
A proposal to require reservations at peak times for visitors to Arches National Park could lead to a substantial economic impact to the area, according to an economist/NPS file
If Arches National Park moves forward with a plan to require advance reservations for visitors, it could lead to an initial economic hit of as much as $22 million to the Moab, Utah, area, according to an economic analysis. That dollar figure is far from firm, the economist cautioned, and could be greatly reduced as people get used to whatever traffic management plan the park settles on.
At the same time, however, such a reservation system "may enhance visitor experience and increase the economic value of trips to" the national park, noted Robert Paterson, who works for Industrial Economics, Incorporated, out of Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Arches is one of a handful of national parks -- others include Yellowstone, Zion, Yosemite, Acadia, Grand Canyon, Glacier -- that struggle at times during the year with overcrowding. Zion officials have been working on their own management plan for some time, and it, too, includes provisions for reservations, though they might not be included in the final proposal.
Overcrowding can lead to natural resource impacts. In Zion Canyon, for instance, where there are roughly 13 miles of official trails, visitors going off trail have created another 30 miles of unofficial "social" trails. Complicating the planning process at Zion are concerns over how a visitation cap would impact area businesses.
“I think people realize that there are crowding problems, and would like to see some solutions to that," Superintendent Jeff Bradybaugh told the Traveler in December. "But there’s a great amount of concern that that could have negative economic impacts on the tourism industry. And we certainly are taking that into account and have those concerns as well."
As with their counterparts at Zion, officials at Arches have been trying to figure out how to manage visitors and protect park resources and values for some time. Back in November 2017 they released a draft plan that proposed reservations during peak visitation months. Such a plan is needed, they say, to address vehicle traffic and parking congestion problems that affect visitor access, visitor enjoyment, and resource conditions.
Visitation to Arches National Park doubled in the past 11 years, reaching approximately 1.6 million visitors in 2016. During high-visitation season, March through October, visitors routinely wait in long lines to enter the park and then must search for empty parking spaces at all popular sites. Long lines to enter the park cause congestion at the intersection of U.S. 191 and the park entrance road, which can be a serious traffic hazard.
The reservation proposal is viewed as a way to give visitors certainty of entry, reduce or eliminate long entrance lines, spread visitation more evenly across the day, and improve the visitor experience by ensuring available parking space.
But Paterson pointed to some uncertainties in reaching his conclusions over the economic fallout such a plan would create.
"(R)epresentatives from the International Inbound Travel Association Board have suggested that regardless of whether a system is implemented next year or not, there will likely be a reduction in foreign bus tours booked due to concerns about the system," the economist said in a report sent to the park last summer.
The report was just publicly identified by park officials last month when they announced plans for a public meeting this summer about the progress being made on the management plan. Paterson is expected to be at the meeting.
The economist acknowledged that his work so far could not predict the long-term impact to the area's economy. He predicated his estimate based on other national parks that used various approaches to deal with congestion.
"While they are all qualitatively different circumstances ... they may be similar in an economic sense in that they created uncertainty that in turn affected visitation," he wrote. "Based on these analyses, relevant literature, and professional judgment, it is my opinion that visitation to Arches may be reduced by 5 to 10 percent of what it otherwise would be during the first year that a system is implemented. ... Relying on (National Park Service) estimates of Arches visitor spending, this could result in a reduction in spending of $11 to $22 million relative to what otherwise would be predicted in that first year, which in turn could reduce overall output, employment, wages, and tax receipts through associated multipliers."
With that said, he added that after the first year of the reservation system commercial operators and individual park visitors would adapt to the system and "visitation would revert to what it would otherwise be under the system by year three."
But, reflecting the overall lack of rigorous economic analysis, was Paterson's comment that "(T)here are a number of important caveats and uncertainties associated with these estimates. Foremost is that they are based solely on existing data and information regarding imperfect analogies. In addition, they do not account for the potential to mitigate impacts through additional education and outreach regarding the proposed system."
Comments
Getting off topic but, looking over the history of the chart, I would say we are at or above the average. But that is moot. Why should the tax collections be measured against GDP? Is the defense of our nation based on GDP? Is the management of federal lands based on GDP? Fact is the cost per personfor a family of four in a major NPS park is barely over $1 a day. You could spend 3 months in a park for the cost of a ticket to Disney World. Four months for a day of sking for a CO ski area (ski pass only, not including rental and food which could easily be another four months.) Better than a week for the cost of a movie ticket. A couple of months for the cost of cable TV service. Four days for a pack of cigarettes or a Big Mac. Our Parks are an absolute bargain.
Look, Article 3 of the North Atlantic Treaty is the basis of that organization indexing national defense spending targets to a percentage of GDP. Even your orange hero was ranting about how other nations haven't been meeting their targets not long ago. So, yes, percentage of GDP is a good enough metric because it allows comparison across time and against larger and smaller economies.
Regardless, parks should be a bargain. They don't exist merely to boost the value of neighbors properties and local businesses - though that's a nice benefit. But they represent landscapes and histories of national and global significance by whatever measure. A park is not an addictive substance or a purely recreational experience that does indeed shut out lower income people. Bad choices of examples but they reveal your cramped mindset.
This comment was edited to remove gratuitous language.--Ed.
What was bad about my choices of examples? At $1 dollar per day per person, we aren't shutting anybody out.
Submitted by Bill Baehr on March 7, 2019 - 7:13pm.
Most working Americans can barely afford to visit their National Parks , so we don't need wealthy foreginers overcrowding the Parks and driving up the cost of local accomadations. Our overcrowded Parks don;t need foreigners, so please stay home, we don't need you or your money.
Well, this just about perfectly sums up the predicament that we have found ourselves in here in the US. People scared of leaving home being scared of others who aren't afraid to leave home coming here. As a middle aged white guy I can't wait until the US is majority minority - going to be a lot of terrified xenophobes with nowhere to go.
George, I don't see anything in Bill's comments that suggest he is "scared" or is xenophobic. I don't agree with his position but making false accusations doesn't help yours.
It would be good thing if the moderator did not allow posts that are mendacious in regard to me and others.
Certains americains sont tellement ethnocentristes. Et son tous les autres pays les excluaient comme touristes, ils crieraient au scandale. Pour certains d'entre eux, ce serait bien merite.
[Some Americans are so ethnocentric. And if all the other countries excluded them as tourists, they would cry scandal. For some of them, it would be well deserved.]
AGREE!