visits to most of the major parks of the National Park System, he concluded that it was too low. In the case of some parks, say, Yosemite, Sequoia, and Kings Canyon, the truly income-generating visitor probably runs no more than 0.55. This factor was accepted by park superintendents and their administrations as the most likely. But in the case of Grand Canyon, Zion, Rocky Mountain, Grand Teton, and Glacier, among others, the real income-generators among visitors run in all likelihood as much as 0.95. Therefore, after a review of all parks, relative to their location away from major population centers, it became apparent that 0.75 is still a conservative deflator, one with which only a few knowledgeable analysts should quarrel. (Indeed, a factor of 0.80 might be deemed plausible.) The next step involves the multiplication of 105 million by the daily expenditures per person by length of stay. The average daily expenditures are estimated to run approximately $15.12. (Franklin Mullaly has pointed out that this expenditure figure is not far from that chosen by Clawson.) The computation is as follows: 1. Average expenditures per visit for nine different areas are available. But this average has varied with the year of each study. The argument offered here is that the prime changer of the amounts spent is the price level. The averaging of each State average is then subjected to a price level adjustment. Nine studies for that many areas and their corresponding years are: Arizona, 1954 Montana, 1962 Great Smoky Mountains, 1956 Cape Cod, 1963 Yosemite, 1950 Yellowstone, 1950 Glacier, 1951 Rocky Mountain, 1952 The average expenditures (per person) for each of these are respectively, $9.12, $9.85, $6.32, $9.94, $5.60, $11.17, $11.70, $5.52, and $8.10. The range then is from a low of $5.52 (Glacier) to $11.70 (Yellowstone). We find, in addition, three levels of consistency: (1) $9.12, $9.85, $9.94; (2) $11.17 and $11.70; and (3) $5.60, $5.52, and $6.32. One figure $8.10, for Rocky Mountain National Park, appears to be a maverick. Had there been less visits from the standard metropolitan area of Denver, it could have reached the average of group (2). But why the amount of $5.52 for Glacier is so low as it is, is indeed puzzling. This amount is perhaps a reflection of statistical classifications used, with the result that certain items of expenditure have been excluded. So it and the amount for Denver are omitted in the "inflation" of each average to current price levels. 2. Inflating reflects price level differences arising for the various dates of the studies. Thus, a larger inflator is applied to a 1950 average expenditure than that which is applied to a 1963 average expenditure. The price level has been rising since 1950 so that a 1967 price is much higher than a 1950 price. The inflated data, with the above-stated omissions, are: (Note the average found for these values is $11.18. The reciprocal of the income deflator of the Department of Commerce is used.) In some cases the arithmetic average of the average expenditures may be a valid representative of this group. Let us, however, make an assumption that may come closer to reality than would the arithmetic average. We suppose that by 1967, the year we set for the most recent computation, travel prices throughout the United States would have been equalized or might have approached equalization. Economically speaking, this idea is quite plausible. With the spread of automobile travel through the constantly growing interstate highway system, prices generally should be forced into alinement with the rising demands, even for those parks in relatively low income regions. Hence, let us take the average of the last three values in the array as a plausible national average, or $15.12. This higher value is much more in line with the experience of this writer who over the last two or three decades has moved well into the 100,000-mile class of travelers, and except for Hawaii and Alaska, his visits have been to nearly all major regions of the Nation. Certainly, it is not an extreme value by almost any experience. 3. Next, we compute the effects of tourist travel among the national parks and monuments on 1967 national personal income. Three steps are involved. (a) The derivation of the adjusted visits (see above): 140,000,000 × 0.75 = 105,000,000 = net visitors (b) The derivation of gross expenditures: For this purpose, let us use 4 days as the average length of stay in an average locale. This number is based upon several recent studies, notably, the study by Midwest Research Institute, work now in progress at Colorado State University, and data provided by the Fred Harvey Company, all checked against conversations by this writer with members of numerous travel groups. Then: 105,000,000 - $60.48 $6,350,000,000 gross outlays by tourists, where $60.48 = 4 x $15.12, or the average length of stay times the average per person expenditure. (c) The derivation of the direct personal income and indirect personal income: (1) $6,350,000,000 × 0.30 = $1,905,000,000, the direct income; $6,350 million cannot be considered income. Actually it included purchases by wholesalers, retailers, service stations, etc., of goods from outside the area. Other items excluded are corporate undistributed profits, or the sale of goods as may be manufactured in the region of the park, and business savings. The amount, $1,905 million, constitutes 75-295 O-72-6 income payments to merchants, retailers, and service station operators, and all of each of these businesses' employees, rents, and related items. But direct income is a once-and-for-all amount. Actually, its recipients spend out of it monies to buy goods and services, so that the money income turns over, again and again, until, as argued above, it is completely exhausted by leakages through imports and savings. The factor 0.30 is based upon the earlier relation, as found between gross outlays and national income. This information is again provided through the analysis of input-output matrices, a highly technical job associated with the process of analyzing income flows. Only net values added may be included as income. (2) The derivation of direct and indirect personal income. $1,905,000,000 × 2.5 = $4,762,500,000, the total of direct and indirect personal income. As developed earlier, the 2.5 multiplier reflects both the effects of initial spending and the spending which follows as the direct income gets into the money flow of the economy. We could, of course, have selected 2.6 or 2.7 as the multiplier, but since some parts of the Nation (the least developed) have small multipliers, and large parts of the Nation enjoy multipliers as large as 2.8 or 3.0, it was deemed appropriate to elect 2.5 as the multiplier best representative of the Nation. The United States as a whole has a higher pattern of population density and per capita income than do some parts of it. Let us say that 2.5 is an approximation which would reflect a balancing out of the highly developed, populous areas with the poorly developed and sparsely populous areas. In a strict sense, 2.5 is not an average but a judgment based upon knowledge of the economic conditions of the region where the parks and monuments are located. Had we selected a multiplier of 3.0, a figure supported by some writers, influenced by their knowledge about the Keynesian multiplier, then the total contribution to direct and indirect personal income of the national parks and monuments would have reached $5,715 million. To be sure, all of these estimates are subject to debate, but it is only through debate that the issues involved will be threshed out and the need for better data will be made clear. Refinements in method would take place as data improve. Until one has traveled to the majority of the national parks, it is difficult to realize how much money is actually spent by the traveling public. To go to Grand Canyon, say, from Washington, D.C., by automobile, to stay at reasonably priced motels, to eat at reasonably priced restaurants, and to pay more than 40 cents a gallon for gasoline in several regions of the West, two people will find that daily out-of pocket costs for travel will easily run as much as $30. Two people will barely get away with spending less than $600 for the trip, if a week or so is spent at the park. Of course, depreciation on automobile, camping equipment, and personal property are not included in this estimate. Hence, $15+ is hardly an exaggeration, since relatively few with incomes less than $5,000 travel great distances. (At this income bracket, only a few can afford such outlays.) chapter 6 an index of the national park system's table 5 Table 5 presents a possible measure of the degree of use of all national parks and monuments. The index, as derived, shows the rate of growth of park use indirectly and directly, or the rate of degree of use. No attempt has been made to adjust for additions of new parks and monuments for the period covered, 1947-1966. Relatively speaking, the index may therefore overstate intensity a bit, but hardly significantly enough to warrant going through the necessary adjustments. It will be noted that from the base period (1947-49 100) park and monument usage has increased almost unbelievably. The index number for 1966 stands at 340 as compared to 90 for 1947. Current data on park and monument outlays indicates that the averaging out of the The base period is the average for the years 1947 through 1949. The index is then derived by dividing each year by the average (actually, a reciprocal is used to multiply each value). per unit costs, relative to rising visits, has declined from 70.4 cents per visit in 1957 to 52.0 cents in 1967. All in all, the index may be applied as a measure of effectiveness. Perhaps in time, a more sophisticated measure could be devised. 1947 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 |