Park Visitors Are Willing To Pay More To Support National Park Wildlife

Visitors to parks like Yellowstone and  Grand Teton national parks are willing to pay about 50 percent more in visitor fees if it means supporting wildlife within the parks, according to a 2025 study.

Millions visit national parks each year in hopes of seeing iconic wildlife like bears, elk, and bison. This makes wildlife conservation highly important for park managers, but conservation projects can be costly. The study (attached) was interested in finding out if park visitors would be willing to pay a bit more if it meant increasing opportunities for wildlife sightings.

Among the 991 visitors to Yellowstone and Grand Teton surveyed for the study, 77 percent said viewing wildlife was a primary reason for their national park trip. This means that $581 million of the total net economic value generated by these trips can be attributed to wildlife viewing.

Furthermore, 48 percent of respondents agreed that they would take fewer trips to Yellowstone and Grand Teton if there were fewer wide-ranging wildlife around to view, resulting in a 16 percent decrease in annual visitation to the two parks. The study estimated that this could reduce revenue to the two parks by $3.9 million over three years.

The study pointed out that increasing visitor fees is always expected to lead to decreased visitation. However, the failure to conserve wildlife species that visitors love to see could also reduce visitation in the long run. Ultimately, the researchers found that asking visitors to pay towards conserving wildlife appears to affect park visitation less than if there were fewer wide-ranging wildlife for visitors to view.

The researchers estimate that the parks could charge a $5 conservation fee and reduce park visitation by only 1 percent, while also raising $2.7 million annually for conservation. The study notes that the parks would have to charge a fee of at least $76 to reduce visitation by the same amount as might occur if there were fewer wide-ranging wildlife to view.

“Visitors to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks find wildlife viewing highly important, and they indicate broad support for wildlife conservation fundraising options,” explained Aaron Enriquez, a research economist for the U.S. Geological Survey and one of the authors of the study. “Visitors generally appear willing to help foot the bill for wildlife conservation, so there is a potential opportunity for generating much-needed revenue for wildlife conservation by asking for contributions from some of the people who obtain benefits from that conservation (i.e., wildlife viewers).”

The study looked at three potential fundraising options: a wildlife conservation fund to collect voluntary donations; a wildlife conservation tax or fee on goods or services sold in parks; and a mandatory wildlife conservation fee.

Interestingly, the study found that support for a voluntary fund and a mandatory fee did not depend on income, whereas support for a wildlife conservation tax or fee did depend on income (with higher income correlating to higher support for that option). Those in a higher income bracket were also more likely to simultaneously support all three fundraising options.

The study does point out, however, that any increase in visitor fees would likely hit low-income and historically marginalized groups the hardest. In this case, the researchers note that policymakers need to consider public perceptions of fairness when considering any fee increases.