National Park Visitation Trends in Texas (1990-2008) Michael A

E-254 6/10

National Park Visitation Trends in Texas (1990-2008) Michael A. Schuett, Xiangping “Coco” Gao and Darrell Fannin*

Recreational visits to national parks declined Number over the last decade (Pergams and Zaradic, 2008; of visits Shultis, 2009) (Fig. 1). In 2008, approximately 290,000,000

275 million recreational visits were recorded in 280,000,000 all national park units, compared with a national high of 281 million in 1986. The 13 national park 270,000,000 units in Texas had 5.8 million recreational visits in 2008, which is also down from previous years 260,000,000

(Fig. 2). Although this represents a slight overall 250,000,000 Year recovery from the declines of the early 2000s, 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 some Texas parks have seen visits drop in the last Annual recreational visits 18 years. It is important to consider the factors that Figure 1. Total annual recreational visits to U.S. might be influencing recreational visits to specific national park units (1990−2008). parks. Source: National Park Service, Office of Public Use Statistics (2009). There may be several reasons why fewer people Number (especially young people) are visiting national of visits parks. Some studies have suggested that geo- 7,500,000 graphical population shifts, nature deficit disorder, increased use of electronic media, and changes in 6,500,000 family travel patterns all have an effect (Pergams and Zaradic, 2006; Schuett, Scott and O’Leary, 5,500,000 2008). These complex factors are difficult to -mea sure over time. But we looked at one important 4,500,000 Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 *Associate Professor and Extension Specialist, The Texas A&M System; Doctoral Student, Department of Recreation, Park and Annual recreational visits Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M University; and Computer Systems Analyst, Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences, Figure 2. Total annual recreational visits to Texas Texas A&M University. national park units (1990-2008). Source: National Park Service, Office of Public Use Statistics (2009).

1 variable for Texas national parks—population NP = National Park shifts in nearby metropolitan and micropoli- NS = National Seashore tan areas. If communities near national parks NRA = National Recreational Area have population growth, does that translate into NHP = National Historical Park increased park visitation? Do decreases in popula- NMEM = National Memorial tion near parks cause park visitation to decline? NPRES = National Preserve W&SR = National Wild & Scenic River

Table 1. National parks in Texas. Parks Abbreviated Dates of authorization names and establishment Amistad National Recreation Area AMIS Authorized Nov. 28, 1990 Lake Meredith National Recreation Area LAMR Authorized Mar. 15, 1965 Renamed Oct. 16, 1972 Redesignated Nov. 28, 1990 San Antonio Missions National Historical Park SAAN Authorized Nov. 10, 1978 Established April 1, 1983 Padre Island National Seashore PAIS Authorized Sept. 28, 1962 Established April 6, 1968 Big Bend National Park BIBE Authorized June 20, 1935 Established June 12, 1944 Chamizal National Memorial CHAM Authorized June 30, 1966 Established Feb. 4, 1974 Guadalupe Mountains National Park GUMO Authorized Oct. 15, 1966 Established Sept. 30, 1972 Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park LYJO Authorized Dec. 2, 1969 Redesignated Dec. 28, 1980 Big Thicket National Preserve BITH Authorized Oct. 11, 1974 Fort Davis National Historic Site FODA Authorized Sept. 8, 1961 Established July 4, 1963 Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site PAAL Authorized Nov. 10, 1978 Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument ALFL Authorized Aug. 21, 1965 Renamed Nov. 10, 1978 Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River RIGR Authorized Nov. 10, 1978 Source: National Park Service, Office of Public Use Statistics (2009).

San Antonio Missions NHP - Concepcion Padre Island NS Palo Alto Battlefield NHS

2 Visitation Trends Number of visits Figures 3 through 5 group Texas national park visits by volume and show that visitation trends 400,000 fluctuate considerably among the 13 national 300,000 park units. The four most visited parks (Fig. 3) are Amistad NRA, Lake Meredith NRA, San Antonio 200,000

Missions NHP, and Padre Island NS. Of these four, 100,000 visitation has grown only at Amistad NRA. 0 Year

The next group in terms of volume (Fig. 4) shows 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 either steady or declining visitation, though Palo Big Bend NP Big Thicket NPRES Chamizal NMEM Guadalupe Mountains NP Alto Battlefield NHS has had an increasing num- Lyndon B. Johnson NHP For Davis NHS ber of visits since it opened in 2003. Palo Alto Battleeld NHS The two parks in Figure 5 have the smallest number Figure 4. Total annual recreational visits to selected Texas national park units (1990−2008), Part 2. of annual visits. Alibates Flint Quarries NM has had Source: National Park Service, Office of Public Use Statistics (2009). fluctuating visitation since 2002, while Rio Grande W&SR has maintained a consistent level of visitation except for a large increase between 2006 and 2009. Number of visits

5,000

Number of visits 4,000

2,000,000 3,000

1,500,000 2,000

1,000,000 1,000

500,000 0 Year 0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Year

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Alibates Flint Quarries NM Rio Grande W&SR

Amistad NRA Lake Meredith NRA Padre Island NS San Antonio Missions NHP Figure 5. Total annual recreational visits to selected Texas national park units (1990−2008), Part 3. Figure 3. Total annual recreational visits to selected Source: National Park Service, Office of Public Use Statistics (2009). Texas national park units (1990−2008), Part 1. Source: National Park Service, Office of Public Use Statistics (2009).

Alibates Flint Quarries NM Big Bend NP San Antonio Missions NHP - San Juan

3 A map showing the locations of the Texas national parks illustrates geographical park visitation Visitation Trends trends (Fig. 6). Parks with similar visitation trends and Local Population appear to be somewhat near each other. Explana- tions for sharp visitation increases or decreases in To explore the possible relationship between park certain years can vary; sometimes roads are closed visitation and population shifts in nearby areas, we or visitor centers are being renovated. The reasons studied population change for Core Based Statis- for gradual increases or decreases in visitation tical Areas (CBSAs) within 50 miles of the park over time are more difficult to ascertain. units, a reasonable distance for people to travel on day trips from their homes. (According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a CBSA is a combined metropolitan and Lake Meredith NRA micropolitan statistical area Alibates Flint Quarries NM with a population of at least Amarillo 10,000 people.) Using GIS techniques, a Lubbock 50-mile zone was mapped Ft Worth Dallas Chamizal NMEM Guadalupe around each national park. Mountains NP Data in Table 2 show visita- El Paso Lyndon B. Johnson Big Thicket NPRES tion figures from 1990 and NHP 2008 and corresponding Fort Davis NHS Austin Houston CBSA population figures Big Bend NP San Antonio for those years. Seven of the Legend Amistad NRA San Antonio Missions NHP Rio Grande national parks had increased NPS parks W&SR visitation, while two of the Interstate State boundary CBSA populations decreased

Rapidly decreasing visitation Padre Island NS between 1990 and 2008. Slowly decreasing visitation The relationship between Palo Alto Battleeld NHS Rapidly increasing visitation visitation and population Slowly increasing visitation change is shown as posi- Stable visitation tive (+) if both increased or decreased, and negative (-) Figure 6. Visitation trends of Texas national parks (1990−2008). if they did not move in the

Alibates Flint Quarries NM Big Bend NP Lyndon B. Johnson NHP

4 Table 2. Comparison between recreational visits to Texas national parks and total CBSA population within 50 miles (1990–2008). National park Abbreviation Recreational visits Total CBSA population Relationship 1990 2008 1990 2008 Alibates Flint Quarries NM ALFL 3,418 2,297 283,622 327,240 – Amistad NRA AMIS 1,306,474 1,980,717 75,274 100,332 + Big Bend NP BIBE 257,378 362,512 31,334* 34,029* + Big Thicket NPRES BITH 77,930 93,634 4,329,456 6,316,416 + Chamizal NMEM CHAM 199,007 197,767 595,350 742,062 – Fort Davis NHS FODA 56,547 49,290 15,736 11,062 + Guadalupe Mountains NP GUMO 192,890 163,709 15,736 11,062 + Lake Meredith NRA LAMR 1,358,778 875,280 283,622 327,240 – Lyndon B. Johnson NHP LYJO 193,066 93,204 2,299,159 3,732,316 – Padre Island NS PAIS 593,255 635,925 1,227,758 1,774,486 + Palo Alto Battlefield NHS PAAL 59** 45,026 1,037,003** 1,171,067 + Rio Grande W&SR RIGR 525 1,606 31,334* 34,029* + San Antonio Missions NHP SAAN 313,443 1,303,212 2,423,851 3,879,290 + Notes: * There are no CBSAs overlapping with the 50-mile zones of Big Bend and Rio Grande, thus four counties overlapping with the 50-mile zones (Presidio, Brewster, Terrell and Pecos) were used collectively as a substitute for a CBSA. ** No visitation data are available for Palo Alto Battlefield NHS before 2003. Both visitation and population numbers for 1990 are replaced by those for 2003. Source: National Park Service (2009), U.S. Census Bureau (2009). same direction. Results show that for 69 percent locations and neighboring CBSAs. Three national of the national parks (9 of 13 have + signs) the parks—Amistad NRA, Padre Island NS and San relationship was positive and for 31 percent it was Antonio Missions NHP—have benefited from the negative. Two park units—Big Bend NP and Rio population growth in peripheral CBSAs with large Grande W&SR—are in very remote areas and do populations (Austin, Houston and San Antonio, not have CBSAs within 50 miles. respectively). The increased visitation at Palo Alto Battlefield NHS also seems logical, based on the Population growth appears to be linked to growth in neighboring urban areas such as Corpus increases in park visitation. Figure 7 depicts park Christi and Harlingen. A third example is the Big

Guadalupe Mountains NP Fort Davis NHS Amistad NRA

5 The four national parks showing negative relationships with Lake Meredith Alibates Flint Quarries respect to park visitation and CBSA population do not follow the same logical pattern. Lake Meredith NRA was the most Ft Worth Dallas frequently visited national park El Paso in Texas in the 1990s, with more

Chamizal Guadalupe Mountains than 1 million recreational visits. But the park lost about 35.6 Lyndon B. Fort Davis Austin Big Thicket Johnson percent of its visitation from Big Bend Amistad Houston 1990 to 2008 even though the San Antonio San Antonio Missions Rio Grande populations of CBSAs around it have increased. The Lyndon Legend B. Johnson NHP had a similar Cities visitation loss from 1990 to 2008 NPS parks Padre Island Interstate even though it is near the rap- CBSAs State boundary Palo Alto Battleeld idly growing metropolitan areas NPS park 50 mile buer of Austin and San Antonio. Chamizal NMEM experienced Figure 7. Texas national parks and CBSAs within 50 miles. Source: National Park Service (2009), U.S. Census Bureau (2009). a very slight visitation decrease from 1990 to 2008, but its sur- rounding CBSAs have had a 25 Thicket NPRES, a relatively remote park that has percent population increase. Alibates Flint Quarries medium-level visitation but is accessible by people NM had a visitation decrease similar to that of Lake in the Houston-Galveston Metropolitan Area. Meredith NRA. Continuing population growth in metropolitan areas may support the gradual growth of park visitation for these park units. Implications In contrast, Fort Davis NHS and Guadalupe This exploratory analysis of national park visitation Mountains NP are not a very close drive from and population change should raise the awareness any growing CBSAs and visits to these parks have of national park managers, tourism officials and declined. Population decline appears to be linked community leaders. Although there may be national to decreases in park visitation, though this is or statewide trends, individual parks may not fol- merely conjecture. low these trends. There are many factors that might

Big Bend NP Big Thicket NPRES Guadalupe Mountains NP

6 cause park visitation to fluctuate, including closed/ new exhibits, construction, fees, special events, References availability of hospitality facilities nearby, transpor- Pergams, O.R.W. and P.A. Zaradic. (2008). Evi- tation costs, and other service issues. Specific types dence for a fundamental and pervasive shift away of parks may attract certain demographic groups from nature-based recreation. Proceedings of the (e.g., senior citizens or families) and social/economic National Academy of Sciences, 105:2757-2358. factors related to these groups may also affect visita- Schuett, M.A., L. Le and S.J. Hollenhorst. (Forth- tion (Schuett, Le and Hollenhorst, 2010). It would be coming, 2010). Who visits U.S. national parks: An simplistic to assume that population growth always analysis of park visitors and visitation 1990-2008. leads to more park visits. However, as this study of World Leisure Journal. Texas parks has shown, population trends may be an Schuett, M.A., D. Scott and J. O’Leary. (2008). Fac- important factor. tors impacting participation in hunting, fishing, The National Park Service, the tourism industry, and wildlife-associated recreation. In M. Man- and regional/community development organi- fredo. Pathways to success: Integrating human zations should look more closely at population dimensions into fisheries and wildlife management trends in the areas around parks to determine (pp. 18-30). Washington, D.C.: Island Press. whether the population is becoming more diverse Shultis, J. (2009). Declining park visitation? Com- or older, whether family size has changed, and paring Parks Canada, National Park Service whether income or educational levels have and BC parks responses. Paper presented at the changed. Understanding what is taking place with George Wright Society Biennial Conference. out-of-state and international visitors is important Portland, OR. as well. Park managers may want to pay close U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). http://www.census.gov/. attention to what is occurring outside their park U.S. National Park Service, Office of Public Use Sta- boundaries because ultimately it will affect who tistics. (2009). http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/. is visiting the park. Collecting more information about where visitors are coming from will give managers a better idea of the distances people are Additional Resources traveling to reach parks. For more information on national park visitation Where visitation is declining, park managers can please visit http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/. implement changes to better serve visitors and For more information on the Center for Socio- meet the needs of a changing Texas population. economic Research and Education at Texas A&M Such changes might include modifying interpreta- University, its projects and the technical assistance tive programs or creating new ones, designing new it can provide, visit http://csreweb.rpts.tamu.edu/. park attractions, and/or providing different types of activities, exhibits and special events.

Padre Island NS Fort Davis NHS Rio Grande W&SR

7 Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the National Park Service Office of Public Use Statistics for access to their visitation data and the Center for Socioeconomic Research & Education at Texas A&M University for technical assistance and data analysis.

Photographs are courtesy of the National Park Service.