The National Park Service suffers from two problems that, an economist would argue, have a relatively simple fix.听
Number one: Overcrowding. A record visits were logged last year across the national park system, a tourist swarm that can make a .听
All those visitors lead to problem number two: A system-wide maintenance backlog that was, as of September 2016, a whopping . More visitors mean more road damage, emergency calls, trail work, animal interactions, and a litany of other expensive problems.听
On Tuesday, the Interior Department proposed that simple fix, though it may sting: a price hike across 17 of the country鈥檚 busiest parks during peak season. If enacted, the policy would to these parks during peak season. Car entrance fees would jump from $25 to $70 during summer; bike-in and walk-in fees would jump from the current $10 or $15 to $30. The NPS estimates those visitors would boost revenue by $70 million each year under the new pricing model.听聽
The 17 parks listed are: Acadia; Arches; Bryce Canyon; Canyonlands; Denali; Glacier; Grand Canyon; Grand Teton; Joshua Tree; Mount Rainier; Olympic; Rocky Mountain; Sequoia and Kings Canyon; Shenandoah; Yellowstone; Yosemite; and Zion.
鈥淭he infrastructure of our national parks is aging and in need of renovation and restoration,鈥 Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said in a statement. 鈥淭argeted fee increases at some of our most-visited parks will help ensure that they are protected and preserved in perpetuity.鈥
From a pure economics standpoint, there鈥檚 logic to what Zinke proposes. But public land isn鈥檛 a pure economic commodity. 鈥淭here鈥檚 a very real need to fix our parks,鈥 says Jos茅 Gonz谩lez, executive director of Latino Outdoors, which sets up trips designed to get Latinos recreating outside. 鈥淏ut it鈥檚 important to ask whether these approaches are being done through an equity lens. Are we closing an equity gap or will we be amplifying it?鈥
John Loomis, a Colorado State University professor who studies the economics of public land, doesn鈥檛 see an equity gap widening. Peak-season demand, he says, is pretty inelastic at the largest parks. 鈥淲hen you think about the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Glacier鈥攁 huge amount of the cost is just getting there,鈥 he says. If a family commits to a summer vacation at one of those parks, they鈥檝e already committed to spending hundreds of dollars on plane tickets, gasoline, lodging, and food, so an extra $45 at the gate won鈥檛 act as a huge deterrent, he says.听
Higher fees would likely lessen congestion, too, and possibly spread those visits out through the year. Much like a toll road, jacking up prices during the busiest times can incentivize visits during a less-crowded, less-expensive time. Look for Yellowstone wolves in winter instead of grizzlies during the summer, and you can save some money.
Gonz谩lez agrees with those claims, but says this economic argument is far too simple, and neglects the . 鈥淚t鈥檚 like saying, Well, you鈥檙e already poor, so you weren鈥檛 going to come anyway,鈥 he says. Those who value national park visits, regardless of race or income level, will commit to spending $70 to get into a park, Gonz谩lez says, but the math isn鈥檛 so simple for those who aren鈥檛 enthusiasts. If someone is on the fence about visiting a national park, be it for a financial reason or one of interest, that $45 price hike might be enough to dissuade them.听
This runs counter to goals laid out by the NPS鈥檚 Office of Relevancy, Diversity, and Inclusion. The unit was formed not only to connect the parks system to a diverse population, but to connect that population to a diverse set of parks. The 17 parks identified for a price hike aren鈥檛 those in urban areas like Washington, D.C. or San Francisco, but the system鈥檚 crown jewels鈥攖he ones with mountains instead of monuments, bison instead of a bridge鈥攔equire a long trip for most Americans. A low-income Bay Area resident can still visit Golden Gate National Recreation area with relative ease, but Yosemite might now seem out of reach.听
鈥淚t is just affirming the idea that you need to have a certain socioeconomic status to enjoy public lands,鈥 Gonz谩lez says. 鈥淭hese are public lands; they鈥檙e not amusement parks. … We need to look at equitable access to keep it public.鈥
Most agree that the parks need infrastructure improvements, yet Congress has been hesitant to significantly boost funding for such work. Putting the onus on visitors won鈥檛 solve it, either. If the NPS were to devote that entire $70 million projected annual surplus to Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, and Glacier national parks, it鈥檇 take almost 17 years to fund the backed-up work. And that鈥檚 just.
The NPS proposal kicked off a 30-day . Parks could undeniably use the extra money. The question now is where it should come from.