Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ON THE COVER Floaters at Kittatinny Point in Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, New Jersey Photograph by NPS/Margaret Littlejohn
February 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado
The National Park Service Associate Director for Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received formal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise put them on par technically and scientifically with the authors of the information. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. This report is available from the Environmental Quality Division (www.nature.nps.gov/ socialscience/index.cfm) and the Natural Resource Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm/). Please cite this publication as: Cui, Yue, Mahoney, E. & Herbowicz, T. 2013. Economic benefits to local communities from national park visitation, 2011. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRTR2013/631. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
ii
Contents
Page
Figures and Tables ......................................................................................................................... iv Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ v Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2011 Updates .................................................................................................................................. 1 Recreation Visits ............................................................................................................................. 2 Visitor Spending ............................................................................................................................. 2 Local Significance and Impacts of Visitor Spending ..................................................................... 5 National Significance of Visitor Spending ..................................................................................... 8 State and Regional Impacts of Visitor Spending ............................................................................ 9 Methods........................................................................................................................................... 9 Errors and Limitations .................................................................................................................. 12 References ..................................................................................................................................... 14 Appendices.................................................................................................................................... 15
iii
iv
Executive Summary
The National Park System received 278.9 million recreation visits in 2011. Park visitors spent $12.95 billion in local gateway regions (within roughly 60 miles of the park). Visitors staying overnight outside the park (in motels, hotels, cabins, and bed and breakfasts) accounted for 54.9% of the total spending. About half (48%) of the spending was for lodging and meals, 21.4% for gas and local transportation, 9.7% for recreation and entertainment, 8.1% for groceries, and 12.7% for other retail purchases. The contribution of this park visitor spending to the national economy amounted to 251,600 jobs, $9.34 billion in labor income, and $16.50 billion in value added 1. The direct effects of visitor spending are measured at the local level in gateway regions around national parks. Local economic impacts were estimated after excluding spending by park visitors from the local area (9.8% of the total spending). Combining local impacts across all parks yielded a total local impact (including direct and secondary effects) of 162,400 jobs, $4.58 billion in labor income, and $8.15 billion value added. The four local economic sectors most directly affected by nonlocal visitor spending are lodging, restaurants, retail trade, and recreation and entertainment. Their spending supported 45,200 jobs in restaurants and bars, 34,100 jobs in lodging sectors, 15,500 jobs in retail and wholesale trade, and 20,000 jobs in recreation and entertainment. In this 2011 study, payroll impacts were not included due to the conversion to a new accounting system for the National Park Service, which prevented obtaining the required inputs for such analysis in time for publication.
Introduction
This report provides updated estimates of National Park Service (NPS) visitor spending for 2011 and estimates the economic impacts of visitor spending. Visitor spending and impacts are estimated using the Money Generation Model version 2 (MGM2) (Stynes et al. 2000) based on park visits (also called recreation visits) during the calendar year 2011, spending averages from park visitor surveys, and local-area and national-level economic multipliers. Visitor spending effects are estimated for all park units with visitation data. Direct effects cover businesses selling goods and services directly to park visitors. Secondary effects include: indirect effects resulting from sales to backward-linked industries within the local region, and induced effects from household spending of income earned directly or indirectly from visitor spending. Impacts of construction activity and park purchases of goods and services are not included. Effects are estimated at both the national and local level. Most spending directly associated with park visits occurs in gateway regions around each park. Impacts of this spending on the local economies are estimated using local input-output models for each park. Local regions are defined as a 60-mile radius 2 around each park. To estimate impacts on the national economy, spending within roughly 60 miles of the park is applied to the national input-output model. System-wide totals covering impacts on local economies are also estimated by summing the spending and local impact estimates for all park units. Results for individual park units are reported in the Appendix.
2011 Updates
The 2011 estimates reflect new visitor surveys at four parks. In 2011, visitor surveys were conducted at Joshua Tree NP, Chiricahua NM, Fort Bowie NHS and Fort Stanwix NM. 3 Spending and visitor profiles for these parks were updated based upon the survey data. For other parks, spending profiles from 2010 were price-adjusted to 2011 using Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price indices for each spending category. Consumer prices remained fairly stable between 2010 and 2011 except for an increase of 26% in gasoline prices and a 10% increase in transportation costs. Visitor segment mixes were assumed to be unchanged except as reflected in overnight stays or new visitor surveys. Except for parks with new visitor surveys, average party sizes, lengths of stay and reentry factors were assumed to be unchanged from 2010. Visit and overnight stay figures for all parks were updated to 2011 from the NPS public use statistics (Street 2012). Multipliers for individual parks were estimated in 2011 based on 2008 IMPLAN data and IMPLANs trade flow models (Stynes, 2011). Local regions were defined to include all counties within roughly 60 road miles of each park. For 2011, local region multipliers were adjusted from 2008 to 2010 based on structural changes in the national economy (i.e., ratios of jobs, income and value added to sales in each sector). Secondary effects and direct job ratios were adjusted to 2011 based on consumer price indices.
The 60-mile radius is a general average representing the primary impact region around most parks. The radius is closer to 30 miles for parks in urban settings, and as large as 100 miles for some western parks. Economic multipliers are based on regions defined as groupings of counties to approximate a 60-mile radius of the park. 3 These studies are conducted by the Visitor Services Project (VSP) at the University of Idaho. Reports for individual parks are available at their website: http://www.psu.uidaho.edu/vsp.reports.htm
Recreation Visits
The National Park System received 278.9 million recreation visits in 2011. Spending by visitors was estimated by dividing all visitors to each park into segments with distinct spending patterns and applying spending averages based on surveys of park visitors at selected parks. As spending averages are measured on a party-day basis (party nights for overnight trips), the NPS counts of recreation visits are converted from person entries to a park to party-days in the area by applying average party size, length of stay, and park re-entry factors. This eliminates some double counting of visits. To the extent possible, spending not directly related to a park visit is excluded. 4 In 2011, there were 13.75 million recreation overnight stays in the parks. Twenty-nine percent of park visits were day trips by local residents, 40.0% were day trips from 60 miles or more, 5 and 27.7% involved an overnight stay near the park. Visitor spending depends on the number of days spent in the local area and the type of lodging for overnight trips. Day trips by non-local visitors accounted for 33.5% of the party days spent in the local area, day trips by local visitors, for 27.8%, and overnight stays, for 38.7%. Sixty-four percent of all overnight stays by park visitors were in hotels, motels, lodges, or bed and breakfasts outside the park; another 17.5% were in campgrounds outside the park, 7.5% in private homes; and 11.1% were inside the park in NPS campgrounds, lodges, or back-country sites resided in National Parks.
Visitor Spending
Visitor spending averages cover expenses within the local region, excluding park entry fees. Spending averages for each segment are derived from park visitor surveys at selected parks over the past ten years. Bureau of Labor Statistics price indices for each spending category are applied to adjust all spending to 2011 dollars. NPS system-wide spending averages for 2011 are given in Table 1 for seven distinct visitor segments. A typical park visitor party of local residents on a day trip spends $49.86 and $75.02 if a non-local party (Table 1). On a party-night basis, spending by visitors on overnight trips varied from $59.91 for backcountry campers to $330.70 for visitors staying in park lodges. Campers spent $119.86 per night, if staying outside the park, and $86.72, if staying inside the park. Spending averages at individual parks varied from these system-wide averages due to differences in local prices and spending opportunities.
Table 1. National Park Visitor Spending in the Local Area by Segment, 2011 ($ per party per day/night) Visitor Segment
4
For example, spending during extended stays in an area while visiting relatives, on business, or when the park visit was not the primary trip purpose is excluded. For most historic sites and parks in urban areas, spending for one day or night is counted for each park entry. Where several park units are within a 60-mile radius, adjustments are made for those visiting more than one park on the same day. 5 Day trips include pass-thru visitors not spending a night within 60 miles of the park, as well as stays with friends and relatives and in owned seasonal homes.
Spending category Motel, hotel, B&B Camping fees Restaurants & bars Recreation & entertainment Groceries Gas & oil Local transportation Retail purchases Total
Local Day Trip 14.75 4.83 7.27 12.92 0.11 9.97 49.86
Non-local Day Trip 19.50 8.73 7.14 23.96 1.34 14.34 75.02
NPS Lodge 151.89 0.39 73.79 22.11 12.56 31.67 6.44 31.85 330.70
NPS Camp Ground 0.31 15.30 11.85 7.29 14.63 24.93 1.34 11.07 86.72
NPS Backcountry 5.25 2.44 8.42 5.85 6.43 19.17 0.28 12.07 59.91
MotelOutside Park 92.67 0.11 58.35 17.67 14.39 25.72 3.14 27.08 239.13
CampOutside Park 0.12 25.16 16.23 15.10 12.36 29.18 0.89 20.82 119.86
In total, park visitors spent $12.95 billion in the local region surrounding the parks in 2011. 6 Local residents accounted for 9.8% of this spending (Table 2). Visitors staying in motels and lodges outside the park accounted for 54.9% of the total spending, while non-local visitors on day trips contributed 20.5% of all spending.
Table 2. National Park Visitor Spending by Segment, 2011 Segment Local day trip Non-local day trip Lodge/cabin-in park Camp-in park NPS back-country campers Motel-outside park Camp-outside park Other overnight visitors a Total
a
Total Spending ($ Millions) 1,264 2,659 376 301 37 7,105 871 339 12,952
Percent of Spending 9.8% 20.5% 2.9% 2.3% 0.3% 54.9% 6.7% 2.6% 100.0%
Other overnight visitors include visitors staying overnight in the area but not incurring lodging costs. Notes Columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Expenses at lodging and restaurants/bars accounted for about a quarter of the spending, each. Expenses on transportation (mainly auto fuel) accounted for 21.4%, groceries 8.1%, other retail purchases 12.8%, and recreation and entertainment 9.7% (Figure 1).
Spending figures exclude airfares and other trip spending beyond 60 miles of the park. Purchases of durable goods (boats, RVs) and major equipment are also excluded. Special expenses for commercial rafting trips, air overflights and other special activities are not fully captured for all parks.
Notes: Economic significance covers all $12.95 billion in spending by park visitors in the local region, including that of local visitors. Columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Secondary effects include indirect effects of businesses buying goods and services from backward-linked local firms and induced effects of household spending of their earnings.
Direct effects were $9.74 billion in sales, $3.29 billion in labor income, $5.66 billion in value added, and 135,300 jobs. The local regions captured 75.2% of all visitor spending as direct sales. Note that direct sales of $9.74 billion is less than the $12.95 billion in visitor spending as most of the manufacturing share of retail purchases (groceries, gas, sporting goods, souvenirs) is not included. It is assumed that most of the producer price of retail purchases immediately leaks out of the region to cover the cost of goods sold. Sales figures for retail and wholesale trade are the margins on retail purchases. Economic Impacts The economic impacts (which exclude spending by local visitors) in Table 4 measure the effects of the $11.69 billion spent by visitors who did not reside within the gateway regions. Economic impact measures estimate the likely losses in economic activity to the region in the absence of the park. Should the park opportunities not be available, it is assumed that local residents would spend the money on other local activities, while visitors from outside the region would not have made a trip to the region. 8 Spending by local residents on visits to the park does not represent new money to the region and is therefore generally excluded when estimating impacts. Local resident spending is included in the economic significance measures, as these capture all economic activity associated with park visits, including local and non-local visitors.
Table 4. Economic Impacts of National Park Visitor Spending on Local Economies, 2011 Sector/Spending category Direct Effects Motel, hotel cabin or B&B Camping fees Restaurants & bars Recreation & entertainment Other vehicle expenses Local transportation Grocery stores Gas stations Other retail Wholesale trade Local manufacturing Total Direct Effects Secondary Effects Total Effects Sales ($ Millions) 2,979 244 2,616 1,122 158 312 229 98 502 220 417 8,897 4,762 13,659 Jobs 29,552 4,541 45,161 20,033 1,843 6,451 3,950 1,214 9,072 1,314 539 123,670 38,753 162,423 Labor Income ($ Millions) 836 77 951 375 81 156 115 41 234 93 37 2,996 1,582 4,578 Value Added ($ Millions) 1,694 150 1,444 701 93 240 167 69 363 170 91 5,182 2,965 8,147
Note: Economic impacts cover the $11.69 billion spent by non-local visitors. Columns may not sum to totals due to rounding.
To the extent possible, spending not directly associated with a park visit is also excluded. For example, only one nights expenses are counted for visitors in the area primarily on business, visiting relatives, or visiting other attractions. For parks with visitor surveys, spending attributed to a park visit was estimated based on the percentage of visitors identifying the park visit as the primary purpose of the trip.
Excluding $1.26 billion dollars spent by local visitors (Table 2) reduced the total spending to $11.69 billion for the impact analysis. Local visitors represented about 29.1% of all visits but less than 10% of all visitors spending (Table 2). The total effects of visitor spending, excluding locals, was $13.66 billion in sales, $4.58 billion in labor income, $8.15 billion in value added, and 162,400 jobs. The economic sectors most directly affected by non-local visitors to the parks are lodging, restaurants, retail trade, and recreation and entertainment. Non-local visitor spending supported 45,200 jobs in restaurants and bars, 34,100 jobs in lodging sectors, 15,500 jobs in retail and wholesale trade, and 20,000 jobs in recreation and entertainment.
With the exception of manufacturing activity and a portion of activity in wholesale trade, the direct effects of visitor spending accrue to local regions around national parks. 9 Compared to the contribution to local economies (Table 3), an additional 74,100 jobs are supported nationally by NPS visitor spending, primarily due to the greater indirect and induced effects at the national level. The sales multiplier for NPS visitor spending at the national level is 2.51, compared to an average of 1.43 for local regions around national parks.
9
Local economic ratios are therefore used to estimate the direct effects. National multipliers are used to estimate secondary effects. With the exception of wholesale trade and manufacturing sectors, the national direct effects (Table 5) are therefore the same as the local direct effects (Table 3).
Methods
Spending and impacts were estimated using the MGM2 model. NPS public use statistics for calendar year 2011 provide estimates of the number of park visits and overnight stays at each park. For each park, recreation visits were allocated to the seven MGM2 segments, 10 converted to party days/nights spent in the local area and then multiplied by per-day spending averages for each segment. Spending and impact estimates for 2011 are made individually for each park unit and then summed to obtain national totals for impacts on local regions. Impacts on the national economy are also estimated by applying all visitor spending to multipliers for the national economy. Spending averages cover all trip expenses within roughly 60 miles of the park. They therefore exclude most en route expenses on longer trips, as well as airfares and purchases made at home in preparation for the trip, including costs of durable goods and equipment. Spending averages vary from park to park based on the type of park and the regional setting (low, medium, or high spending area). The segment mix is very important in estimating visitor spending, as spending varies considerably across the MGM2 segments. Segment shares are estimated based on park overnight stay data and, where available, park visitor surveys. For park units that lack recent visitor surveys, estimates are made by generalizing from studies at similar parks or based on manager or researcher judgment.
10
Visits are classified as day trips by local visitors, day trips by non-local visitors, and overnight trips by visitors staying in campgrounds or hotels, lodges, cabins, and bed and breakfasts. For parks with lodging facilities within the park, visitors staying in park lodges, campgrounds, or back-country sites are distinguished from those staying outside the park in motels or non-NPS campgrounds. Visitors staying with friends or relatives, in owned seasonal homes, or passing through without a local overnight stay are generally treated as day trips.
For parks with VSP (Visitor Services Project) studies over the past ten years, spending averages are estimated from the visitor survey data collected at each park. 11 Averages estimated in the surveys were price-adjusted to 2011 using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) price indices for each spending category. Sampling errors for the spending averages in VSP studies are generally 510% overall and can be as high as 20% for individual visitor segments (Stynes, 2011). The observed spending patterns in park visitor studies are then used to estimate spending averages for other parks that lack visitor spending surveys. This procedure does not capture some spending variations attributable to unique characteristics of a given park or gateway regionfor example, the wider use of public transportation at Alaska parks or extra expenses for special commercial attractions in or around some parks, such as rafting trips, air overflights, and other tours. When visitor studies are conducted at individual parks, these unique situations are taken into account. Multipliers for local regions around national parks were applied to the visitor spending totals to translate spending into jobs, income, and value added and also to estimate secondary effects. All MGM2 multipliers were re-estimated in 2011 using IMPLAN ver 3.0 and 2008 economic data (Minnesota IMPLAN Group 2009). The multipliers were adjusted to 2011 based on structural changes in the national IMPLAN models between 2008 and 2010 and price changes between 2010 and 2011. Based on national IMPLAN models, there were some significant structural changes in economic ratios and multipliers between 2008 and 2010. Most notable was a change in ratios for the recreation and entertainment sector (IMPLAN sector 410) due to under estimated output in 2008. IMPLAN ratios in 2010 for sector 410 were triple the 2008 estimates. Using 2008 multiplier would cause a significant underestimate of jobs, income and value added in the MGM2 recreation and entertainment sector estimates if the ratio were not adjusted from 2008 to 2010. The MGM2 estimates of jobs, income and value added are sensitive to any changes in these ratios and multipliers. With the exception of parks with new visitor surveys in 2011, no changes were made in party sizes, lengths of stay, or re-entry factors between 2010 and 2011. MGM2 model parameters for individual parks are adjusted over time as new park visitor studies are conducted or other relevant information becomes available. The retail margin used to the estimate economic impacts on gasoline sales with national park visits in 2010 was 22.3% and 8.3% at wholesale (Stynes, 2011). In a more recent report by Oil Price Information Service (2012), the retail margin is about 5% of the retail price. Energy Almanac (2012) shows that the distribution of gasoline, including retail and wholesale cost and profit, was approximately 10% of the gasolines retail price, the refinery sector was 75% of the price, and fuel tax comprised 15% of the retail price in 2011. The fuel taxes can be shifted to the refinery sector since this shift has relatively minor effect on job estimates because the refinery sector has a very small job-to-sales ratio. In addition, U.S. refineries are concentrated in a few geographic areas and would seldom be located in NPS economic impact areas. As a result, the
11
Detailed impact reports for parks that have included economic questions in their VSP studies are available at the MGM2 (http://mgm2impact.com/) or NPS social science websites (http://www.nature.nps.gov/socialscience/products.cfm#MGM2Reports).
10
gasoline margins used to estimate 2011 economic impacts of national parks were adjusted as follows: 90% went to the petroleum refining sector; 5%, to the wholesale trade sector; and 5%, to the retail sector. This 2011 adjustment reduced the estimation of local economic significance of spending on gasoline associated with national park visits by 5,800 jobs. Spending and impact totals for states were developed from the 2011 estimates by summing the results for all units in a given state using the mailing address for the park to identify the state. Twenty parks have facilities in more than one state. For these parks, visitors and spending were allocated to individual states based on shares used by the NPS Public Use Statistics Office for allocating visits to states. For example, visits to Great Smoky Mountains NP were split 44% to North Carolina and 56% to Tennessee. It should be noted that these allocations may not fully account for where the spending and impacts occur. There are also many other parks with facilities in a single state but located within 60 miles of a state border. A portion of the spending and impacts for these parks may accrue to nearby states.
11
accessible by air or boat, so spending profiles estimated from visitor surveys at parks in the lower 48 states do not apply well. Due to the prominence of cruise lines and package tours, special studies are required to estimate the proportion of visitor spending that stays in the local regions around national park units in Alaska. In this report, Alaska statewide multipliers are used to estimate impacts for parks in Alaska. A visit to one or more national parks is an important part of the trip for most Alaska visitors. One could therefore argue to count a substantial portion of tourism spending in Alaska as related to national park visits. The U.S. Travel Association estimated tourist spending in Alaska at $2.1 billion in 2008 (USTA 2010). This is ten times what we have included as spending by park visitors in the local regions around Alaska national parks. Including spending in Alaska outside the local regions would significantly increase the estimates; however, deciding which spending to include would be somewhat subjective.
13
References
Energy Almanac. 2012. The California Energy Almanac. Available at http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/margins/index.php Minnesota IMPLAN Group Inc. 2009. IMPLAN Pro Version 3.0, users guide. Stillwater, Minnesota. Oil Price Information Service. 2012. Public Company Rack-to-Retail Margins. Available at http://www.opisretail.com/images/press%20release%20images/BrandMargins%20FirstHalf.pdf Street, B. 2012. Statistical abstract: 2011. Natural Resource Data Series NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRDS-2012/422. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Stynes, D.J. 2011. Economic benefits to local communities from national park visitation and payroll, 2009. Natural Resources Report NPS/NRPC/SSD/NRR 2011/281. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Stynes, D. J., D. B. Propst, W. H. Chang, and Y. Sun. 2000. Estimating regional economic impacts of park visitor spending: Money Generation Model Version 2 (MGM2). Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. U.S. Travel Association (USTA). 2010. The power of travel, economic impact of travel and tourism. Available at http://www.poweroftravel.org/statistics/.
14
Appendices
Table A-1. Local-Level Impacts of NPS Visitor Spending on Local Economies by Park, 2011............................... 14 Table A-2. State-Level Impacts of NPS Visitor Spending on State Economies by State, 2011........................................................................................... 23 Table A-3. Regional-Level Impacts of NPS Visitor Spending on Regional Economies by Region, 2011................... 25 Table A-4. Allocations to States for Multi-State Parks.. ................................................................................ 26
15
Table A-1. Local-Level Impacts of NPS Visitor Spending on Local Economies by Park, 2011
Public Use Data Park Unit 2011 Recreation Visits
163,568 2,374,645 219,975 108,585 11,617 3,214 118,410 1,436,759 108,812 52,322 57 384,987 176,040 258,917 1,040,758 37,127 576,816 2,105,419 41,106 870,741 193,914 26,842 1,890 361,862 941,393 36,290 606,579 137,722 201,010 476,077 168,336 15,382,447 41,670 24,030 379,906 2,546,156 16,886 1,296,000 28,223 1,169,802 813,351 1,005,001 26,996 828,145 473,773 4,454,771
Impacts of Non-local Visitor Spending Labor Value Added Jobs Income ($000's) ($000's)
94 2,970 172 77 12 2 88 522 57 41 243 358 186 1,638 20 396 1,957 17 317 135 12 7 225 1,891 19 343 138 80 416 106 4,379 24 18 298 1,144 13 1,726 29 468 681 1,034 20 515 519 1,739 2,566 72,808 6,911 3,715 225 48 1,958 9,975 1,284 1,028 7 8,813 6,946 4,256 33,855 350 15,681 48,550 392 7,302 3,461 220 219 4,508 66,660 376 5,322 4,755 1,930 14,322 2,108 73,568 542 414 11,936 47,138 355 32,695 490 10,396 22,071 32,487 390 10,790 12,526 56,607 4,334 126,167 11,458 6,165 406 93 3,700 20,428 2,456 1,838 13 15,021 12,383 8,079 65,849 645 26,077 93,783 736 12,064 5,941 468 392 9,167 111,384 709 10,777 8,248 3,383 24,337 4,448 145,708 938 795 19,788 78,167 610 64,683 991 18,482 39,667 57,312 752 21,559 23,338 102,574
Abraham Lincoln Birthplace NHP Acadia NP Adams NHP African Burial Ground NM Agate Fossil Beds NM Alibates Flint Quarries NM Allegheny Portage Railroad NHS Amistad NRA Andersonville NHS Andrew Johnson NHS Aniakchak NM & PRES Antietam NB
*
Arkansas Post NMEM Arlington House The R.E. Lee ME Assateague Island NS Aztec Ruins NM
*
Badlands NP
Bandelier NM Bent's Old Fort NHS Bering Land Bridge NPRES Big Bend NP Big Cypress NPRES Big Hole NB Big South Fork NRRA Big Thicket NPRES Bighorn Canyon NRA Biscayne NP Black Canyon of the Gunnison NP Blue Ridge PKWY Bluestone NSR Booker T. Washington NM Boston African American NHS Boston NHP Brown v. Board of Education NHS Bryce Canyon NP Buck Island Reef NM Buffalo NR Cabrillo NM Canaveral NS Cane River Creole NHP Canyon de Chelly NM Canyonlands NP Cape Cod NS
16
Table A-1. Local-Level Impacts of NPS Visitor Spending on Local Economies by Park, 2011 (continued)
Public Use Data Park Unit 2011 Recreation Visits
1,960,711 8,668 508,116 668,834 46,358 89,721 365,000 72,308 741,042 3,985,366 264,460 493,147 39,175 113,817 242,756 45,254 3,161,297 3,937,504 1,036,699 1,212,139 37,037 119,335 95,764 15,620 3,414,577 435,460 120,166 153,042 223,923 423,551 198,545 828,947 74,279 924,468 2,161,185 68,048 355,653 946,867 4,986,700 406,582 97,207 395,203 213,559 75,171 14,711
Impacts of Non-local Visitor Spending Labor Value Added Jobs Income ($000's) ($000's)
1,349 31 532 600 18 70 299 30 590 571 143 255 14 110 296 34 798 435 774 150 45 62 93 11 936 295 43 75 176 549 81 602 73 450 530 67 347 616 1,998 2,669 41 207 92 73 14 34,713 998 10,457 11,968 288 1,819 5,771 930 16,962 23,915 5,623 5,368 306 2,747 10,912 915 29,323 16,885 21,858 3,145 1,022 1,039 2,089 425 22,406 6,732 1,075 1,934 4,385 12,781 1,748 10,475 2,236 8,808 14,931 1,475 11,143 16,114 47,729 69,258 1,028 4,781 2,080 2,514 505 62,224 1,787 19,937 23,459 573 3,151 10,646 1,602 30,206 39,008 9,347 10,492 536 5,260 19,246 1,579 46,311 28,105 38,327 5,570 2,018 2,087 3,815 706 41,049 13,242 1,942 3,552 7,836 24,037 2,940 20,889 3,959 18,313 24,305 2,638 19,676 30,619 93,899 111,362 1,961 8,075 3,992 4,261 838
Capulin Volcano NM
Carl Sandburg Home NHS Carlsbad Caverns NP Casa Grande Ruins NM Castillo de San Marcos NM Castle Clinton NM Catoctin Mountain Park Cedar Breaks NM Chaco Culture NHP Chamizal NMEM Channel Islands NP Charles Pinckney NHS Chattahoochee River NRA
*
Chiricahua NM
Colonial NHP
Devils Postpile NM Devils Tower NM Dinosaur NM Dry Tortugas NP Edgar Allan Poe NHS
17
Table A-1. Local-Level Impacts of NPS Visitor Spending on Local Economies by Park, 2011 (continued)
Public Use Data Park Unit 2011 Recreation Visits
82,581 58,022 105,356 48,332 50,074 2,593 934,351 187,109 519,173 8,254 265,246 61,289 642,786 8,429 326,149 35,130 257,389 293,041 52,916 26,704 570,695 641,254 193,479 1,338,508 408,104 282,134 26,219 86,122 102,874 857,883 9,575 12,236 710,439 409,381 16,552 2,309,708 46,694 4,022 908,836 30,039 11,623 7,697,727 109,780 104,769 145,596 577 26 11 6,576 8,165 4,765 -
Impacts of Non-local Visitor Spending Labor Value Added Jobs Income ($000's) ($000's)
82 64 59 23 7 2 2,336 135 309 9 193 39 223 12 325 17 132 205 27 23 454 586 82 1,145 293 141 14 69 65 244 8 11 575 142 10 803 16 3 618 29 42 668 59 76 111 1,278 1,218 1,503 365 180 89 83,242 6,193 14,207 189 4,068 1,062 9,163 266 6,303 311 2,472 5,152 534 449 13,063 18,034 1,733 45,382 8,096 3,673 237 1,466 1,670 6,261 186 245 17,117 5,836 205 32,925 666 126 15,068 634 1,343 30,724 1,578 3,468 1,856 2,547 2,494 2,594 787 361 153 140,066 10,235 23,441 341 7,755 1,962 15,329 531 11,679 637 4,770 9,558 988 838 23,262 32,474 3,241 78,273 14,199 6,645 471 2,643 3,755 10,539 332 432 29,386 9,763 397 55,080 1,114 209 28,167 1,196 2,410 50,537 2,570 5,731 3,676
* *
Everglades NP
Federal Hall NMEM Fire Island NS First Ladies NHS Flight 93 NMEM Florissant Fossil Beds NM Ford's Theatre NHS
*
Fort Caroline NMEM Fort Davis NHS Fort Donelson NB Fort Frederica NM Fort Laramie NHS
*
Fort Matanzas NM Fort McHenry NM & HS Fort Necessity NB Fort Point NHS Fort Pulaski NM Fort Raleigh NHS Fort Scott NHS Fort Smith NHS
*
Fort Stanwix NM
Fort Sumter NM Fort Union NM Fort Union Trading Post NHS Fort Vancouver NHS Fort Washington Park Fossil Butte NM Franklin Delano Roosevelt MEM Frederick Douglass NHS Frederick Law Olmsted NHS Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania N Friendship Hill NHS Gates of the Arctic NP & PRES Gateway NRA Gauley River NRA General Grant NMEM George Rogers Clark NHP
18
Table A-1. Local-Level Impacts of NPS Visitor Spending on Local Economies by Park, 2011 (continued)
Public Use Data Park Unit 2011 Recreation Visits
130,647 30,787 7,417,397 1,124,659 25,317 431,986 1,853,564 2,270,817 14,567,487 43,933 402,174 4,298,178 97,440 2,587,437 20,293 91,451 280,058 9,008,830 190,427 152,546 346,617 5,501,872 21,100 956,989 7,817 32,165 255,348 28,924 1,352,123 134,249 125,488 69,845 33,834 44,873 65,892 1,396,354 25,858 88,231 3,572,770 1,840,513 15,892 31,499 420,366 2,259,020 77,146
Impacts of Non-local Visitor Spending Labor Value Added Jobs Income ($000's) ($000's)
44 7 50 1,226 10 59 1,337 2,755 1,566 31 409 7,361 182 6,352 11 56 134 11,418 134 158 281 1,264 9 795 6 29 135 30 1,121 109 29 32 18 33 49 1,551 17 57 1,878 572 30 15 292 1,110 60 871 145 1,886 23,209 161 1,765 30,590 88,152 62,428 709 18,969 194,112 3,445 158,759 253 1,029 2,636 293,668 5,279 2,765 7,312 30,575 191 26,798 266 905 3,963 955 37,711 2,513 778 654 326 926 980 30,878 403 921 67,770 13,892 524 449 10,284 44,057 1,319 1,696 272 3,084 47,532 312 3,169 55,206 138,044 107,537 1,309 31,399 346,447 6,890 292,497 444 2,096 5,289 528,578 8,776 5,417 12,746 57,097 339 48,229 441 1,629 6,955 1,574 67,877 4,317 1,577 1,166 611 1,615 1,776 54,885 740 2,109 112,298 24,596 1,049 746 16,699 75,918 2,260
Gettysburg NMP
Gila Cliff Dwellings NM Glacier Bay NP & PRES Glacier NP Glen Canyon NRA Golden Gate NRA
*
Governors Island NM
*
Grand Portage NM
*
Grant-Kohrs Ranch NHS Great Basin NP Great Sand Dunes NP & PRES Great Smoky Mountains NP Greenbelt Park Guadalupe Mountains NP Guilford Courthouse NMP Gulf Islands NS Hagerman Fossil Beds NM Haleakala NP Hamilton Grange NMEM Hampton NHS Harpers Ferry NHP Harry S Truman NHS Hawaii Volcanoes NP Herbert Hoover NHS Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt NHS
*
Homestead NM of America
Hopewell Culture NHP Hopewell Furnace NHS Horseshoe Bend NMP Hot Springs NP Hovenweep NM Hubbell Trading Post NHS Independence NHP Indiana Dunes NL Isle Royale NP
*
19
Table A-1. Local-Level Impacts of NPS Visitor Spending on Local Economies by Park, 2011 (continued)
Public Use Data Park Unit 2011 Recreation Visits
66,157 1,147,986 148,002 18,466 31,236 105,906 1,396,237 57,841 162,906 48,939 346,852 1,748,436 566,810 272,325 795,150 64,898 16,025 11,485 3,073,430 43,827 5,158 6,396,682 734,030 1,523,474 351,269 124,113 239,058 191,867 108,420 296,214 5,971,220 312,168 225,549 66,106 46,596 520,452 100,056 10,779 483,319 659,740 79,587 29,049 1,490,358 666,482 19,287
Impacts of Non-local Visitor Spending Labor Value Added Jobs Income ($000's) ($000's)
34 93 90 14 26 97 690 34 96 166 159 644 549 135 273 60 9 41 1,068 23 18 2,544 382 563 178 52 164 142 83 233 2,075 165 169 52 28 408 90 2 508 105 92 21 1,017 562 4 571 2,198 1,668 580 836 2,161 20,220 1,142 3,215 4,928 4,624 22,144 15,441 3,127 8,226 2,025 207 1,318 43,812 827 590 79,462 8,189 11,732 4,458 1,187 6,499 2,386 1,550 6,006 85,120 4,036 3,237 1,479 1,126 16,351 2,718 66 11,080 3,558 2,091 536 41,961 21,142 110 1,189 3,727 3,349 962 1,557 4,092 37,817 2,049 5,771 8,847 8,303 36,030 29,781 5,699 14,678 3,485 359 2,354 73,293 1,414 1,052 138,418 15,636 22,969 8,675 2,319 10,807 4,794 2,906 11,410 142,397 7,067 6,213 2,389 1,867 27,109 4,738 114 19,822 5,776 4,286 932 70,532 33,915 202
Joshua Tree NP
Klondike Gold Rush NHP Alaska Klondike Gold Rush NHP Seattle Knife River Indian Villages NHS Kobuk Valley NP Korean War Veterans Memorial Lake Chelan NRA Lake Clark NP & PRES Lake Mead NRA Lake Meredith NRA Lake Roosevelt NRA Lassen Volcanic NP Lava Beds NM LBJ Memorial Grove on the Potomc Lewis & Clark NHP Lincoln Boyhood NMEM Lincoln Home NHS Lincoln Memorial Little Bighorn Battlefield NM Little River Canyon NPRES Little Rock Central High School NHS Longfellow NHS Lowell NHP Lyndon B. Johnson NHP Maggie L. Walker NHS Mammoth Cave NP Manassas NBP
*
Manzanar NHS
Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller NHP Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Martin Luther King, Jr. NHS Martin Van Buren NHS
20
Table A-1. Local-Level Impacts of NPS Visitor Spending on Local Economies by Park, 2011 (continued)
Public Use Data Park Unit 2011 Recreation Visits
18,142 572,329 1,002,833 59,389 99,398 179,983 536,006 36,674 573,731 58,118 222,395 1,038,229 2,081,722 897,131 206,624 5,765,343 1,240,717 1,167,393 8,716 91,184 87,388 273,862 130,393 1,071,088 286,259 2,681 70,099 65,785 11,722 19,208 212,458 122,722 2,966,502 76,194 211,405 1,365,960 542,873 24,752 114,234 43,873 236,136 93,119 213,261 614,054 114,428
Impacts of Non-local Visitor Spending Labor Value Added Jobs Income ($000's) ($000's)
6 551 851 65 186 140 131 33 428 31 123 436 1,007 767 131 455 431 406 11 59 56 207 90 596 151 2 50 51 42 16 124 93 1,497 55 160 861 516 13 88 15 82 147 155 568 66 259 12,518 29,855 1,467 5,981 2,204 4,624 1,299 13,851 704 5,662 11,653 22,080 30,417 2,674 7,618 17,686 16,641 188 1,191 1,348 6,140 3,190 13,647 3,849 38 946 806 1,343 582 2,277 2,145 28,293 1,212 5,099 13,337 10,304 303 1,537 377 3,366 3,430 3,799 11,735 1,728 433 24,207 51,655 2,505 10,155 4,171 8,187 2,122 24,025 1,293 9,358 21,090 37,100 52,462 5,243 14,891 29,588 27,839 381 2,339 2,515 11,616 5,180 23,667 7,119 68 1,793 1,525 2,397 997 4,420 4,109 59,819 2,393 8,869 27,211 19,878 593 2,833 642 5,631 6,037 7,139 23,317 2,987
Mary McLeod Bethune Council House NHS Mesa Verde NP Minute Man NHP
*
Monocacy NB
Mount Rainier NP
Mount Rushmore NMEM Muir Woods NM Natchez NHP Natchez Trace PKWY National Capital Parks Central National Capital Parks East National Park of American Samoa Natural Bridges NM Navajo NM New Bedford Whaling NHP New Orleans Jazz NHP
*
Nez Perce NHP Nicodemus NHS Ninety Six NHS Niobrara NSR Noatak NPRES North Cascades NP Obed W&SR Ocmulgee NM
*
Olympic NP
Oregon Caves NM Organ Pipe Cactus NM Ozark NSR Padre Island NS Palo Alto Battlefield NHP Pea Ridge NMP Pecos NHP Pennsylvania Avenue NHS
*
21
Table A-1. Local-Level Impacts of NPS Visitor Spending on Local Economies by Park, 2011 (continued)
Public Use Data Park Unit 2011 Recreation Visits
561,104 393,219 57,360 61,908 279,060 2,129,116 545 9,749 786,151 379,535 426,224 133,306 92,311 380,167 139,376 873 36,206 2,050,490 3,176,941 50,909 728,353 20,717 53,336 610,045 273,729 14,926 32,695 737,073 29,786 2,419 568,021 4,224,897 266,717 1,229,590 3,935 609,636 65,043 11,121 128,811 1,006,583 1,209,883 387,816 186,864 1,348,304 16,161
Impacts of Non-local Visitor Spending Labor Value Added Jobs Income ($000's) ($000's)
357 82 39 44 97 1,105 1 7 273 172 252 79 60 247 146 1 52 713 2,742 46 280 16 41 211 122 11 19 578 12 3 297 855 235 892 4 242 27 9 60 965 938 202 49 2,288 14 5,676 2,802 933 991 3,978 43,524 21 124 11,207 6,494 8,412 2,631 1,485 4,689 4,420 22 1,667 29,230 71,849 1,420 9,832 274 1,516 5,547 2,348 494 494 23,157 306 52 8,913 33,761 5,939 17,812 80 9,013 700 349 1,134 27,119 22,465 4,033 1,483 52,893 438 12,414 4,823 1,752 1,678 6,655 75,171 36 254 18,748 10,808 15,099 4,722 2,701 9,966 7,697 45 2,837 48,899 138,269 2,459 16,804 526 2,726 10,044 4,293 816 869 38,392 520 106 15,385 58,207 11,420 34,157 172 15,833 1,426 579 2,033 52,409 41,855 7,844 2,645 102,846 800
Pictured Rocks NL
Pinnacles NM Pipe Spring NM Pipestone NM Piscataway Park Point Reyes NS Port Chicago Naval Magazine NM President W.J. Clinton Birthplace President's Park Prince William Forest Park Pu'uhonua o Honaunau NHP Pu'ukohola Heiau NHS Rainbow Bridge NM Redwood NP Richmond NBP Rio Grande W&SR River Raisin NBP Rock Creek Park Rocky Mountain NP Roger Williams NMEM Ross Lake NRA Russell Cave NM Sagamore Hill NHS Saguaro NP Saint Croix NSR Saint Paul's Church NHS
*
Saint-Gaudens NHS
Salem Maritime NHS Salinas Pueblo Missions NM Salt River Bay NHP & Ecological San Antonio Missions NHP San Francisco Maritime NHP San Juan Island NHP San Juan NHS Sand Creek Massacre NHS Santa Monica Mountains NRA Saratoga NHP Saugus Iron Works NHS Scotts Bluff NM
*
Sequoia NP
22
Table A-1. Local-Level Impacts of NPS Visitor Spending on Local Economies by Park, 2011 (continued)
Public Use Data Park Unit 2011 Recreation Visits
3,749,982 111,725 187,208 185,265 17,893 1,949 6,537 17,107 137,690 563,407 55,284 1,945,696 6,351 96,965 1,028,922 53,426 33,740 16,244 23,288 101,104 35,664 270,390 1,303,046 367,680 796,035 4,020,127 442,414 177,184 125,003 482,391 430,153 10,995 22,415 761,710 570,057 428,924 57,611 21,141 192,865 538,394 425,177 25,426 3,752,172 1,694,896 65,225
Impacts of Non-local Visitor Spending Labor Value Added Jobs Income ($000's) ($000's)
2,009 59 143 121 14 2 5 15 95 431 40 676 4 100 617 40 16 13 18 75 31 89 560 39 589 1,397 1,086 137 82 245 150 7 16 386 198 230 28 22 156 890 292 7 1,304 735 44 79,828 1,529 4,716 2,986 225 67 216 416 3,743 8,784 1,830 27,736 173 2,856 19,121 1,279 426 303 435 2,441 1,209 2,182 21,595 1,025 16,080 57,307 21,565 2,993 2,015 4,892 6,132 110 692 8,906 8,126 5,053 601 646 3,689 19,661 11,558 173 53,487 24,117 1,174 137,508 2,759 7,784 5,514 433 111 358 840 6,225 15,313 3,024 46,400 287 4,840 33,487 2,227 783 523 749 4,234 2,086 4,207 34,786 2,023 27,139 95,869 40,139 5,566 3,721 9,380 10,258 222 1,161 18,157 13,594 9,091 1,143 1,053 6,705 34,288 19,222 334 89,479 42,948 2,123
Statue of Liberty NM Steamtown NHS Stones River NB Sunset Crater Volcano NM Tallgrass Prairie NPRES Thaddeus Kosciuszko NMEM Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace NHS Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural NHS Theodore Roosevelt Island Park Theodore Roosevelt NP Thomas Edison NHP Thomas Jefferson MEM Thomas Stone NHS Timpanogos Cave NM Timucuan EHP Tonto NM Tumacacori NHP Tuskegee Airmen NHS Tuskegee Institute NHS Tuzigoot NM Ulysses S. Grant NHS Upper Delaware S&RR
*
Virgin Islands NP
Voyageurs NP Walnut Canyon NM War in the Pacific NHP Washington Monument Washita Battlefield NHS Weir Farm NHS Whiskeytown NRA White House White Sands NM Whitman Mission NHS William Howard Taft NHS Wilson's Creek NB Wind Cave NP Wolf Trap NP for the Performing Arts
*
World War II Memorial World War II Valor in the Pacific NM Wrangell-St. Elias NP & PRES
23
Table A-1. Local-Level Impacts of NPS Visitor Spending on Local Economies by Park, 2011 (continued)
Public Use Data Park Unit 2011 Recreation Visits
445,455 216,165 3,394,326 3,951,393 1,718 2,825,505
Impacts of Non-local Visitor Spending Labor Value Added Jobs Income ($000's) ($000's)
223 141 5,041 5,003 21 2,286 5,800 3,484 133,534 128,202 670 51,416 10,491 6,434 227,947 251,573 1,217 98,433
For these parks, results are based on a visitor survey at the designated park. For other parks, visitor characteristics and spending averages are adapted from national averages for each park type, adjusted for surrounding populations and spending opportunities. Notes: Non-local visitors live outside a roughly 60-mile radius of the park. Jobs include part-time and full-time jobs with seasonal jobs adjusted to an annual basis. Impacts include direct and secondary effects of visitor spending on the local economy. Labor income covers wages and salaries, payroll benefits, and incomes of sole proprietors in the local region. Value added includes labor income, profits and rents, and indirect business taxes.
24
Table A-2. State-Level Impacts of NPS Visitor Spending on State Economies by State, 2011
Non-local Visitor Spending ($ Millions) 237 19 140 1 737 1,192 319 1 1,025 608 241 17 259 12 24 16 54 4 85 28 432 145 183 159 37 158 101 279 725 28 13 1 117 98 162 341 52 14 54 325 61 3 Jobs from Non-local Visitor Spending 4,138 315 2,364 12 12,499 17,978 4,621 19 8,852 9,818 3,592 268 3,113 195 379 253 826 67 1,400 429 6,917 2,025 2,555 2,875 665 2,468 1,471 4,492 11,915 478 227 20 1,807 1,479 2,045 3,998 862 177 915 5,358 980 45 Labor Income from Nonlocal Visitor Spending ($ Millions) 116 8 53 0a 381 690 148 1 404 320 108 8 104 5 8 9 20 2 36 12 179 65 97 82 19 67 35 107 323 11 5 1 63 36 67 159 22 5 26 161 29 1 Value-added from Nonlocal Visitor Spending ($ Millions) 200 13 92 1 671 1,224 266 1 684 561 189 14 187 8 15 16 35 3 62 21 307 115 169 148 33 116 61 190 560 18 9 1 113 63 116 274 39 9 45 280 50 2
State
Alaska Alabama Arkansas American Samoa Arizona California Colorado Connecticut District of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Iowa Idaho Illinois Indiana Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Massachusetts Maryland Maine Michigan Minnesota Missouri Mississippi Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Nevada New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah
48
160 530 177 693
704
2,576 8,847 2,798 11,240
18
54 261 91 336
31
93 452 164 565
25
Table A-2. State-Level Impacts of NPS Visitor Spending on State Economies by State, 2011 (continued)
Non-local Visitor Spending ($ Millions) 541 65 1 261 24 60 621 Jobs from Non-local Visitor Spending 8,116 1,236 22 3,827 455 869 9,098 Labor Income from Nonlocal Visitor Spending ($ Millions) 237 37 1 121 12 21 222 Value-added from Nonlocal Visitor Spending ($ Millions) 417 63 1 215 19 36 397
State
26
Table A-3. Regional-Level Impacts of NPS Visitor Spending on Regional Economies by Region, 2011
Jobs from Non-local Visitor Spending 4,138 48,326 15,630 15,225 28,802 30,612 44,944 Labor Income from Nonlocal Visitor Spending ($ Millions) 116 1,569 462 587 1,071 1,144 1,397 Value-added from Nonlocal Visitor Spending ($ Millions) 200 2,811 810 984 1,873 2,026 2,461
Region
Non-local Visitor Spending ($ Millions) 237 2,885 854 1,209 1,847 2,022 2,631
Alaska Region Intermountain Region Midwest Region National Capital Region Northeast Region Pacific West Region Southeast Region
27
28
The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nations natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated Island Communities.
Natural Resource Stewardship and Science 1201 Oakridge Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 www.nature.nps.gov
TM