| Abstract: |
The National Park System (NPS) employs
several fee strategies to regulate access and generate operating funds.
However, a national debate surrounds many fee issues the acceptability of
the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program (RFDP), whether the value of
the benefits matches the fees, the preferred structure for applying fees, and
whether fees constitute a barrier to some portion of the American public.
This investigation sheds additional light on the fees debate and contributes
to the decisions NPS managers must make about fees and fee strategies.
The results reported here come from an analysis of data from a national
survey sponsored by the NPS Social Science Program. The phone survey
of 3,515 people sought to profile the demographics of visitors and nonvisitors,
determine visitation rates, assess perceptions of many fee topics,
and identify reasons why people do and do not visit the nation’s parks. This
analysis reports on a portion of that survey and specifically addresses the
RFDP, whether benefits match cost, the fee structure and whether fees
represent a barrier.
Significant findings reported in this article include that 1) ninety-five
percent of Americans are not familiar with the RFDP and among the five
percent of Americans familiar with the RFDP, 94% support the program,
2) eighty percent of visitors who paid to enter a NPS unit think the amount
they paid was “just about right” for the value they received, 3) by a two to
one margin, Americans support lower entrance fees with additional fees for
services utilized rather than one large, all-inclusive entrance fee, 4) ninetytwo
percent of Americans prefer that entrance fees stay within the NPS
rather than be deposited in the U.S. Treasury, and 5) through factor
analysis, entrance fees do not constitute a barrier to more frequent
visitation of NPS units but that the total cost of a trip (hotels, food, travel)
is perceived to be expensive. When individual expenses are combined into
a broader “expense package,” total costs become a barrier to people with
smaller household incomes and to individuals with less education. |
