Pondering a visitation decline
I'll admit, I'm surprised: visitation in national parks is going down.
I'm less surprised about the decline in backpacking numbers, because I've heard environmental advocates express such worries before. (Though to be honest, I don't see any fewer people in the backcountry now than I did several years ago. Just goes to show anecdotal evidence can't be trusted. Which may well invalidate the rest of this post...)
Part of the reason I'm surprised is that the fastest-growing areas of Montana and Wyoming (to take the states I know the best) are adjacent to the national parks. If people are moving to Bozeman, Kalispell, Jackson, etc., and not going to the national parks, what are they doing there?
To me the biggest puzzle in this study is the disparity in the drop between Yellowstone and Grand Teton: Yellowstone is down 10.3 percent over the last 15 years, the Tetons down just 4.1 percent. Yet the two parks are right next door to each other and accessed by a common entry fee. Furthermore, the study's baseline year was 1990 -- just two years after the Yellowstone fires, which were predicted to lessen visitation in Yellowstone but did not have as great an effect on the Tetons.
I don't know how this would skew the results, but I do suspect some errors in the baseline data. In 1990, over half the time I went into Yellowstone there was nobody at the gate to count me. Entrance fees went straight to the national budget, so the park had little incentive to waste labor on collecting them, especially during off hours. (Living nearby, I was more likely to arrive during off hours. And having a season pass, I wasn't going to be contributing to revenues anyway.) In the mid-90s the Park Service policy changed and the parks got to keep a higher percentage of their entrance fees, which gave them incentives to staff the entrance stations.
Here's another factor to ponder: as you look at the decline in car-camping in national parks, what's the change in the relative cost between camping and staying in a motel? When I was a kid, the family camping across the country in time-honored style, a motel was a rare luxury because it cost ten times the average tent site. These days I'm often appalled at the price I'm paying for a picnic table and flat spot for my tent. (I do think it's worthwhile. My wife loves smores, which you can't make in a motel microwave. But I wonder if others agree.)
It's tough, though, to quibble with the study's overall conclusions: trips are gettin g shorter and more comfort-laden. A sign, I'm sure, of our society's increasing wealth. Do you suppose that wealth could also translate to a greater respect for nature -- even the nature we don't use?
I'm always interested in feedback, via info at johnclaytonbooks...
I'm less surprised about the decline in backpacking numbers, because I've heard environmental advocates express such worries before. (Though to be honest, I don't see any fewer people in the backcountry now than I did several years ago. Just goes to show anecdotal evidence can't be trusted. Which may well invalidate the rest of this post...)
Part of the reason I'm surprised is that the fastest-growing areas of Montana and Wyoming (to take the states I know the best) are adjacent to the national parks. If people are moving to Bozeman, Kalispell, Jackson, etc., and not going to the national parks, what are they doing there?
To me the biggest puzzle in this study is the disparity in the drop between Yellowstone and Grand Teton: Yellowstone is down 10.3 percent over the last 15 years, the Tetons down just 4.1 percent. Yet the two parks are right next door to each other and accessed by a common entry fee. Furthermore, the study's baseline year was 1990 -- just two years after the Yellowstone fires, which were predicted to lessen visitation in Yellowstone but did not have as great an effect on the Tetons.
I don't know how this would skew the results, but I do suspect some errors in the baseline data. In 1990, over half the time I went into Yellowstone there was nobody at the gate to count me. Entrance fees went straight to the national budget, so the park had little incentive to waste labor on collecting them, especially during off hours. (Living nearby, I was more likely to arrive during off hours. And having a season pass, I wasn't going to be contributing to revenues anyway.) In the mid-90s the Park Service policy changed and the parks got to keep a higher percentage of their entrance fees, which gave them incentives to staff the entrance stations.
Here's another factor to ponder: as you look at the decline in car-camping in national parks, what's the change in the relative cost between camping and staying in a motel? When I was a kid, the family camping across the country in time-honored style, a motel was a rare luxury because it cost ten times the average tent site. These days I'm often appalled at the price I'm paying for a picnic table and flat spot for my tent. (I do think it's worthwhile. My wife loves smores, which you can't make in a motel microwave. But I wonder if others agree.)
It's tough, though, to quibble with the study's overall conclusions: trips are gettin g shorter and more comfort-laden. A sign, I'm sure, of our society's increasing wealth. Do you suppose that wealth could also translate to a greater respect for nature -- even the nature we don't use?
I'm always interested in feedback, via info at johnclaytonbooks...
