This report is from PERC from last December. I just visited a few National Parks, which reminded me to post it.
Dozens of the world’s most high-profile national park systems charge overseas visitors more than locals. Adopting a surcharge for visitors from abroad at U.S. national parks could significantly increase revenue, providing parks with more funding to address maintenance and improve visitor experience.
*********
A Higher Level of Stewardship
In dozens of countries, park visitors from abroad pay more than locals for entry.6 A higher charge levied on foreign visitors reflects their general ability and willingness to pay more. After all, the price of admission at a national park is generally a fraction of overall trip costs for visitors, especially those from abroad.7 Asking international tourists who do not support U.S. national parks through taxes to pay a little more to see them is not only reasonable, it would also provide additional resources to improve the stewardship of our “crown jewels.”
Moreover, formal evidence suggests that demand to visit U.S. national parks—in particular the highest-profile destinations—is not sensitive to admission prices, particularly for overseas visitors. One study published in 2014 found that the price of gasoline affects national park visitation more than entry fees do.8 Another study, from 2017, estimated that raising the vehicle entry fee at Yellowstone National Park by more than double—from $30 to $70—would decrease visitation from foreign visitors by a mere 0.07 percent.9 A negligible dip would be logical given that the average overseas visitor was already spending an estimated total of $4,484 on their trip. In that context, increasing fees by a mere $40 would barely register in a traveler’s budget.
The current fee system for national parks in the United States lacks nuance, with most visitors paying a flat weekly fee that permits access for all passengers in a private vehicle.10 As part of this relatively blunt system, standard overseas visitors pay the same price as U.S. citizens and residents. Or put another way, locals enjoy no discount when visiting their home-nation parks. Often, Americans pay even more than foreign visitors to support national parks because, in addition to paying entry fees, most U.S. residents pay income taxes, which also partially support parks. Approximately $20 per U.S. taxpayer goes toward the National Park Service budget—each and every year, regardless of whether those Americans visit a national park.11 Asking overseas tourists who are not a part of the tax base to pay a little bit more to see remarkable sites in need of stewardship seems not only logical but prudent.
As many U.S. parks are facing record visitation and struggling through funding shortfalls, the idea of charging international visitors more than domestic ones has gained traction. The National Park System Advisory Board has suggested that differential pricing based on residency could be a way to increase park revenue, noting the success of that strategy in other nations.12 Additionally, the late Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) pushed in 2019 to legislatively implement a surcharge for overseas visitors to help fund national parks by raising tourist travel and visa fees by $16 and $25, respectively.13
It seems like a pretty common-sense idea to me, what do you think?
Yuck. What an anti-egalitarian idea, and how very like PERC. Every time this comes up (which it has many times) it’s largely NPS employees who shut it down. They don’t want to become quasi-border agents, checking passports at entry stations, ethnically and racially profiling visitors who don’t look or sound “American” enough, becoming entangled in accusations of discrimination and civil rights lawsuits. The article references “overseas” visitors – would that exempt Canada, which also charges flat fees for all visitors regardless of citizenship or domicile? If not, you can expect Canada to quickly retaliate by charging USA residents more at Parks Canada. And so on.
As to the example of charging foreign visitors $70 for entry to Yellowstone, I doubt if that survey mentioned the option of getting an $80 America The Beautiful Pass one time and being able to visit ALL the Parks plus all the FS and BLM day-use sites. When asked that way, the question is a no-brainer.
Kitty, I have to show my drivers license at entrances to see that it matches my Old Person Pass- I suppose other people with passes need to do that already. And FWIW it gets me a discount on FS concessionaire day use areas around here, not a free pass.
Good point. I think the proposal is being treated somewhat disingenously above, particularly with the racial-linguistic angle. Asking for each and every ID would be the only change, and that hardly discriminatory. Some features of NPS visitation (in my experience) require ID and fee, like you mention for passes. Another example would be Arches, with timed entry and reservations. It certainly seems quite successful in the minor surcharge + timed entry combo. This is also a potentially ‘inequitable’ solution that changes incentives for visitation and prevents some, but it also acheives its ends, that is, addressing crowding and ‘loving it to death.’ How is this different?
FWIW, ‘locals’ pricing and international surcharges exist elsewhere. National parks in Argentina, at least the most popular ones like Glacier (Perito Moreno) charge international visitors differently. Locals pricing days at ski hills functions similarly in some places I’ve lived.
Not all passes have a name on them, some have only a signature. Depends when and where it was purchased. Matching signatures is tricky and subjective, also time consuming when there’s a long line waiting. Not every park even asks for ID or does so in a hit-or-miss fashion, inviting accusations of racial/ethnic discrimination. Many states issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens – are they considered “international visitors”? One pass covers all occupants of the vehicle, it doesn’t have to belong to the driver, so what if the pass holder is a passenger? (How many 4th Graders have ID?) What about families that include both citizens/residents and non-citizens? On logistics alone this would turn into a ClusterF.
Philosophically and from a policy perspective, it’s a complete reversal of the very American concept of public lands as places where everyone has access and is welcome. Instead we would get the Libertarian approach of only users pay. What then becomes of the less-popular but still important places that can’t become self-supporting? Should we just sell the whole NPS enterprise to Disney and call it good? Sorry, but the second-and third-order effects would be anti-democratic (small d) and un-American.
I’m surprised that FS concessionaires ever give you a discount for your pass. They don’t have to, according to Bark vs USFS (2012). FS-operated sites have to accept it, concessionaires don’t. So saith the DC District Court.
PS That pass you bought? Every penny you paid stayed wherever you bought it. The other places you use it get zero zip nada for your visit.
I’ve always thought this would be a good way to address the maintenance backlog at busy parks. Sounds easy enough to me to show a US driver’s license at the entrance. Yellowstone and others have loads of foreign tourists who can afford to pay a premium entrance fee. I’ll just say (with no intended racism) that there are significant costs just for signage, e.g. having to show the correct way to use a vault toilet!
Kitty you will always be an outlying fringe opinion in these matters. Sure you managed to score a settlement 6 years ago, which admittedly got the Forest Service to curtail its very stupid interpretations of the rec fee law. That doesn’t change the fact that you have clearly lost the argument – the large majority of elected officials and taxpaying public support the fee programs and would support a small extra charge for visitors from other countries. A proposal that is very common sense.