A poll indicates that park visitation would suffer if higher entrance fees are implemented/NPS

While polling shows strong opposition to a proposal to increase entrance fees to 17 national parks, and that more than 60 percent of Americans might skip a park visit if fees increase, a study shows higher entrance fees likely would hurt gateway communities to the parks.

The poll conducted for the Outdoor Alliance for Kids found that 68 percent of adults sampled earlier this month oppose the surge pricing increases Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke wants to implement for 17 national parks, including Acadia, Grand Canyon, and Yellowstone.

Another 64 percent said they "would be less likely to visit a national park" if the fees increased.

“Today’s young people are growing up inside, spending less time in nature than any generation in history, with profound consequences for their health and wellness,” said Jackie Ostfeld, founder and chair of the Outdoors Alliance for Kids. “OAK believes every child and every family should have access and encouragement to get outdoors. This fee hike will reverse years of progress at the National Park Service to make our parks more inclusive and welcoming to kids and families of all backgrounds. If the Administration goes through with its proposal to more than double park entry fees, visiting places like the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone will be off the table for many kids and families.”

Under Secretary Zinke's proposal, peak-season entrance fees would be established at Arches, Bryce Canyon, Canyonlands, Denali, Glacier, Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, Olympic, Sequoia and Kings Canyon (two parks treated as one under this proposal), Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Zion national parks with peak season starting on May 1, 2018; in Acadia, Mount Rainier, Rocky Mountain, and Shenandoah starting on June 1, 2018; and in Joshua Tree National Park as soon as practicable in 2018.

The peak season for each park would include its busiest contiguous five-month period of visitation. The peak season entrance fee for a seven-day pass to each park would be $70 per private, non-commercial vehicle, $50 per motorcycle, and $30 per person on bike or foot. A park-specific annual pass for any of the 17 parks would be available for $75.

Secretary Zinke has proposed the higher fees as a way to tackle the Park Service's estimated $11.3 billion backlog in deferred maintenance across the National Park System. Roughly half of that total is specific to roads in the parks.

“By any measure, these fee increases are significant, and the American people know it,” said Paul Sanford, the Alliance's vice chair. “Two-thirds of poll respondents oppose the increase. Three-quarters of respondents believe the fee increase will make the parks less accessible and will harm businesses in gateway communities. Nearly two-thirds said these increases will make it less likely they will visit the parks, which strongly suggests the projected increase in revenue will not materialize. Even if it does, the backlog won’t be eliminated for 165 years. For these reasons, we urge the Administration to withdraw its proposal to increase fees.”

Meanwhile, a study by the Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research at the University of Montana predicted that the pricing scheme would likely hurt gateway communities such as West Yellowstone, Montana.

“As with most goods or services in our economy, a price increase leads to a decrease in demand,” said Jeremy Sage, the ITRR study’s lead author. “In the case of a national park, this means a reduction in the number of visits.”

In their study, which focused on Yellowstone National Park, Sage and his colleagues found that "for every 10 percent increase in travel costs, including entrance fees and fuel costs, the number of monthly visits to the park declines by 2.7 percent when all other factors are constant."

“The effect of the price change is disproportionately felt by local visitors from Idaho, Montana and Wyoming,” Sage said. “Visitors from these local states currently have an average travel cost of about $106, including fuel and the entrance fee. They would see an increase of nearly 38 percent with the new fees. This obviously has a potential to create a significant hardship for many families in the local area.”

According to the researchers, the gateway communities surrounding Yellowstone would lose a collective $3.4 million to the higher entrance fees as a result of visitors opting not to buy a seven-day pass at the higher rates. "The gateway communities of the remaining 16 parks are expected to experience similar losses as those of Yellowstone, all else being equal," the study said.

The university researchers also noted that many other countries charge international visitors much more that their citizens to visit their national parks.

Countries throughout the world operate their own sets of National Parks. In an examination of the pricing strategies employed by these countries, we found a wide diversity of price structures. Common among many, is differential pricing based on whether the visitor is a citizen or resident of the country as compared to an international visitor. For example, Kilimanjaro National Park in Tanzania charges their citizens the U.S. dollar equivalent of $4.45 per person per day, while their international visitors pay the equivalent of $70 per person per day (Tanzania Parks, 2016). Despite this drastic difference in fees, international visitors to the park made up 93 percent of the visits in 2012-2013. Parks from South Africa to Ecuador frequently enlist differentiated pricing. We examined parks across more than 50 countries where pricing information was readily available, and found that nearly three quarters of parks had varying prices between domestic and international visitors.

Meanwhile, the National Park Hospitality Association, which represents many park concessionaires, is mostly  behind Secretary Zinke's initiative, with some caveats.

"We believe that the current proposal should be modified to minimize any discouragement of overall park use
and enjoyment, especially during those periods when the park units involved do not experience high visitation," the association said in its comments on the pricing proposal. "We also urge that peak period fee increases be coordinated with other fee program modifications, including restrictions on fee-free days during peak season and efficient fee collection 24/7 at the involved parks during high-use periods."

NHPA said wrote that:

* User fees "are an important component of sound fiscal operations of our parks, and (we) generally support fees ranging from entrance fees to camping fees and more which are largely retained for use in funding park operations and maintenance. We further believe that current fees can be increased with public support, and that these increases can be done without denying access to park experiences on economic grounds."

* While the National Park System overall has seen record visitation in recent years, that visitation largely has been concentrated at parks such as Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Glacier, Zion, and Yosemite, while not-so-popular parks have seen visitation remain flat or fall. As a result, "(E)ffectively used, pricing can persuade voluntary shifts of visitation within the national park system to less popular dates and locations."

* The fee hikes should be delayed at parks such as Shenandoah and Rocky Mountain, where "a substantial portion of visitation is short duration use and major fee hikes are most likely to encounter visitor resistance."

Additional opposition to the fee increase was voiced this week by the National Parks Conservation Association and the Sierra Club.

“American families should not be forced to pay for what Congress and the administration have failed to," said Theresa Pierno, NPCA's president and chief executive officer. "The solution to our parks’ repair needs cannot be pricing some visitors out of them, and hurting the local economies that rely on them.

"We implore Secretary Zinke to take into full consideration the comments submitted by Americans across the country, including those from local businesses. If this administration wants to fix our parks’ budget challenges, it must commit to working with Congress to adequately fund parks, including passing the National Park Service Legacy Act," she said, referring to legislation introduced earlier this year by Sens. Mark Warner, D-Virginia, and Rob Portman, R-Ohio, to provide funds to address the Park Service's deferred maintenance backlog.

Sierra Club officials, referring to the Outdoor Alliance for Kids polling, charged that Secretary Zinke is working for special interests, not the American public, in his land-management decisions.

"Two-thirds of Americans say they are less likely to visit our nation’s national parks if Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke doubles entry fees. That’s understandable - from the tax scam to undermining affordable health care, middle- and low-income families are under attack by this administration," said Jackie Ostfeld, associate director of Sierra Club’s Outdoors Campaign. "If Zinke gets his way and raises fees, our national parks will become playgrounds for the wealthy few. At the same time, he is cutting royalty fees and throwing the doors open wide to the fossil fuel industry.

"It’s clear where Zinke’s loyalties lie - with the fossil fuel industry, not with the people who explore and enjoy national parks," she added. "Now is the time to double down on our efforts to protect our lands and ensure that all people have opportunities to explore and enjoy them.”

Public comment on the proposal is scheduled to run out Friday night. You can leave your thoughts at this site.