Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Tourism to Olympic National Park creates $398,689,900 in Economic Benefits
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostThu Apr 27, 2017 5:26 pm 
Tuesday, April 25, 2017 10:58 PDT Olympic National Park News Release Tourism to Olympic National Park creates $398,689,900 in Economic Benefits; Report shows visitor spending supports 3,842 jobs in local economy Port Angeles, WA – A new National Park Service (NPS) report shows that 3,390,221 visitors to Olympic National Park in 2016 spent $286,786,300 in communities near the park. That spending supported 3,842 jobs in the local area and had a cumulative benefit to the local economy of $398,689,900. “Olympic National Park welcomes visitors from across the country and around the world,” said Acting Superintendent Lee Taylor. “We are delighted to share the story of this place and the experiences it provides. We also feature the park as a way to introduce our visitors to this part of the country and all that it offers. National park tourism is a significant driver in the national economy, returning more than $10 for every $1 invested in the National Park Service, and it’s a big factor in our local economy as well. We appreciate the partnership and support of our neighbors and are glad to be able to give back by helping to sustain local communities.” The peer-reviewed visitor spending analysis was conducted by economists Catherine Cullinane Thomas of the U.S. Geological Survey and Lynne Koontz of the National Park Service. The report shows $18.4 billion of direct spending by 331 million park visitors in communities within 60 miles of a national park. This spending supported 318,000 jobs nationally; 271,544 of those jobs are found in these gateway communities. The cumulative benefit to the U.S. economy was $34.9 billion. According to the 2016 report, nationally most park visitor spending was for lodging (31.2 percent) followed by food and beverages (27.2 percent), gas and oil (11.7 percent), admissions and fees (10.2 percent), souvenirs and other expenses (9.7 percent), local transportation (7.4 percent), and camping fees (2.5%). Report authors this year produced an interactive tool. Users can explore current year visitor spending, jobs, labor income, value added, and output effects by sector for national, state, and local economies. Users can also view year-by-year trend data. The interactive tool and report are available at the NPS Social Science Program webpage: go.nps.gov/vse. The report includes information for visitor spending at individual parks and by state. To learn more about national parks in Washington and how the National Park Service works with Washington communities to help preserve local history, conserve the environment, and provide outdoor recreation, go to www.nps.gov/washington. www.nps.gov

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Humptulips
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Posts: 234 | TRs | Pics
Humptulips
Member
PostFri Apr 28, 2017 11:55 pm 
It would be interesting to see how they came up with the visitor numbers. Not far off of 10,000 a day everyday. Pretty farfetched IMO.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Seventy2002
Member
Member


Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 512 | TRs | Pics
Seventy2002
Member
PostSat Apr 29, 2017 11:16 am 
Humptulips wrote:
It would be interesting to see how they came up with the visitor numbers.
I found "PUBLIC USE REPORTING AND COUNTING INSTRUCTIONS" for ONP. A download link for the "2016 NPS Visitor Spending Effects Report" is at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/socialscience/vse.htm .
Quote:
Pretty farfetched IMO.
The Park Service acknowledges limitations in counting in a footnote on page 7 of the above report. "Parks count visits as the number of individuals who enter the park each day. For example, a family of four taking a week-long vacation to Yellowstone National Park and staying at a lodge outside of the park would be counted as 28 visits (4 individuals who enter the park on 7 different days). A different family of four, also taking a week-long vacation to Yellowstone National Park but lodging within the park, would be counted as 4 visits (4 individuals who enter the park on a single day and then stay within the park for the remainder of their trip). These differences are a result of the realities of the limitations in the methods available to count park visits."

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
meck
Member
Member


Joined: 31 Dec 2010
Posts: 920 | TRs | Pics
meck
Member
PostSat Apr 29, 2017 1:53 pm 
Yeah, an average of something like 9200 per day seems high to me too (even though I'm sure on a really nice summer weekend, between all the visitors to the coastal beaches, and other hiking sites it could probably approach 20,000+ "unique visits" throughout an entire day). I wonder if the traffic along Highway 101 near Lake Crescent and the coastal section near beaches 1-6 and Kalaloch is folding into that number since it passes through ONP land?

*Just say NO to Rent-Seeking, don't give up the concept of "ownership"*
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Humptulips
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Posts: 234 | TRs | Pics
Humptulips
Member
PostMon May 01, 2017 11:15 am 
Seventy2002 wrote:
I found "PUBLIC USE REPORTING AND COUNTING INSTRUCTIONS" for ONP. A download link for the "2016 NPS Visitor Spending Effects Report" is at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/socialscience/vse.htm .
Thank you for those links. I still am confused how they count non-recreational use. After reading that it seems like they are counted as visits for the economic impact, unless I am confused. If that is correct they are counting a lot of locals with their road counters it seems to me and that may account for the large number of visitors. Also I wonder if they are counting people twice or more in some instances. For instance if I stop at Ruby Beach for a bit on my way to a hike on the Queets and get a back country permit I am counted as 7.8 visitors who spent about $936. Maybe I am not understanding it correctly but it seems like they are over counting and because of that overstating the economic impact.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Seventy2002
Member
Member


Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 512 | TRs | Pics
Seventy2002
Member
PostMon May 01, 2017 4:02 pm 
Humptulips wrote:
it seems like they are counted as visits for the economic impact,
I guessing"non-recreation" visits means activities like delivering supplies, hauling out garbage, and maintenance performed by contractors. If I'm right, that's economic impact.
Quote:
they are counting a lot of locals with their road counters
That seems to vary with the location of the counter. The counter on the Mora Road isn't going to count any locals on their way to work or the grocery store. The Lake Crescent District has a counter "on the westbound lane of U.S. Highway 101." Those counts are adjusted based on seasonal estimates of non-recreational use. November through April, that's 80%.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostTue May 02, 2017 11:09 am 
There are documents available that detail the methodology used for visitor counts and how they come up with those numbers. They are admittedly puzzling, but NPS maintains they've strived for a degree of accuracy, even along the Kalaloch coastal strip, which I've always found baffling.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
Member
PostTue May 02, 2017 11:30 pm 
Humptulips wrote:
If that is correct they are counting a lot of locals with their road counters it seems to me and that may account for the large number of visitors. Also I wonder if they are counting people twice or more in some instances. For instance if I stop at Ruby Beach for a bit on my way to a hike on the Queets and get a back country permit I am counted as 7.8 visitors who spent about $936. Maybe I am not understanding it correctly but it seems like they are over counting and because of that overstating the economic impact.
No, if you got a backcounty permit to camp overnight, the actual number of people in your party would be counted, and the spending prorated to $136.09 per average party of 2.6 per overnight. Realize they're including food, gas, investments in outdoor gear & clothes, etc. If no camping permit, you'd count as a local day trip, spending $40.63 per party on average. From the traffic counts, they estimated the percent recreational visits by stationing students at various Hwy. 101 turn-offs (Ruby Beach, Kalaloch and Fairholm campgrounds, etc.) who counted the fraction of cars that stopped vs. drove past, and also interviewed drivers to see what fraction made multiple stops in the Park so they could avoid counting one party multiple times, and asked visitors how much they spent. See Olympic NP Visitor Study. So the traffic counters produce an admittedly crude but honest estimate. Uncounted are all of us who enter the Park through USFS or DNR trailheads and find the self-registration stations at the Park boundary have no overnight camping permits in them, or never mail them in, or are day-hiking so don't even check.

"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir "the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostWed May 03, 2017 11:47 am 
^ I think it's worth noting that there doesn't really seem to be any way to get it perfect, and that's not unique to ONP. You can get into Mt. Rainier NP via Hwy 410 without going through any gate, and there's nobody there to count cars entering. You can go in at Ohanepecosh and the entrance gate may or may not be staffed. You can bypass the main entrance gate at Glacier NP, drive just a little ways north (coming out of Kalispell) and connect to the "Going to the Sun" road without going through any gate or being counted by anyone. So while many NP's have their own little "back door" routes where visitors can use the Park without being counted, and some (like ONP and NCNP) have major highways that carry traffic through that is not using the Park, if you actually read those visitor studies you'll see they really do strive to achieve some degree of accuracy, even if their "formulas" leave you scratching your head in wonder.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Tourism to Olympic National Park creates $398,689,900 in Economic Benefits
  Happy Birthday noahk!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum