Environmental Management

, Volume 52, Issue 3, pp 683–698 | Cite as

Valuation of National Park System Visitation: The Efficient Use of Count Data Models, Meta-Analysis, and Secondary Visitor Survey Data

  • Christopher Neher
  • John Duffield
  • David Patterson


The National Park Service (NPS) currently manages a large and diverse system of park units nationwide which received an estimated 279 million recreational visits in 2011. This article uses park visitor data collected by the NPS Visitor Services Project to estimate a consistent set of count data travel cost models of park visitor willingness to pay (WTP). Models were estimated using 58 different park unit survey datasets. WTP estimates for these 58 park surveys were used within a meta-regression analysis model to predict average and total WTP for NPS recreational visitation system-wide. Estimated WTP per NPS visit in 2011 averaged $102 system-wide, and ranged across park units from $67 to $288. Total 2011 visitor WTP for the NPS system is estimated at $28.5 billion with a 95% confidence interval of $19.7–$43.1 billion. The estimation of a meta-regression model using consistently collected data and identical specification of visitor WTP models greatly reduces problems common to meta-regression models, including sample selection bias, primary data heterogeneity, and heteroskedasticity, as well as some aspects of panel effects. The article provides the first estimate of total annual NPS visitor WTP within the literature directly based on NPS visitor survey data.


Count data model Travel cost National park service Benefits transfer Meta-regression Model Valuation Willingness to pay Recreational visitation 


  1. Aiken R, LaRouche GP (2003) Net economic values for wildlife-related recreation in 2001. Report 2001–3, Division of Federal Aid, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Almansa C, Martinez-Paz J (2011) What weight should be assigned to future environmental impacts? A probabilistic cost benefit analysis using recent advances on discounting. Sci Total Environ 409(2011):1305–1314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amoako-Tuffour J, Martínez-Espiñeira R (2012) Leisure and the net opportunity cost of travel time in recreation demand analysis: an application to Gros Morne National Park. J Appl Econ 15(1):25–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhat M (2003) Application of non-market valuation to the Florida Keys marine reserve management. J Environ Manage 67(4):315–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bishop R, Brown C, Welsh M, Boyle K (1989) Grand Canyon recreation and Glen Canyon dam operations: an economic evaluation. In: Boyle KJ, Heekin T (eds) Western regional research project W-133, benefits and costs in natural resource planning, interim report 2. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maine, Orono, pp 407–435Google Scholar
  6. Bowker J, English D, Donovan J (1996) Toward a value for guided rafting on southern rivers. J Agric Appl Econ 28(2):423–432Google Scholar
  7. Bowker J, Starbuck C, English D, Bergstrom J, Rosenberger R, McCollum D (2009) Estimating the net economic value of national forest recreation: an application of the national visitor use monitoring data base. Faculty Series Working Paper, FS 09-02. University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, AthensGoogle Scholar
  8. Cameron A, Trivedi P (1998) Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christensen P (2003) Topics in meta-analysis: a literature survey. Institute of Transport Economics, OsloGoogle Scholar
  10. Dillman D (2000) Mail and internet surveys—the tailored design method. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  11. Dillman D (2007) Mail and internet surveys: 2nd edition, 2007 edition. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  12. Donovan G, Champ P (2009) The economic benefits of Elk viewing at the Jewell Meadows Wildlife Area in Oregon. Hum Dimens Wildl 2009:51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duffield J, Neher C, Patterson D (2009) National park service benefit transfers data base: analysis and results. Report for Dr. Bruce Peacock. National Park Service Department of Environmental Quality, Fort CollinsGoogle Scholar
  14. Englin J, Shonkwiler J (1995a) Estimating social welfare using count data models: an application under conditions of endogenous stratification and truncation. Rev Econ Stat 1995:104–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Englin J, Shonkwiller J (1995b) Modeling recreation demand in the presence of unobservable travel costs: toward a travel price model. J Environ Econ Manage 29(3):168–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freund R, Littell R (1986) SAS system for regression, 1986th edn. SAS Institute Inc, CaryGoogle Scholar
  17. Glass GV (1976) Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ Resour 5(10):3–8Google Scholar
  18. Hagerty D, Moeltner K (2005) Specification of driving costs in models of recreation demand. Land Econ 81(1):127–143Google Scholar
  19. Hardner J, McKenney B (2006) The U.S. national park system: an economic asset at risk. Report for the National Parks Conservation Association, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Haspel A, Johnson F (1982) Multiple destination trip bias in recreation benefit estimation. Land Econ 58(3):364–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heberling M, Templeton J (2009) Estimating the economic value of national parks with count data models using on-site, secondary data: the case of the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve. Environ Manage 43:619–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hellerstein D, Mendelsohn R (1993) A theoretical foundation for count data models. Am J Agric Econ 1993:604–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaval P, Loomis J (2003) Updated outdoor recreation use values with emphasis on national park recreation. National Park Service, Fort CollinsGoogle Scholar
  24. Kling C (1989) A note on the welfare effects of omitting substitute prices and qualities from travel cost mode. Land Econ 65(3):290–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kling C, Sexton R (1990) Bootstrapping in applied welfare analysis. Am J Agric Econ 72(2):406–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leggett C, Kleckner K, Boyle K, Duffield J, Mitchell R (2003) Social desirability bias in contingent valuation surveys administered through in-person interviews. Land Econ 79(4):561–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liston-Heyes C, Heyes A (1999) Recreational benefits from the Dartmoor National Park. J Environ Manage 55(2):69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Loomis J (2003) Travel cost demand model based river recreation benefit estimates with on-site and household surveys: comparative results and a correction procedure. Water Resour Res 39(4):1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Loomis J (2005) Updated outdoor recreation use values on national forests and other public lands. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-658Google Scholar
  30. Markowski M, Unsworth R, Paterson R, Boyle K (1997) A database of sport fishing values, Industrial Economics Inc., Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Martínez-Espiñeira R, Amoako-Tuffour J (2008) Recreation demand analysis under truncation, overdispersion, and endogenous stratification: an application to Gros Morne National Park. J Environ Manage 88:1320–1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martínez-Espiñeira R, Amoako-Tuffour J (2009) Multiple-destination and multi-purpose trip effects in the analysis of the demand for trips to a remote recreational site. Environ Manage 43(6):1146–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McNair D (1993) RPA recreation values database.USDA Forest Service, RPA Program, Washington, DC; Contract 43-4568-3-1191Google Scholar
  34. Moeltner K, Woodward R (2009) Meta-functional benefit transfer for wetland valuation: making the most of small samples. Environ Resour Econ 42:89–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. National Park Service (2012) NPS Public Use Statistics. http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/
  36. Nelson JP, Kennedy PE (2008) The use (and abuse) of meta-analysis in environmental and resource economics: an assessment. Working paper. Department of Economics, Penn State University, University ParkGoogle Scholar
  37. Ovaskainen V, Neuvonen M, Pouta E (2012) Modelling recreation demand with respondent-reported driving cost and stated cost of travel time: a Finnish case. J For Econ 18(4):303–317Google Scholar
  38. Phillips C (2003) Quantifying and reporting uncertainty from systematic errors. Epidemiology 14(4):459–466Google Scholar
  39. Richardson R, Loomis J (2005) Climate change and recreational benefits in an Alpine National Park. J Leis Res 37:307–320Google Scholar
  40. Rosenthal D (1987) The necessity for substitute prices in recreation demand analyses. Am J Agric Econ 69(4):828–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. SAS Institute Inc. (2008) SAS/STAT 9.2 users guide. SAS Institute, Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  42. Shaw D (1988) On-site samples regression: problems of non-negative integers, truncation and endogenous stratification. J Econ 1988:211–223Google Scholar
  43. Smith VK, Kaoru Y (1990) Signals or noise? Explaining the variation in recreation benefit estimates. Am J Agric Econ 72(2):419–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sorg C, Loomis J (1984) Empirical estimates of amenity forest values: a comparative review. General Technical Report RM-107, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fort CollinsGoogle Scholar
  45. Stanley TD, Jarrell S (1989) Meta-regression analysis: a quantitative method of literature surveys. J Econ Surv 19(3):299–308Google Scholar
  46. Stapler R, Johnston R (2009) Meta-analysis, benefit transfer, and methodological covariates: implications for transfer error. Environ Resour Econ 42:227–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013) Occupational employment statistics. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000. Accessed 3/4/2013
  48. U.S. Department of the Interior (1995) The national parks: index 1995. National Park Service, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  49. Vose D (2002) Risk analysis: a quantitative guide, 2nd edn. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  50. VSP (Visitor Services Project) (2007) The visitor services project brochure. University of Idaho, College of Natural Resources, Park Studies Unit, Moscow. http://www.psu.uidaho.edu/vsp.htm
  51. Walsh R, Johnson D, McKean J (1988) Review of outdoor recreation demand studies with nonmarket benefit estimates, 1968–1988. Technical Report 54, Colorado Water Resources Research Institute, Colorado State University, Fort CollinsGoogle Scholar
  52. Walsh R, Johnson D, McKean J (1992) Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation demand studies, 1968–1988. Water Resour Res 28(1992):707–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ward F, Loomis J (1986) The travel cost demand model as an environmental policy assessment tool: a review of literature. West J Agric Econ 11(2):164–178Google Scholar
  54. White H (1980) A heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroscedasticity. Econometrica 48(4):817–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Neher
    • 1
  • John Duffield
    • 1
  • David Patterson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematical SciencesThe University of MontanaMissoulaUSA

Personalised recommendations