see profits wiped out by one rainy summer or an early cold snap. On the flip side, these rural markets often offer lower acquisition costs and higher cap rates, potentially compensating for the seasonal earnings pattern. (Land is cheaper in Appalachia than in coastal Florida, and buyers accordingly expect higher going-in yield to invest there.)


Table 2 – Regional Yield and Performance: Midwest/Appalachia vs. U.S. Average highlights some typical differences. Midwest/Appalachian parks tend to trade at higher cap rates (initial yields) to reflect their seasonality and perceived risk, yet their peak-season occupancies rival any region. Nationwide averages are pulled down by the inclusion of many year-round, lower-yield resorts in high-cost markets.

Metric

Midwest & Appalachia (Rural Markets)

U.S. Average (All Parks)

Cap Rate (Initial Yield)

~9% – 11% (higher yield; tertiary markets)

~7% – 8% (established markets)

Average Annual Occupancy

~50% of capacity (seasonal operation)

~65% of capacity

Peak Season Occupancy

~95% – 100% (fully booked summers)

~90%+ (near full in peak periods)

Average Daily Rate (ADR)

$30 – $40 per night (affordable rural pricing)

~$50 per night (national avg)

Annual Revenue per Site

~$8,000 per site/year (short season)

~$12,000 per site/year (longer season)

Sources: Loan Analytics database; Innowave Studio analysis; industry surveys. Cap rates from industry reports (higher in Midwest/Appalachia); occupancy and ADR based on national averages and typical seasonal patterns.


Notably, even though a Midwestern park may only be open half the year, it must operate at near full capacity when open to approach the annual revenue of a year-round park. Many do – families flock to camp in the Great Lakes and Appalachian regions each summer. These parks often employ strategies like seasonal site leases (renting sites to the same RVers for the entire season) or off-season storage fees to bolster income. In Appalachia and the Midwest, investors also look to keep costs variable: for instance, hiring seasonal staff instead of year-round, and winterizing facilities to reduce off-season utility expenses.


For lenders, understanding these seasonal swings is crucial. Debt service coverage (DSCR) must be analyzed on an annualized basis and for peak vs. off-peak periods. A park that easily covers debt at peak could slip below 1.0x DSCR during the off-season if not properly reserved for. Many banks mitigate this by underwriting higher DSCR thresholds (often 1.25× or greater) and requiring borrowers to escrow or reserve funds from the high season to cover winter debt payments. In practice, prudent RV park operators treat their busy-season cash flows not as pure profit, but as funds to be rationed across the full year – a critical consideration in feasibility modeling.


Contract Mix: Overnight vs. Long-Term Stays


Another key component of RV park revenue strategy is the contract mix of short-term (“overnight”) vs. long-term (“seasonal” or monthly) stays. Most parks serve a blend of transient travelers (nightly or weekly guests) and longer-term occupants (monthly renters, seasonal site lessees, or even annual residents in some cases). The optimal mix can significantly influence both revenue and cash flow stability.


Overnight transient guests pay higher rates on a per-night basis – often ranging from ~$30 at basic campgrounds up to $60–$100+ at upscale resorts. This segment maximizes revenue per available site when occupancy is high, especially during holidays and vacation season. However, short-term demand is variable day-to-day and drops off mid-week and off-season. Serving transients also comes with higher operating costs (marketing, reservation management, frequent check-in/out, more wear-and-tear on facilities, etc.). Still, transients are the only way to achieve full pricing power; a busy transient RV site might generate $10,000–$15,000 in annual revenue under normal conditions (e.g. ~$50/night × 365 days × ~65% occupancy). In peak tourist areas, a transient RV site can earn even more.


Long-term or seasonal campers provide consistency. These guests might pay a flat monthly or seasonal rate (often ~$300–$500 per month for many campgrounds, or a few thousand dollars for a May–Oct season in a northern park). In exchange, they effectively “claim” a site for an extended period. The revenue per site from long-term rentals is lower on an annualized basis – for example, $400/month is $4,800/year, significantly less than a transient site’s potential if fully utilized. But the trade-off is stability: a park with a base of seasonal renters will have a predictable income floor and typically lower admin costs. Seasonal guests often occupy sites continuously (improving occupancy in shoulder months), and they may handle their own utility bills or lawn care in some cases (reducing operating expense). Many park owners aim to strike a balance – keeping a portion of sites for long-term renters to cover fixed costs, and the remainder for transients to capture upside during tourism surges.


Table 3 – Projected Revenue and NOI Under Different Contract Mix Scenarios illustrates how the short-term vs. long-term mix can impact a park’s financial performance. All scenarios assume a 100-site park as a baseline, with identical pricing (approximately $50 nightly transient rate and $400 monthly long-term rate, per industry averages) and similar cost structures. The only difference is what percentage of sites are devoted to each contract type. This analysis shows how a heavier transient mix can boost total revenue – but also note the effect on Net Operating Income (NOI) and margin.

Contract Mix Scenario (100 sites)

Mostly Long-Term (70% seasonal, 30% overnight)

Balanced Mix (50/50 split)

Mostly Transient (30% seasonal, 70% overnight)

Transient Site Nights Sold (assumed)

30 sites × ~182 nights (@50% of year) = 5,460 nights

50 sites × ~182 nights = 9,100 nights

70 sites × ~182 nights = 12,740 nights

Long-Term Occupied Months (assumed)

70 sites × 12 mo = 840 site-months (annual leases)

50 sites × 12 mo = 600 site-months

30 sites × 12 mo = 360 site-months

Annual Revenue (approx)

~$610,000 (lower revenue, high stability)

~$696,000

~$783,000 (highest revenue potential)

Net Operating Income (NOI)

~$244,000 (assuming ~40% NOI margin)

~$261,000 (37.5% margin)

~$274,000 (35% NOI margin)

NOI Margin

~40% (lean off-season ops, fewer turnovers)

~37.5%

~35% (higher labor & marketing costs)

Assumptions: Transient ADR ~$50, average 50% occupancy year-round per transient site; Long-term rate ~$400/month. Expense ratios estimated at ~60% of revenue in seasonal-heavy scenario vs ~65% in transient-heavy scenario (transient operations incur higher variable costs). Figures for illustrative purposes.


As shown, a transient-heavy park (70% transient sites) can theoretically generate nearly 30% more gross revenue than a mostly seasonal park of the same size – if it can keep those sites filled at a decent occupancy. In our example the transient-focused park makes ~$783K vs. ~$610K annual revenue. However, because it costs more to service short-term guests, the NOI margin is lower, so the NOI advantage is narrower (about $30K more NOI in this scenario). If transient occupancy were to falter (e.g. bad weather or a demand dip), the revenue gap would shrink or reverse, whereas the park with steady seasonal renters has a safety net. In practice, many successful RV parks maintain a mixed strategy: e.g. “70/30” split – roughly 70% long-term or annual leases to cover the base operating costs, and 30% transient sites to capture high-yield income during peak periods. This mix often maximizes both debt service stability and upside potential.


From a lender’s perspective, contract mix affects risk profile. A park catering predominantly to overnight tourists will see more revenue volatility month-to-month and needs strong marketing and management to maintain occupancy. These parks might underwrite with more conservative DSCR buffers or require higher cash reserves. Conversely, a park with mostly annual/seasonal tenants functions almost like a manufactured housing community or long-term rental – more stable cash flow but typically lower profit margins (since those tenants expect discounted rates). Lenders may favor a proven base of long-term occupancy (it’s easier to underwrite leases or seasonal contracts), but they also recognize the revenue potential of transient sites in boosting yield. Ultimately, an investor-grade feasibility model will usually test multiple contract mix scenarios to understand how revenue and NOI respond if more sites are shifted to transient or long-term use. For underwriting, sensitivity to contract mix is often examined by looking at breakeven occupancy: e.g. “What minimum transient occupancy rate is needed for the park to break even if 50% of sites are seasonal vs. if only 20% are seasonal?” This kind of analysis ensures the park’s debt can be serviced even in off-peak times or under suboptimal mixes.


Financial Modeling for Investors: IRR, DSCR, and Payback Period


When structuring or underwriting RV park investments, it is crucial to employ investor-grade financial metrics to capture both ongoing yield and long-term returns. Key metrics include Internal Rate of Return (IRR) on equity, Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) for lenders, payback period, and various yield measures. Below, we discuss how these apply to RV parks, with an emphasis on what lenders and private equity investors should consider.

  • Cap Rates and Yield on Cost: As mentioned earlier, cap rates for RV parks typically range ~7% to 10% (unlevered yield) depending on location and asset quality. This is higher than many traditional real estate assets (apartments, self-storage, etc.), reflecting the hands-on management and perceived risk. For investors, a higher cap rate means a shorter payback period on an unlevered basis – essentially the inverse of cap rate. For example, at an 8% cap a property’s income would theoretically repay its price in ~12.5 years, whereas at a 10% cap the payback is 10 years. Many RV park acquisitions in secondary markets are done at 8–12% going-in cap rates, allowing savvy operators to recoup equity quickly through cash flow. Well-run parks can deliver double-digit annual cash yields, making the sector a “hidden gem” for yield-focused investors.

  • Internal Rate of Return (IRR): IRR captures the total return on equity over a hold period, including cash flow and exit proceeds. Value-add investors targeting RV parks often seek mid-teen IRRs (15%+) on a 5-year hold. This is achievable when combining an 8-10% cash yield (from operations) with some growth and an exit at similar or better cap rate. For instance, an investor might buy a park at a 9% cap, implement improvements (add amenities, raise rates, expand sites) and then sell in year 5 at an 8% cap on the higher NOI – this compressing of cap rate plus NOI growth can push IRRs into the high teens or above. On stabilized core acquisitions (e.g. a top-tier Sunbelt RV resort), target IRRs might be lower (high single digits to low teens) commensurate with lower risk. Importantly, IRR for RV parks is sensitive to seasonality and ramp-up; a new park may take 2–3 peak seasons to stabilize occupancy, which needs to be modeled. Our analysis (next section) of operating season length demonstrates how IRR can drop if a park can only operate part of the year – requiring higher peak performance to compensate.

  • Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR): Lenders typically require strong DSCR on campground assets given their cash flow variability. Common minimums are 1.25× to 1.35× DSCR (annual NOI / annual debt service) for bank loans, and at least 1.15× even for SBA loans. In practice, prudent underwriting for an RV park might use a forward-looking DSCR of ~1.4× to ensure a cushion in off-season months. Because RV parks have seasonal cash flows, lenders also look at intra-year DSCR or require interest reserves. For example, a northern park might generate the bulk of its NOI in 7 months; the lender may require escrow of some summer cash to cover winter loan payments when DSCR would temporarily fall below 1.0. Stressed DSCR scenarios are also modeled: e.g. what if fuel prices spike or a recession hits and NOI falls 10% – does DSCR stay above 1.0×? If not, the loan terms or leverage might be adjusted. For investors, maintaining a healthy DSCR is crucial not just for loan compliance but as a buffer – at 1.3× DSCR, the property could suffer a 23% NOI drop before debt payments are at risk, whereas at 1.1× there is virtually no safety net. Given rising interest rates in recent years, many RV park deals in 2024–2025 have seen interest coverage pressure, and some owners who bought at low rates are now facing refi challenges as rates doubled (more on market volatility later).

  • Payback Period and Cash-on-Cash: Investors often examine how quickly they can recover their initial capital. Cash-on-cash returns (annual cash flow divided by equity) for RV parks can be quite attractive – often 10%+ even in the first year for a well-bought property. That implies a payback period of under 10 years on cash flow alone in many cases. For example, a $2M equity investment yielding $250K in annual cash flow is a 12.5% cash-on-cash return, paying back the $2M in 8 years if distributions are saved. Few other real estate classes offer this level of income yield. The capital efficiency of RV parks is partly why private investors and even institutional funds have increased interest in the sector. Of course, some parks have lower initial yields (if acquired for redevelopment or heavy value-add, initial cash flow might be modest), but then investors look to value creation to shorten the payback. An example strategy: acquire a mom-and-pop campground at a 10% cap, invest in improvements (new RV pads, clubhouse, glamping tents) that grow NOI by 50% in three years, then refinance or sell – this can return a large chunk of equity early. We note that Equity Lifestyle Properties (ELS) – one of the industry’s top operators – achieved an industry-specific profit margin of ~32% in 2025, far above the ~11% net profit margin of the average park. This demonstrates how efficient operations and economies of scale (and a lean cost structure with many long-term leases) can accelerate payback and boost cash returns. While mom-and-pop parks won’t reach ELS’s scale, aiming for operational efficiencies and steady rate increases can meaningfully improve an investor’s cash-on-cash over a hold period.


Table 4 – Operating Season Impact on IRR and Breakeven Occupancy provides an example of how season length can affect required performance. We compare a hypothetical park open year-round versus one open only half the year, keeping other factors equal. To achieve the same investor IRR, the seasonal park must attain much higher peak occupancy and/or rates. Additionally, we show the breakeven occupancy (the occupancy level at which NOI just covers fixed costs and debt) under each scenario.

Scenario

Operating Months per Year

Occupancy Needed for 15% IRR

Breakeven Occupancy (Annualized)

Year-Round Park (e.g. Carolinas)

12 months (full year)

~60% average annual occupancy (e.g. 80% in peak, 40% in off-peak)

~40% annual occupancy to cover costs

Seasonal Park (e.g. Midwest)

6 months (half year)

~95% average during operating months (nearly full every peak night) – equivalent to ~50% annualized

~80% occupancy during season (≈40% annual) to break even on yearly expenses

Illustrative example: Both scenarios assume similar size and cost structure. The seasonal park must compress its earnings into half the time, so it needs to run near capacity in-season to match the IRR. Breakeven occupancy (to cover all expenses and debt) might be ~40% on an annual basis; a year-round park can achieve that with 40% year-round occupancy, whereas a 6-month park needs ~80% in each open month (40% of year) to hit the same effective occupancy. In practice, highly seasonal parks often struggle to reach high enough occupancy to comfortably cover year-round costs, which is why many either: (a) reduce off-season costs to a minimum, (b) diversify into off-season revenue streams (e.g. winter RV storage, events), or (c) expect a lower IRR as the trade-off for a shorter season. Lenders account for this by requiring robust peak-season performance in pro formas before financing a purely seasonal property.


Demand Drivers and Emerging Trends


Beyond the raw numbers, investors should consider qualitative trends driving the RV park sector. The camping and RVing landscape in 2025 is being reshaped by demographic shifts, new technology platforms, and evolving consumer preferences. Two trends deserve special attention: the rise of younger campers (Millennials and Gen Z) and the impact of peer-to-peer rentals and the “Airbnb of RVs”.


Generational Shifts in Camping: The stereotypical RV camper of decades past was a retiree; today’s reality is far more diverse. Over 65% of RV owners are now under age 55. Millennials and Gen Z are the fastest-growing segments: according to industry research, Gen X campers still account for ~31% of RV park revenue and Baby Boomers ~21%, but Millennials are now 26% and Gen Z already 22% (up from almost nothing a decade ago). KOA’s 2025 Camping Report similarly notes that 28% of all campers are under 30 years old, and camping participation among diverse urban populations is rising. The pandemic accelerated this youth movement – in 2022, one-third of first-time campers were Millennials. Moreover, the median age of a first-time RV buyer dropped to 33 in 2021 from 41 in 2020, an astounding shift in just one year, as younger adults embraced RVing in the work-from-home era. This generational infusion is bullish for long-term demand: younger campers mean a larger addressable market for decades to come. They also tend to take more frequent short trips (“weekend warriors”) and are comfortable camping outside of traditional summer vacation periods – which smooths seasonality. Many working-age campers now take “workcations”, attending Zoom meetings from the campground on weekdays. In fact, more than one-third of campers work while on trips, and nearly half insist on Wi-Fi availability when selecting a campsite. The upshot: parks that offer reliable internet and work-friendly amenities can attract guests year-round, including in shoulder seasons, as remote workers extend their stays. Investors underwriting an RV park should thus consider the property’s appeal to younger, tech-enabled travelers – e.g. is there strong cell/Wi-Fi coverage? co-working spaces or quiet areas? – because these factors can drive occupancy beyond just summer vacationers.


Peer-to-Peer Rentals and “RV-Airbnb” Impact: A notable development in recent years is the growth of peer-to-peer RV rental platforms like Outdoorsy, RVshare, and Hipcamp. These services lower the entry barrier for new campers: one no longer needs to own an RV or expensive gear – you can rent an RV from a private owner or even rent a prepared campsite on someone’s land. This has expanded the customer base for campgrounds. The Loan Analytics database notes that peer-to-peer rental sites have “encouraged [young] age groups to begin camping or traveling via RV since rentals are more accessible than purchasing an RV outright”. In essence, Airbnb-style platforms for RVs have unlocked latent demand: many curious would-be campers can now try the lifestyle without a big commitment. For RV park investors, this is a positive trend – it fills sites with first-timers and keeps occupancy high, especially in peak season. During the pandemic, when RV sales surged, these platforms also enabled new RV owners to offset costs by renting out their rig when not in use. Looking ahead, the continued popularity of RV rentals means campgrounds will see a more fluid flow of guests – including younger families and urbanites who might rent an RV for a weekend trip to the country. On the accommodation side, platforms like Hipcamp have enabled private landowners to offer “glampsites” or tent camping on their properties, adding quasi-competitive supply to the market. However, most of these are small scale and often in remote areas; they likely serve as a complement rather than major competition to established RV parks. The competition that campgrounds do face is more from traditional lodging – hotels, resorts, and vacation rentals – especially as younger travelers weigh all options. But here, too, the industry is responding with upgraded offerings.


Upscaling Amenities and Diversification: Modern campers (especially those with higher incomes or families in tow) increasingly seek amenities and experiences on par with more expensive vacations. The industry has responded by upscaling many campgrounds into “outdoor resorts.” Operators big and small are adding amenities like swimming pools, splash pads, pickleball courts, mini-golf, dog parks, modern bathhouses, high-speed Wi-Fi, food trucks or cafés, and even lazy rivers. Glamping accommodations – from furnished safari tents and yurts to tiny homes and cabins – have proliferated, allowing parks to charge premium nightly rates and attract non-RVing guests. The Loan Analytics database notes that “yurts and cabins have become standard lodging options at campsites” and amenities like spas and wireless internet are now in higher demand to provide an upscale experience rivaling hotels. This amenity arms race is not just for show: it directly boosts revenue and yield per site. A deluxe cabin might rent for 2–3× the price of an RV site, and additional on-site services (camp stores, equipment rentals, guided tours, etc.) create ancillary income streams. For investors, adding such amenities can be a high-ROI use of capital – it’s often cheaper to build a pool or a few cabins than to acquire an equivalent amount of new land/sites, and the payoff is seen in higher ADR and longer stays. Of course, these upgrades also cater to the wealthier clientele emerging in the camper mix. As disposable incomes rise in the coming years, some travelers will opt for more luxurious vacations, so to keep capturing those customers, RV parks are “getting cozier” and more glamorous. The industry expects continued interest in glamping will support demand, and even RV manufacturers are aligning to this trend by producing more stylish, amenity-rich rigs (as well as electric RVs, etc. – sustainability is another trend on the horizon). All these factors should be considered in a forward-looking feasibility model: a park positioned to tap into the glamping/high-end market may warrant more aggressive revenue growth assumptions, whereas a no-frills rural campground might face stagnant rates unless it differentiates.


Market Volatility and Risk Factors


No feasibility analysis is complete without examining market volatility and risks. The RV park sector, while resilient, is not immune to broader economic cycles and transient shocks. Two key external factors that investors and lenders should stress-test are fuel prices and consumer discretionary income, given their direct impact on RV travel. Additionally, recent market history underscores the influence of interest rate swings, transaction liquidity, and new supply on park valuations.


Fuel Prices Sensitivity: RVs are by nature fuel-intensive – a large motorhome often gets <10 MPG and can have a 100+ gallon tank. Intuitively, high gasoline prices could dampen RV trip demand, especially long cross-country trips. Indeed, in mid-2022 when gas hit ~$5/gallon, some fear was that RV parks would see a drop in visitors. However, the data suggests the impact is moderate. Falling fuel prices are certainly a tailwind (the Loan Analytics database projects that global oil prices will ease over the next five years, making RV trips “less daunting” and encouraging more/longer road trips). But conversely, if fuel were to spike again, many RV travelers adjust rather than cancel – they might choose destinations closer to home or cut spending elsewhere. A study by RVshare found that even a significant rise in gas only adds about $35 to a typical RV trip cost, which for most families is not a trip-breaking amount. Additionally, vacation behavior may shift: when fuel is expensive, people may still use their RVs but stay longer in one place (to reduce driving), benefiting campground occupancy. The sensitivity table below presents a simplified scenario analysis of gas prices vs. discretionary income to illustrate potential effects on RV park demand:


Table 5 – Sensitivity of Demand to Gas Prices and Income

Scenario

Gasoline Price

Disposable Income Trend

Expected Impact on RV Travel Demand

Implications for RV Parks

High Gas, Low Income (Worst-case)

$4.00/gal (spike)

Stagnant income (0% growth)

Moderate decline in RV trips (-5% to -10% demand) as some travelers stay home or choose closer destinations

Occupancies dip 3–5%; rate discounting may be needed to attract budget campers. Lower NOI, DSCR stress in near term.

High Gas, High Income (Mixed)

$4.00/gal

+3% income growth (strong)

Slight drop in trips (-1% to -3%) as fuel costs are offset by higher incomes; wealthier campers continue traveling

Minimal occupancy impact; higher-income campers may absorb fuel costs but demand more amenities (parks could see higher ancillary revenue despite fewer miles driven).

Low Gas, Low Income (Mixed)

$2.50/gal (cheap)

0% income growth

Slight increase in trips (+2% to +5%) as lower fuel cost enables budget-conscious travel, though limited by flat incomes

Occupancy up modestly in shoulder seasons (fuel savings encourage extra weekend trips). However, campers may economize on-site (lower F&B or upgrade spend).

Low Gas, High Income (Best-case)

$2.50/gal

+3% income growth

Notable increase in trips (+5% to +10% demand). More road trips AND other vacations (travel overall increases), but camping remains attractive value

Occupancy and rates grow; parks can push ADR given strong demand. Higher-income travelers may opt for premium sites and glamping (boosting RevPAR). Expect NOI growth and faster payback.

Sources: Loan Analytics database outlook on fuel/income; RVBusiness reports; RVshare survey. Scenarios are illustrative.


In essence, fuel price volatility alone has a nuanced effect – extreme spikes can hurt occupancy slightly (especially for distant destination parks reliant on long-haul travelers), while fuel price relief stimulates extra trips. But fuel doesn’t act in isolation; it’s the combination with consumer income that matters. The worst case is a squeeze on both fronts (high gas + recession), which could force some RV owners to curtail travel, and might even lead to a pickup in RV unit sales (as seen in past recessions) – fewer RVs on the road translates to fewer campground nights. The best case is the current forecast: fuel costs easing and incomes rising, which provides a net tailwind. Investors would be wise to run downside cases like a 10% revenue dip scenario to ensure debt can still be serviced. Encouragingly, the industry’s track record in downturns is relatively strong; during the 2008 recession, many campgrounds saw only mild declines as people chose camping over costlier trips. And during COVID (an unforeseen shock), RV parks fared far better than hotels, bouncing back quickly by offering socially-distanced travel.


Interest Rates and Market Liquidity: A more immediate volatility factor has been the rapid rise in interest rates (2022–2023), which cooled the heated RV park transaction market. Brokers report that in 2024, sales of RV parks were down as much as 80% in volume compared to the prior year, as bid-ask spreads widened and financing costs jumped. Many buyers went to the sidelines waiting for clarity on rates, and some owners who overpaid during the pandemic boom found their returns underperforming and have had to slash asking prices. Occupancies in 2023–24 also softened 3–5% from the 2021 highs, partly due to a normalization of travel patterns and new supply in certain markets. The combination of higher cap rates (as borrowing costs rose) and slightly lower NOI meant asset values came under pressure in 2024. However, as we enter 2025, there is cautious optimism among brokers and investors. The U.S. election uncertainty has passed, and interest rates have shown signs of stabilizing or even dipping from their peaks. Pent-up buyers (including private equity funds) are re-engaging, and owners who held off listing properties may now come to market, potentially narrowing the bid-ask gap. Still, underwriting remains conservative – investors are using higher cap rate assumptions and slower growth in pro formas, and lenders are sticking to strict DSCR requirements. One broker described the current market as “2008 slow” in terms of transaction pace, noting many quality parks have sat unsold for months due to overpricing and 9%+ commercial loan rates making deals tough to pencil. This environment actually favors well-capitalized buyers: they can potentially acquire assets at a discount from motivated sellers (some of whom face loan maturities they can’t refinance). For a feasibility model, it means building in a higher exit cap rate (to be safe) and ensuring the project works with today’s debt terms. It also means focusing on operational improvements to drive NOI rather than relying on cap rate compression. Market volatility is a reminder that an RV park investment should have a value-add or resiliency plan – be it cost control, adding amenities, or marketing to new demographics – so that even if macro conditions change, the asset’s value can be preserved or enhanced.


Competitive Landscape: Lastly, investors should benchmark any RV park opportunity against the broader competitive landscape. The industry remains highly fragmented – the top four companies account for only ~11% of market revenue – but consolidation is gradually increasing. Equity Lifestyle Properties (ELS), Sun Communities (SUI), and Target Hospitality Corp are three leading players, each with different strategies, that offer insights for underwriting assumptions:

  • Equity Lifestyle Properties (ELS): A publicly traded REIT, ELS is a powerhouse in RV parks and manufactured home communities. In 2025, ELS’s RV/campground segment revenue was ~$458 million (≈4.2% market share). Impressively, ELS achieved about $144.8M in profit on that revenue (31.6% margin), far above industry average margins. ELS’s scale (over 200 RV resorts) allows for operational efficiency, and they focus on premium properties (many of their parks are Encore or Thousand Trails brands, featuring resorts with extensive amenities and membership models). Their success suggests that well-run parks can have EBITDA margins in the 40%+ range (since IBIS “profit” likely is net of depreciation, the EBITDA is higher) – a benchmark for top-tier operations. ELS also invests in sustainability and expansions; for instance, they’ve added solar and discussed eco-initiatives in recent years. For investors, ELS serves as a best-in-class comparator – if your pro forma assumes a 50% expense ratio (50% margin), know that even ELS achieves ~68% expense ratio in this segment, so be realistic unless you truly have resort-level revenue.

  • Sun Communities (SUI): Another large REIT, Sun had about $233.8M in campground/RV revenue in 2025 (2.2% share). Sun is known for aggressive growth – they’ve acquired numerous RV parks and even ventured overseas (recently acquiring Park Holidays UK). Sun’s properties often mix manufactured home sites and RV sites. They have been investing in “destination” RV resorts that cater to snowbirds and vacationers, aligning with the glamping trend. Sun’s market share is a bit lower in this specific NAICS category because a lot of their revenue is from MH communities. Still, Sun reported healthy same-property NOI growth in their RV segment pre-2023. In feasibility studies, one might use Sun’s parks as comparables for occupancy and rate in high-demand markets – many Sun-owned resorts in Florida, Arizona, etc., run occupancies in the 80-90% range in peak season and command nightly rates well above national averages (e.g. $70-$100/night for premium sites). Sun and ELS both demonstrate the revenue upside of amenity-rich, professionally managed parks. It’s worth noting their capital expenditure is also high; keeping resorts competitive means constant upgrades. For underwriting, assume ongoing CapEx reserves (often 2–4% of revenue annually) to reinvest in infrastructure – a lesson from the REITs.

  • Target Hospitality and Others: Target Hospitality (3.7% share, ~$403M revenue) and Civeo Corp (1.0% share) are unique players – they operate workforce housing “man camp” sites supporting oil, gas, and construction industries, which fall under this NAICS. These companies have a different demand driver (corporate contracts rather than leisure travelers). Their inclusion shows how diverse the industry is. For a typical RV park investor, Target’s model isn’t directly comparable, but it’s a reminder that long-term contracts can secure high occupancy. Target’s facilities often achieve near 100% occupancy with multi-year contracts from energy firms, effectively behaving like open-air hotels for workers. This gives them relatively stable cash flows (somewhat insulated from tourism cycles, but exposed to energy sector cycles). An investor could pursue a similar strategy on a smaller scale by, say, securing a seasonal contract with a local construction project or becoming an approved FEMA or emergency lodging site – niche strategies that ensure a baseline occupancy.


Overall, competition in the RV park space is still primarily local. When underwriting, analyze the nearby comp set: Are there KOA or Yogi Bear (Jellystone) franchise parks in the area? State or national park campgrounds (often cheaper, with limited hookups) that might draw budget campers away? What about emerging “glamping” operators or regional chains? While major players like ELS and Sun command attention, they tend to operate in clusters where they already have presence. For instance, if your park is in a rural Midwest area, the relevant competitors might be small mom-and-pop campgrounds within a 30-mile radius – some might be under-maintained (opportunity for you to capture market share), but a few could be hidden gems with loyal seasonal guests. The feasibility study should identify any competitive advantages your park can leverage (location by a lake or highway, lack of nearby modern facilities, etc.) as well as threats (a new campground opening, or a state park upgrading its campground). We’re also seeing increased interest in consolidation and roll-ups – private equity groups forming portfolios of RV parks to achieve scale. This could eventually tighten competition (with more professional management across formerly mom-and-pop competitors). However, consolidation also provides an exit strategy for new acquisitions: several PE-backed firms are actively buying parks to add to their platforms, which could support valuation on exit if you improve a park and then sell into a larger operator’s portfolio.


Conclusion


In summary, seasonality, contract mix, and yield modeling are the cornerstone considerations for any investor or lender evaluating an RV park transaction in today’s market. The U.S. RV park industry offers a compelling blend of stable fundamentals – steady demand growth, high occupancy, and diversified revenue streams – with attractive financial returns including high yields and relatively quick paybacks. However, realizing those returns requires navigating the unique challenges of the sector: managing seasonal cash flow swings, balancing transient vs. long-term clientele to optimize revenue without excessive volatility, and structuring debt conservatively against potential risks like fuel price shocks or economic downturns.


Our modern feasibility model for RV parks should integrate detailed seasonality curves, showing monthly occupancy and cash flows, so that investors understand when the cash is made and when the bills come due. It should allow toggling of contract mix assumptions, since a park’s value can shift if, say, more sites are converted to seasonal leases (trading some upside for stability) or vice versa. It must account for yield profiles – not just the entry cap rate, but the realistic trajectory of NOI, given planned capital improvements, market rate growth, and expense inflation. The model should also incorporate regional scenarios: for parks in the Midwest and Appalachia, assume a shorter season and higher cap rate, whereas for Sunbelt or coastal resorts, maybe assume year-round operation but also higher competition.


Financially, investors should underwrite with rigor: require solid DSCR in base and stress cases; target an IRR that compensates for the hands-on nature of the asset; and plan multiple exit strategies (sale to a REIT or roll-up, refinance, or even repurpose of land if trends shift). As we’ve seen, the top players have thrived by staying ahead of consumer trends – embracing younger campers, offering better amenities, and even integrating technology (online booking, mobile check-ins, etc.). A lender or PE investor will look for sponsors who have a clear plan to drive NOI through these means, not just rely on rising tides.


Finally, while market conditions can ebb and flow – interest rates, fuel costs, and travel preferences will all fluctuate – the core appeal of RV parks endures. America’s love affair with the open road and the great outdoors is as strong as ever, now joined by a new generation discovering this lifestyle. With conservative assumptions and creative management, RV park investments can deliver both immediate income and long-term growth. The feasibility model presented here, backed by industry data and trends analysis, aims to ensure that seasonality, contract mix, and yield dynamics are fully understood and factored into any deal structure – empowering lenders and investors to underwrite RV park opportunities with confidence and clarity.


Sources: 

  • Loan Analytics database (adapted from 2025 Campgrounds & RV Parks Industry Report); CoStar News (Candace Carlisle, Sept 2023);

  • Kampgrounds of America (KOA) 2025 Camping Report;

  • RVIndustry Association via CoStar;

  • RVBusiness (Jeff Crider, Dec 18, 2024);

  • Innowave Studio analysis (Oct 2024);

  • RVshare (2022 Inflation Impact Report);

  • Company 10-Ks (ELS, Sun Communities).

 
 
 
bottom of page