The National Park Service 

 Comprehensive Survey of the 

American Public

National Park Service Fees: 

An Examination of Public Attitudes 

Technical Report

Frederic I. Solop, Ph.D. 

Kristi K. Hagen, M.A., M.A. 

David Ostergren, Ph.D. 

Northern Arizona University

June 2003

 

NPS SOCIAL SOCIAL RESEARCH LABORATORY

SCIENCE PROGRAM NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

1 Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 

I. REPORT INTRODUCTION 

A. Preface 

The National Park Service (NPS) through the NPS Social Science Program commissioned the 

Social Research Laboratory at Northern Arizona University to conduct the agency’s first 

comprehensive survey of the American public, the 2000 NPS Comprehensive Survey of the 

American Public, hereby referred to as the “Survey.” The significance of this comprehensive 

survey lies in the inclusion of all individuals across the nation, National Park System visitors and 

non-visitors alike. 

Survey data were obtained by interviewing adult members of 3,515 households in the United 

States. The data provide a representative understanding of the behaviors, values, and opinions of 

people residing within each of the seven National Park System regions measured on the Survey. 

Data collection was completed between February 21, 2000, and May 21, 2000. (Please refer to 

Appendix A for a complete description of the methodology.) 

For purposes of this research, a National Park System visitor is defined as an individual who has 

entered a National Park System unit within the previous 24 months of being contacted for this 

survey and is able to accurately identify the unit entered. All respondents who had not visited a 

unit within the previous 24 months or who could not accurately name a unit they visited were 

categorized as non-visitors. Overall, 32 percent of the adult population visited a National Park 

System unit within the 24 months preceding this survey and could accurately name the unit they 

visited. 

Information from this research study describes the demographic characteristics of National Park 

System units’ visitors and non-visitors, and contrasts differences in motivation, interest, and 

attitudes held by these two groups toward the United States National Park Service and National 

Park System units. The national Survey also provides a detailed understanding of the trips 

visitors make to National Park System units. In addition, the research promotes an understanding 

of why non-visitors elect not to visit National Park System units. 

This topical report addresses fee-related issues in the National Park System and assesses public 

opinion about the level of fees required to enter some units. This report is designed for use in 

conjunction with the survey data presented in the 2000 NPS Comprehensive Survey of the 

American Public National Technical Report (June 2001) which can be found at 

http://www.nps.gov/socialscience/waso/products.htm#ta. The National Technical Report 

includes all survey questions and frequency responses. This report is the second in a series of 

four topical reports prepared by Northern Arizona University’s Social Research Laboratory for 

distribution among National Park Service managers. 
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 2

B. Background 

Fees have been charged in National Parks since before the establishment of the National Park 

System in 1916. Entrance fees were instituted at Mount Rainier in 1908, Crater Lake in 1911, 

and Yosemite National Park in 1913. To place the early fees into perspective, if the $10 entrance 

fee to Yellowstone National Park in 1916 kept pace with the rising costs of other consumer 

goods, entering the Park in 2000 would cost $158.1 

The National Park System employs a wide range of fee strategies to fulfill its mission to 

“conserve the scenery; the natural and historic objects, and wild life therein and to provide for 

the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for 

the enjoyment of future generations” (16 USC I). As of the year 2000, at least 151 National Park 

System units charge an entrance fee (daily or weekly) and 205 units charge fees for accessing 

other services. Fees are typically charged in areas such as parks, monuments, historic sites, and 

recreational areas where access is limited, resources need to be protected, and special 

recreational or informational services are provided. Non-fee areas are typically urban parks, sites 

or monuments, and areas that lend themselves to unfettered access (e.g., battlefields, parkways, 

rivers, riverways, and trails). 

Congress initially established the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (RFDP) as a 

response to an increased volume of visitors and rising operating costs. The first phase of the 

RFDP was inaugurated in November 1996 at 47 National Park System units. Fees at these sites 

were increased with the understanding that 80 percent of new revenues would remain at the sites 

at which they were collected. The second phase of the program added 45 National Park System 

units in March 1997, and the third phase of the program extended the program to an additional 

seven units in April 1998. By the time this survey was conducted, approximately 100 fee 

demonstration projects were underway. 

Despite the prevalence of fees there is a continuing debate over many fee-related issues, 

including whether or not entrance fees should be charged. If fees are to be charged, how high 

should entrance fees be relative to other fees? How should fee revenues, particularly revenues 

from the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, be managed? Do fees present a barrier to 

visitation by the general public or by any specific groups within the general public? 

C. Report Goals 

The purpose of this report is to provide an in-depth examination of American public opinion 

regarding fees charged to enter National Park System units and fees necessary to access a variety 

of services once inside a National Park System unit. Specifically, this investigation examines the 

following areas of inquiry: 

 

1

 This figure was calculated utilizing the Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator available from the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics available at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/. 
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

3 Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 

1) How familiar is the American public with the NPS Recreational Fee Demonstration 

Program? 

2) Do visitors prefer a higher all-inclusive entrance fee or a lower entrance fee, with additional 

fees for individual services and activities? 

3) How should entrance fees be managed? 

4) Are visitors satisfied with the level of fees paid relative to perceived benefits of paying the 

fees? 

5) How popular are entrance fee discount programs? 

6) Do entrance fees prevent people from visiting National Park System units more frequently? 

D. Findings

Significant findings within this report include the following: 

1) Ninety-five percent of Americans are not familiar with the Recreational Fee Demonstration 

Program (RFDP). Among people familiar with RFDP, 94 percent support the program. 

2) Eighty percent of visitors who paid to enter a National Park System unit think the amount 

they paid was “just about right” for the value they received. Another six percent thought they 

paid “too little” for the value they received during their visit, while 11 percent said they paid 

“too much.” 

3) By a 2 to 1 margin, Americans support lower entrance fees with additional fees for services 

utilized within National Park System units rather than one large, all-inclusive entrance fee. 

4) Ninety-two percent of Americans prefer that entrance fees stay within the National Park 

Service rather than be deposited in the U.S. Treasury. 

5) Entrance fees do not present a significant barrier to visitation of National Park System units. 

The two most commonly cited barriers to more frequent visitation are that people are too 

busy (38%) or that the distance to a National Park System unit is too far to travel (37%). 

6) Although entrance fees do not constitute a barrier to more frequent visitation to National Park 

System units for most of the American public, they are a barrier for a few subgroups. In 

addition, the total cost of a trip to visit National Park System units (hotels, food, travel) is 

perceived by some groups to be too expensive. When individual expenses are combined into 

a broader “expense package,” the total cost becomes a barrier to people with smaller 

household incomes and to individuals who report less education. 
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 4

E. Report Outline and Data Presentation 

This report begins with a narrative description of responses to all fee-related questions included 

in the 2000 National Park Service Comprehensive Survey of the American Public. The narrative 

further examines differences between visitor and non-visitor responses to these questions. 

Additionally, the report narrative is illustrated with appropriate charts and figures. 

Following the narrative, a multivariate statistical approach is utilized to specifically investigate 

the impact of fees on park visitation. The overarching question in this section is: “Do fees limit 

more frequent visitation to National Park System units?” This analysis centers around two 

questions within the survey. One question asks non-visitors in an open-ended format why they 

have not visited National Park System units. The second question asks all survey respondents in 

a closed-ended format whether a high entrance fee is a barrier to visitation. 

Table and figure data may not total 100 percent. These differences sometimes occur due to data 

being collapsed and rounded for reporting purposes. “Don’t know” and “Refused” responses are 

left out of some bar graphs for increased clarity in the representation of findings. Data in the 

cross-tabulation tables are presented in column percent format. Except for demographic 

information presented in frequency table format, independent variables are presented at the top 

of the cross-tabulation tables. Each condition of the independent variable is treated as a discrete 

whole. For example, with visitors and non-visitors, all visitors are compared against all nonvisitors. If looking at the question, “What comes to mind when you hear the words ‘National 

Park System’?” the reader would compare the proportion of visitors who said “beauty” against 

the proportion of non-visitors who said “beauty.” Thus, comparisons are made horizontally 

across columns. It must be noted that differences across columns are not considered significant 

unless the point span is larger than twice the associated margin of error, since the margin of error 

must be applied to both data points making up the comparison. For national data, a difference 

across columns larger than four points is significant. At the regional level, a point difference 

across columns greater than nine points is considered significant. The abbreviations for regions 

are National Capital-NCR, Northeast-NER, Southeast-SER, Midwest-MWR, IntermountainIMR, Pacific West-PWR, and Alaska-AKR 

II. RESULTS 

A. Introduction 

This section provides a narrative description of all data collected as part of the 2000 National 

Park Service Comprehensive Survey of the American Public involving fees and fee-related 

issues. This narrative specifically examines respondents’ familiarity with the Recreational Fee 

Demonstration Program (RFDP), including levels of support for continuation of the RFDP. 

Respondents were asked about their preferences for how fees should be structured within 

National Park System units and how entrance fee monies should be managed. In addition, this 

narrative discusses visitor experiences and satisfaction levels with unit entrance fees and fees 

paid for additional services within units. General public support for fee discounts is discussed as 

well as initial consideration of fees as a barrier to more frequent visitation. 
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

5 Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 

B. Knowledge and Support for Recreational Fee Demonstration Program 

All survey respondents were asked about their familiarity with and support of the National Park 

Service Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (RFDP). This study found that most people are 

not familiar with the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (see Table 1). Ninety-five percent 

of respondents said they are not familiar with this program, with similar proportions of visitors 

and non-visitors being unfamiliar with the program. 

Table 1: Knowledge of RFDP 

U.S. Visitors Non-visitors 

Not Familiar 95% 94% 96% 

Familiar 4% 5% 3% 

Among respondents familiar with the RFDP, 94 percent are either “somewhat” or “very 

supportive” of the program. 2 Support for the RFDP is consistently high among all major 

population subgroups (see Figure 

1). 

C. Fee Policies and 

 Preferences 

All survey respondents were asked 

questions about their preferences 

for how entrance fees in National 

Park System units should be 

structured and how money 

received from fees should be 

allocated. Two basic options for 

how unit fees can be structured 

were presented to respondents: 1) 

visitors could pay a single, allinclusive entrance fee and not be 

required to pay additional fees 

once inside a unit; or, 2) visitors 

could pay a lower entrance fee 

with additional fees for other 

services used once inside a unit. 

This latter option best reflects the 

fee structure in place today. 

Nearly twice as many people (61% 

compared to 31%) throughout the 

United States prefer paying a lower 

 

2

 A note of caution is required in this analysis due to the relatively small number of cases distributed in this analysis. 

Figure 1: Support for Fee Demonstration Program

100%

97%

88%

93%

89%

98%

100%

92%

93%

96%

94%

93%

94%

98%

6%

8%

5%

8%

7%

5%

7%

2%

3%

2%

3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

< HS

HS Degree

Some College

College Degree

Post College

< $20K

$20K-$50K

$50K-$100K

>$100K

Women

Men

Non-visitors

Visitors

US

Percent of Respondents

Supportive

Unsupportive
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 6

entrance fee with separate fees for additional services used within National Park System units, 

rather than paying one all-inclusive entrance fee (see Table 2). 

Not only do a greater proportion of people prefer the lower entrance fee option, strong preference 

for this option is greater than strong preference for a larger, all-inclusive entrance fee. Forty-one 

percent of the American public strongly prefers the lower entrance fee option compared to 21 

percent of the public that strongly prefers the larger, all-inclusive entrance fee strategy. 

Preference for the lower 

entrance fee option is relatively 

similar among visitors and nonvisitors. Sixty- five percent of 

visitors and 60 percent of nonvisitors prefer separate fees. 

Levels of strong preference are 

also similar among visitors and 

non-visitors.3

 In addition, the 

amount of preference for the 

separate fees option is 

consistent across all 

demographic groups, including 

gender, income, education, age, 

race, and ethnicity (see Figures 

2a and 2b). 

A main finding from this 

analysis is that while each 

population subgroup prefers the 

separate fees option, some 

notable variation does occur 

within subgroups. Levels of 

preference for lower entrance 

fees are somewhat related to 

income, with higher income 

individuals having greater 

 

3

 Intensity is determined by comparing the proportion of respondents indicating “strong preference” to those who 

indicated “some preference.” 

Table 2: Preferences for the Structure of Unit Fees 

U.S. Visitors Nonvisitors 

Strongly Prefer All-inclusive Fee 21% 18% 23% 

Somewhat Prefer All-inclusive Fee 10% 12% 9% 

No Preference Between Two Options 3% 3% 3% 

Somewhat Prefer Separate Fees 20% 21% 20% 

Strongly Prefer Separate Fees 41% 44% 40% 

Figure 2a: Preferences for the Structure of Unit Fees

33%

32%

27%

27%

32%

35%

29%

26%

29%

34%

32%

30%

31%

49%

56%

61%

69%

68%

57%

58%

66%

70%

63%

59%

60%

65%

61%

36%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

< HS

HS Degree

Some College

College Degree

Post College

< $20K

$20K-$50K

$50K-$100K

>$100K

Women

Men

Nonvisitors

Visitors

U.S.

Percent of Respondents

Prefer AllInclusive Fee

In-Between

Prefer Separate

Fees
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

7 Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 

preference for the separate fees option than lower income individuals. Likewise, a larger 

proportion of individuals with higher education prefer the lower entrance fee than people with 

less education. Age is related to attitudes regarding fees as well. Preference for separate fees 

increases with age, 

with the exception of 

the highest age 

bracket. Levels of 

preference for the 

separate fees drop 

somewhat after 65 

years of age. Finally, 

there appears to be a 

sharp contrast 

between whites and 

other racial and 

ethnic groups. 

Whites tend to have 

greater preference 

for the separate fees 

option than other 

groups of 

respondents. 

Survey respondents were asked their opinions about how the National Park Service should 

manage entrance fee monies. Three possible approaches for managing entrance fee monies were 

presented to the public:4

 

1) All entrance fee money could stay within the National Park System unit where it is collected; 

2) All entrance fee money could be sent to the NPS bureau headquarters with a percentage 

going back to the unit where it was collected and the remainder distributed to other units; or, 

3) All entrance fee money could be sent to the U.S. Treasury with a relatively small percentage 

sent back to the NPS to cover costs of collecting the money. 

After hearing the list of options, respondents were asked to indicate which method of managing 

entrance fee money they preferred. Survey findings indicate that the American public prefers to 

have entrance fees stay within the National Park Service (see Table 3). Beyond this, the public is 

divided over whether fee revenues should go to the National Park Service with a percentage 

coming back to individual units or revenues should stay entirely within the units where they are 

 

4

 The options were presented to respondents in random order to avoid order-preference effects within the data. 

Figure 2b: Preferences for the Structure of Unit Fees

41%

37%

29%

40%

45%

32%

27%

26%

56%

54%

53%

64%

53%

49%

63%

68%

60%

44%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

American Indian

Asian/Pacific Islanders

Black or African American

White

Hispanic or Latino

18-24

25-44

45-64

65 +

Percent of Respondents

Prefer All Inclusive Fee

In-Between

Prefer Separate Fees

D. Preferences for Managing Entrance Fee Money 
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 8

collected. Six percent of the national public supports the option of sending all entrance fee 

money to the U.S. Treasury. Forty-five percent of the public supports keeping all entrance fee 

money within the unit where the fee is collected, and 47 percent support sending all entrance fee 

money to the NPS headquarters and having a percentage returned to the unit where it was 

collected, with the remainder distributed to other units. Visitors are slightly more supportive than 

non-visitors of having the money sent to NPS headquarters to later be redistributed (52% vs. 

45%, respectively). Non-visitors are slightly more supportive than visitors of having all money 

collected from entrance fees stay within the unit where it was collected (47% vs. 41%, 

respectively). 

Table 3: Preference for How Entrance Fees Could be Managed 

U.S. Visitors Non-visitors 

All Money to US Treasury 6% 6% 6% 

Money to NPS, % to Units 47% 52% 45% 

All Money Stays within Unit 45% 41% 47% 

E. Visitor Experience with Unit Entrance Fees or Purchase of a Pass 

As of the year 2000, 151 of the 384 National Park System units in operation charge a 

daily/weekly entrance fee. These fees range in cost from $2.00 to $25.00. This study was 

interested in better understanding how visitors perceive the value they received for the entrance 

fee money paid when they last visited a unit. Visitors were first asked if they paid an entrance fee 

when they last visited a unit. Those who did pay a fee were asked how much they paid and then 

asked to evaluate the experience they received within the unit relative to the amount they paid to 

enter. 

In this study, slightly more than half of all visitors (51%) reported paying a daily or weekly 

entrance fee during their most recent visit to a National Park System unit, and 9 percent reported 

paying for an annual or lifetime pass (a pass that allows unlimited entry to any unit for one year 

or within one’s lifetime) (see Table 4). One-third of visitors said they did not pay an entrance fee 

during their most recent visit to a National Park System unit. A small proportion of this group 

(2% of all visitors) said they paid for an entrance pass at an earlier time. 

One group not captured in these statistics is people 

whose entrance fees were paid by another member of 

their party (e.g., the driver of a car). The respondent 

paid the fee in a collective sense but is not identified as 

a “fee payer” in this survey. It is impossible to estimate 

the number of people this limitation includes, but it is 

safe to assume that more than 51 percent of visitors (the proportion of visitors reporting having 

paid for a daily or weekly pass during their most recent visit to an National Park System unit) 

may be considered as having paid an entrance fee. However, rather than calculating a “price per 

visitor,” only those respondents who reported actually paying a fee are considered for analysis. 

Table 4: Fee Payment 

Total

Paid Fee at Earlier Time 2% 

Paid for Annual/Lifetime Pass 9% 

Paid Daily/Weekly Fee 51% 
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

9 Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 

Across the seven National Park Service regions, visitors paying an entrance fee ranges from 19 

percent in the National Capital Region to 58 percent in the Pacific West Region. Visitors paying 

for an annual or a lifetime pass during the most recent visit to a unit ranges from four percent of 

visitors in National Capital Region to 13 percent of visitors in the Intermountain Region and 

Pacific West Region. 

Visitors who paid a daily or weekly entrance fee during their most recent visit to a National Park 

System unit5 paid a median amount of $10 (see Figure 3). Visitors purchasing an annual or 

lifetime pass during their most recent visit paid a median amount of $21.00 for the pass. On a 

regional level, visitors who paid a daily or weekly entrance fee paid a median amount between 

$9.00 (National 

Capital Region) 

and $13.00 

(Alaska Region) 

to enter the unit 

they were 

visiting. Visitors 

purchasing an 

annual or 

lifetime pass paid 

a median amount 

between $11.00 

(Alaska Region) 

and $37.00 

(Intermountain 

Region) for the 

pass. 

Ninety percent of people who recalled paying either a daily or weekly entrance fee or paying for 

an annual or lifetime pass during their most recent visit to a National Park System unit reported 

that the process for paying entrance and pass fees was either “very easy” or “somewhat easy” 

(see Figure 4). While the specific fee-paying process can differ from unit to unit, most units 

collect fees at a gate or entryway to the unit. Others allow early mail order or reservations. Some 

units accept all forms of payment (e.g., cash, check, or credit card) while others may accept only 

a few forms of payment (e.g., cash only). Four percent of visitors said the process was 

“difficult.” Regionally, between 83 percent (Alaska Region) and 92 percent (Pacific West 

Region) of visitors who paid to enter a unit said the process of paying was “easy.” 

 

5

 Only visitors who had paid a fee were asked to recall how much they had paid. A summary of this data is 

presented, but it must be noted that recall error as well as small N size increases the margin of error for these 

questions. 

Figure 3: Median Amount Paid for Entrance Fee or Pass

$10

$13

$21

$25

$20

$27

$37

$14

$10 $10 $10

$8

$10 $9

$11

$25

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

U.S. NCR NER SER MWR IMR PWR AKR

National Park Service Regions

Daily/Weekly Fee Annual/Lifetime Pass
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 10

Visitors recalling 

how much they paid 

for a daily or 

weekly entrance fee 

or for an annual or 

lifetime pass during 

their last visit to a 

unit were asked if 

they thought this 

cost was “too 

much,” “too little” 

or “just about 

right.” This 

question was 

consistent with 

other research 

conducted with unit 

visitors. Nationally, 

80 percent of visitors who recall paying an entrance fee or paying for an annual/lifetime pass 

believe the amount they paid was just about right relative to their experience (see Figure 5). Six 

percent believe they paid too little to get into the unit they visited, while 11 percent of those 

paying an entrance fee believe they paid too much to get into the unit. These figures are 

relatively consistent across all National Park System regions, except for National Capital Region, 

where the highest percentage of visitors (93%) who paid to get into a unit believed the amount 

they paid was just about right given their experience within the unit. 

Figure 4: Ease of Paying for Fees and Pass

90% 88%

91% 89% 87%

92% 92%

83%

4%

5% 3% 6%

3% 4%

6%

2%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

US NCR NER SER MWR IMR PWR AKR

National Park Service Regions

Percent of Visitors Paying to Enter Unit

Easy Difficult

Figure 5: Amount Paid vs. Benefits Received

10% 9%

79%

81% 77%

83%

79%

11%

5%

13% 15% 7% 10%

5%

15%

6% 2% 8% 6% 11% 3%

80% 93% 79%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

U.S. NCR NER SER MWR IMR PWR AKR

National Park Service Regions

Percent of Visitors Recalling Fees

Too Little Just About Right Too Much
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

11 Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 

In many of the National Park 

System units, access to 

specific services within a unit 

may require an additional fee 

to be paid. Of those who paid 

fees, 11 percent paid 

additional fees for services 

used within the unit they were 

visiting (see Figure 6). 

The proportion of visitors paying additional fees ranges from seven percent (Intermountain 

Region) to 13 percent (Midwest Region). Visitors paid additional fees for services such as 

camping, interpretive tours, entertainment such as movies, plays or other performances, boating, 

parking, and backcountry permits (see Figure 7). 

Figure 6: Did Visitor Pay Additional Fees?

85% 86% 87% 83% 82% 85%

11% 8% 11% 10% 13% 7% 11% 12%

89% 85%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

U.S. NCR NER SER MWR IMR PWR AKR

National Park Service Regions

Percent of Visitors

Yes No

Figure 7: Additional Fees Paid for Services

38%

34%

11%

9%

7%

4%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Other

Camping

Interpretive Tour

Boating

Parking

Backcountry Permit

Services

Percent of Visitors Paying for Additional Services
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 12

F. Fee Discounts 

Another aspect of the structuring of fees within 

National Park System units involves the option 

of offering discounts to specific groups of 

people. Currently, senior citizens are eligible 

for a discounted pass fee. This survey 

examined levels of support for discount 

programs being offered to four types of people: 

volunteers, senior citizens, children (under 18), 

and foreign tourists. This series of questions 

was presented to all respondents. 

People throughout the nation are very 

supportive of creating discount fee programs 

for specific groups of people. Discount 

programs for unit volunteers and for senior 

citizens are supported by virtually all 

respondents (US-93% and 92% support, 

respectively) (see Figure 8). Almost threequarters of the national population (US-73%) 

support establishing discount programs for 

children. Fewer people support a discount 

program for international visitors (28%). 

Levels of support are consistent across visitors 

and non-visitors alike. 

G. Are Fees a Barrier to Visitation?

According to the 2000 NPS Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, at least one-third of 

adults in the United States have visited a National Park System unit within the previous two 

years. To better understand why the other two-thirds of adults in the United States have not 

visited units within the past two years and why people who do visit do not visit more frequently, 

respondents were asked a series of questions probing potential barriers to visiting. Barriers are 

factors limiting one’s interest and/or ability to visit units more often. Early in the survey, nonvisitors were asked in an open-ended question format why they have not visited a National Park 

System unit within the previous two years. Later in the survey, all respondents were presented 

with a list of 13 statements presenting potential barriers to visitation and asked in a closed-ended 

question format whether they agreed or disagreed with each statement. 

Finally, all respondents were asked in an open-ended question format what the National Park 

Service could do to encourage them to visit National Park System units more often. This section 

examines the topic of fees within the context of these three sections of the survey. 

Figure 8: Support for Discount Programs

92%

93%

72%

30%

95%

91%

73%

25%

93%

92%

73%

28%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Volunteers

Senior

Citizens

Children

Foreign

Tourists

Groups Potentially With Discounts

Levels of Support

Nonvisitors Visitors US
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

13 Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 

1. Reasons Non-visitors Give for Not Visiting National Park System Units 

(Open-ended Responses) 

Two-thirds of survey respondents had not visited a National Park System unit within the 

previous two years. Fifteen percent of all respondents reported never having visited a unit in their 

lifetime. Non-visitors were asked why they have not visited a unit within the past two years. 

Respondents were allowed to provide more than one answer to this question, and interviewers 

recorded all responses verbatim. These responses were later categorized and coded appropriately. 

The reason most often cited by non-visitors for not visiting is that they are “too busy” to visit a 

National Park System 

unit (see Figure 9). 

Thirty-eight percent of 

non-visitors offered this 

reason for not visiting. 

An almost equal 

proportion of 

respondents (37%) said 

“distance” is the reason 

they do not visit more 

often. National Park 

System units are 

considered too far from 

the homes of many 

respondents. Fifteen 

percent of non-visitors 

said they lack 

information about the 

types of activities 

offered in the units. 

Eleven percent of nonvisitors cited overall 

costs of traveling to 

units as too expensive. 

Seven percent said 

entrance fees were too 

expensive. Four percent 

of non-visitors have not visited units recently because they think the units are not accessible to 

individuals with disabilities, and another four percent of non-visitors believe National Park 

System units are unsafe places to visit. 

Thus, without prompting, non-visitors most often identified personal factors for not visiting 

National Park System units. These personal factors include being too busy or having to travel too 

far to get to a unit. Structural factors within the control of the National Park Service fall much 

further down the list. Concern for entrance fees being too expensive falls fifth within this list and 

is offered as a reason for not visiting by seven percent of non-visitors. 

Figure 9: Reasons Nonvistors do not visit NPS Units

15%

11%

7%

4%

4%

37%

38%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Too Busy

Too Far To Travel

Lack of Information

Overall Costs Are Too

Expensive

Entrance Fees Are

Too Expensive

Not Accessible to

Individuals with

Disabilities

Unsafe

Percent of Non-visitors
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 14

2. Barriers to Visitation (Close-ended Responses) 

All survey respondents 

(visitors and nonvisitors) were presented 

with a list of 13 

statements and asked if 

they agreed or disagreed 

with each statement. The 

statements reflect 

potential reasons for 

people not visiting 

National Park System 

units more often. More 

than half of survey 

respondents agreed with 

two of the 13 statements. 

The other 11 statements 

received agreement from 

less than half of survey 

respondents. The two 

statements agreed to by 

more than half of 

respondents are: “I just 

don’t know that much 

about National Park 

System units” (59%) and 

“It takes too long to get 

to National Park System 

units from my 

home”(51%) (see Figure 

10). Another statement 

was agreed to by almost 

half of respondents. 

Forty-nine percent of respondents agreed that “Other costs of visiting National Park System 

units, such as hotel and food costs, are too high.” ‘Other costs’ is understood by respondents as 

not including entrance fees or fees for additional services. 

Less than a majority of respondents agreed with the following statements: “National Park System 

units are too crowded” (39%), “Reservations have to be made too far in advance” (33%), “It is 

difficult to find a parking space within National Park System units” (33%), “Entrance fees are 

too high” (27%),6

 “There isn’t that much information available about what to do once inside a 

 

6

 In the closed-ended question format, 29 percent of non-visitors agreed with the statement, “Entrance fees are too 

high.” In comparison, seven percent of non-visitors identified fees as a reason for not visiting National Park System 

units in the open-ended question discussed earlier. The fact that more non-visitors agree with the statement 

regarding high entrance fees than offer this response to the earlier question is a function of the question format. In 

Figure 10: Barriers to Visiting NPS Units for All 

Respondents

59%

51%

49%

39%

33%

33%

27%

24%

23%

15%

10%

7%

7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Don't Know Much about

Units

Takes Too Long to Get to

Unit

Hotel/Food Costs Are Too

High

Units Are Too Crowded

Reservations Must Be

Made Too Far in Advance

Parking Is Difficult

Entrance Fees Are Too

High

Not Much Info Is Available

Service Fees Are Too High

Not Accessible to

Individuals with Disabilities

Units Are Not Safe

Poor Service to Visitors

Uncomfortable for My

Race/Ethnicity/Gender

Percent of Respondents
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

15 Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 

National Park System unit” (24%), “Other National Park Service fees are too high” (23%), 

“National Park System units are not accessible to the physically disabled” (15%), and “National 

Park System units are not safe places to visit” (10%). Seven percent of respondents agreed that, 

“National Park Service employees give poor service to visitors,” and seven percent agreed, 

“National Park System units are uncomfortable places for people of my race, ethnicity, or gender 

to be.” 

In summary, agreement that entrance fees are too high ranks seventh within the list of 13 

statements presented to all respondents. Just over one-quarter of all respondents (27%) expressed 

agreement with this statement. 

Three of the 13 statements probing 

potential barriers to more frequent 

visitation of National Park System 

units are agreed to by more than 

half of the non-visitor population 

(see Figure 11). Sixty-seven percent 

of non-visitors agree that, “I just 

don’t know that much about 

National Park System units.” Fiftyeight percent of non-visitors agree, 

“It takes too long to get to any 

National Park System units from 

my home.” Fifty-two percent 

believe, “Other costs of visiting 

National Park System units, such as 

hotel and food costs, are too high.” 

Overall, the relative ordering of 

agreement to the entire list of 13 

statements is similar to that of the 

entire respondent population. 

Agreement that “Entrance fees are 

too high” ranks seventh within the 

list of 13 barriers non-visitors at 29 

percent. 

 the first question, people are asked why they personally do not visit National Park System units. The second 

question asks respondents to agree or disagree with a statement provided by the interviewer. Thus, the second 

question cues respondents to a potential barrier to participation that they may not have originally thought of 

themselves. 

Figure 11: Barriers to Visiting NPS Units 

for Non-Visitors

67%

58%

52%

36%

33%

29%

29%

27%

25%

13%

12%

8%

7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Don't Know Much About

Units

Takes Too Long To Get To

Unit

Hotel/Food Costs Are Too

High

Units Are Too Crowded

Reservations Must Be Made

Too Far In Advance

Parking is Difficult

Entrance Fees Are Too High

Not Much Info Is Available

Service Fees Are Too High

Not Accessible to Individuals

with Disabilities

Units Are Not Safe

Uncomfortable For My

Race/Ethnicity/Gender

Poor Service to Visitors

Percent of Respondents 
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 16

3. The Impact of Entrance Fees on Population Subgroups 

There is differential agreement with the statement, “Entrance fees are too high,” among various 

population subgroups (see Figures 12a and 12b). People with lower household incomes are more 

likely to agree with this statement than people with higher household incomes. One-third (34%) 

of people with household incomes of less than $20,000 per year agree that, “Entrance fees are 

too high,” while 24 percent of people with household incomes over $100,000 agree with this 

statement. 

Figure 12a: High Entrance Fees Are a 

Barrier to Visitation (Population 

Subsets)

38%

31%

21%

 18%

27%

34%

30%

20%

 24%

24%

29%

27%

 28%

34%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

< HS

HS Degree

Some College

College Degree

Post College

< $20K

$20K-$50K

$50K-$100K

>$100K

Women

Men

Nonvisitors

Visitors

U.S.

Percent of Respondents

There is an inverse relationship between education and perceptions that entrance fees are too 

high. As education increases, the perception that entrance fees are too high decreases. Thirtyeight percent of people with less than a high school education agree that entrance fees are too 

high, compared to 34 percent of people with a high school education, 31 percent of people with 

some college, 21 percent of people with a four-year college degree, and 18 percent with postcollege education. Age is also a factor in this analysis, as more than one-third (35%) of people 18 

to 24 years of age agree that entrance fees are too high, compared to just 19 percent of people 65 

years of age and older. Finally, Hispanics and African Americans are more likely than whites to 

agree that entrance fees are too high. Thirty-eight percent of Hispanics, 35 percent of African 

Figure 12b: High Entrance Fees Are a Barrier to 

Visitation (Population Subsets)

28%

35%

25%

38%

35%

28%

29%

19%

38%

34%

25%

24%

21%

33%

31%

30%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

AKR

PWR

IMR

MWR

SER

NER

NCR

American Indian or Alaskan Native

Asian/Pacific Islanders

Black or African American

White

Hispanic or Latino

18-24

25-44

45-64

65 +

Percent of Respondents
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

17 Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 

Americans, and 25 percent of whites agree with this statement. This is consistent with the point 

made earlier noting that whites are more supportive of the separate fees option than other racial 

and ethnic groups. 

H. What Can the National Park Service Do to Encourage Visitation? 

Following the section containing closed-ended questions asking about potential barriers to 

visitation, an open-ended question was asked of all respondents: “In your opinion, what is the 

most important thing the National Park Service can do to encourage you to visit units within the 

National Park System?” The responses were grouped and recoded into discrete categories and 

summarized. It is interesting to see the extent to which fee-related issues were raised in this 

section of the survey. 

When asked 

specifically about how 

the NPS can encourage 

people to visit more 

often, 41 percent of the 

public replied that the 

NPS needs to provide 

more information and 

publicity (see Figure 

13). The second most 

popular suggestion is 

that the overall 

monetary costs of 

visiting National Park 

System units including 

entrance fees, fees for 

additional services 

once in the units be 

lowered, and free or 

lower cost 

transportation could be 

provided (12%). 

Eight percent of the 

public suggested 

making travel to National Park System units easier, including having units closer to where 

people live, improving the reservation system, and making more lodging available within 

National Park System units. Five percent of the public recommended keeping units cleaner, 

making more benches available to people, providing more restrooms, and improving general 

maintenance. Smaller numbers of people suggested having more events such as fairs and exhibits 

in the units (3%), reducing commercialization and overcrowding within the units (3%), 

improving security (2%), and improving access for special groups of people such as individuals 

with disabilities, the elderly, and families (2%). 

Figure 13: How Can NPS Encourage Visitation?

41%

12%

8%

5%

3%

3%

2%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

More Info & Publicity

Lower Monetary Costs

Make Travel Easier

Improve Maintenance

More Events

Reduce Commercialization

Improve Security

Improve Access for those

w/Disabilities, Elderly, &

Families

Percent of Respondents
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 18

III. MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS 

A. Introduction 

 

The focus of this section of the report is to understand whether entrance fees limit visitation 

overall as well as more frequent visitation to National Park System units. This section moves 

beyond a descriptive level of analysis by adopting a multivariate approach7

 to investigate the 

effect of fees on park visitation. The analysis presented here focuses on two sets of questions 

within the survey: 1) an open-ended question asking non-visitors why they do not visit National 

Park System units and, 2) a closed-ended question asking all respondents to agree or disagree 

with the statement, “Entrance fees are too high.” This section of the report highlights agreement 

with the statement, “Entrance fees are too high,” among different population subgroups. 

B. Profile of Respondents 

An initial look at the rank order of agreement for statements outlining potential barriers to more 

frequent visitation to National Park System units suggests that entrance fees are not a barrier for 

all respondents, but are a barrier to visitation for a few subgroups of people. While three-quarters 

of all respondents do not agree that entrance fees are too high, there is widespread agreement 

with this statement within specific population subgroups. This section focuses on the specific 

population subgroups more likely to agree that entrance fees are too high. 

We can hypothesize that the lack of availability of resources, especially income, provides the 

best explanation for why some people agree that entrance fees are too high. Lower-income 

people are less able to afford entrance fees and therefore more likely to agree that entrance fees 

are too high. Higher-income respondents are more able to afford unit entrance fees and less 

likely to consider entrance fees to be too high. Race, ethnicity, and education may also be 

significantly related to the perception that entrance fees are too high, as these demographic 

characteristics are often closely related to income (see Census 2000 data). 

Table 5 profiles non-visitors who identified high entrance fees as one reason for not visiting 

National Park System units more frequently (drawn from the open-ended question). In this table, 

non-visitors are divided between people who have never entered a unit in their lifetimes and 

people who have visited sometime in their lives, but not during the previous two years (see 

Methodology for a full explanation of visitor status). Because the number of respondents 

captured in this table is quite small, the analysis should be considered more in descriptive terms 

rather than for its precise analytical value. 

Two pieces of information are presented in Table 5: 1) the proportion of subgroup populations 

never visiting the units and not visiting units within the previous two years that listed high 

entrance fees as a reason for not visiting; and 2) a measure of the strength of the relationship with 

specific subpopulations. 

 

77A multivariate approach involves simultaneously examining the influence of multiple causes on a single outcome. 
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

19 Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 

Table 5: Profile of Non-visitors Stating that Entrance Fees Are Too High. 

Never visited Cramer’s V 

Visited but not in 

last 2 years Cramer’s V 

 

Total 9% 2% 

 

Race .029 .014 

 White 

(incl. Hispanic) 

8% 2% 

 Black or 

African American 

10% 3% 

 

Ethnicity .057 --- .050* 

 Hispanic or 

Latino 

5% 

 

Gender .005 .005 

 Female 9% 2% 

 Male 9% 2% 

 

 Age .086 .064* 

 18 – 34 8% 1% 

 35 – 59 8% 2% 

 60 + 14% 4% 

 

Income .211* .100* 

 $0 -- $19.9K 17% 4% 

 $20K -- $49.9K 5% 2% 

 $50K -- $99.9K 3% 1% 

 $100K + --- --- 

 

Education .301* .082* 

 Less Than HS 28% 4% 

 HS Degree 10% 3% 

 Some College 3% 2% 

 College Degree 3% 1% 

 Post College --- --- 

* Asterisk indicates that results are statistically significant and carry explanatory power. The absence of an asterisk 

indicates that results are not significant. 

In this situation, the statistic used is “Cramer’s V.” Cramer’s V reflects the strength of 

association between two nominal level variables. Larger Cramer’s V values indicate a stronger 

association. An asterisk (*) next to Cramer’s V indicates that the measure is statistically 

significant and therefore reliable. 
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 20

Table 5 demonstrates that a significant association exists between high entrance fees limiting 

visitation and income and education for the population that has never visited a National Park 

System unit. These associations are of moderate strength, indicating that people of lesser income 

and lesser education are more likely to believe that high entrance fees are a barrier to their 

visiting a unit. 

Considering the population that has visited a National Park System unit sometime in their life, 

but not in the last two years, ethnicity, age, income, and education are significantly related to 

whether one thinks that high entrance fees keep them away from parks. However, the strength of 

association for each of these demographic subgroups is quite weak. 

This first analysis focuses solely on the open-ended question probing non-visitors for reasons 

they have not visited National Park System units. The analysis turns now to the closed-ended 

question presented to all respondents. Visitors and non-visitors alike were asked in a closedended question format if they perceive high entrance fees to be a barrier to visitation. In this 

analysis, we look at variation in response by demographic subgroups including visitors and nonvisitors. 

Table 6 presents the results of this next analysis. In this table, over one-quarter (27%) of all 

respondents agree that entrance fees are too high. The breakout of specific responses can be 

found in the 2000 National Park Service Comprehensive Survey of the American Public Survey 

Technical Report. For the demographic groups presented, this percentage of agreement ranges 

from a high of 38 percent (Hispanics and respondents with less than a high school education) to a 

low of 17 percent (people with post-college education). Race, ethnicity, age, income, education, 

and visitor status are all significantly related to the perception that entrance fees are too high. 

Looking at the strength of these relationships, age is weakly8

 related to this perception. Race9, 

ethnicity, income, education, and visitor status are moderately related to this perception. When 

reading this report, it is important to note that demographics may have an interactive effect as to 

whether one believes a high entrance fee is a barrier to visitation. Race may interact with the 

educational opportunities afforded to one group or another, for example. In this analysis, 

Hispanics, lower income respondents, and people with less education express the highest levels 

of agreement that entrance fees are too high. 

 

8

 Gamma values range from1 to +1, where sign indicates direction and number indicates magnitude of association. 

Values from 0 -.25 are considered weak, values from .25 to .50 are considered moderate, values from .50 to .75 are 

considered strong, and values from .75 to 1 are considered very strong. 

9

 Cramer’s V is used for nominal level data while Gamma is used for ordinal level data. Value range interpretation 

for Cramer’s V is similar to that for Gamma. 
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

21 Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 

Table 6: Profile of Survey Respondents Saying High Entrance 

Fees Are a Barrier to Visitation. 

High Entrance 

Fees are a 

Barrier 

Gamma Cramer’s V 

 

Total 27% 

 

Race .148* 

 White, incl. Hispanic 25% 

 African American 34% 

 

Ethnicity .108* 

 Hispanic 38% 

 

Gender .024 

 Female 27% 

 Male 27% 

 

Age .089* 

 18 – 34 29% 

 35 – 59 29% 

 60 + 22% 

 

Income .238* 

 $0 -- $19.9K 34% 

 $20K -- $49.9K 30% 

 $50K -- $99.9K 21% 

 $100K + 23% 

 

Education .249* 

 Less Than HS 38% 

 HS Degree 34% 

 Some College 30% 

 College Degree 21% 

 Post College 17% 

 

Visitor Status .151* 

 Visitor 24% 

 Non-visitor 29% 

 

* Asterisk indicates that results are statistically significant and carry explanatory power. 

The absence of an asterisk indicates that results are not significant. 
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 22

Table 7: Binary Logistical Regression Analysis of Relationship Between 

Demographic Variables and High Entrance Fees Being a Barrier to Visitation.

B S.E. Wald Sig Exp(B) 

Black -.020 .202 .009 .923 .981 

White-Hispanic .377 .171 4.838 .028 1.457 

Ethnicity -.195 .160 1.494 .222 .823 

Education .123 .023 28.894 .000 1.131 

Income .000 .000 9.273 .002 1.000 

Age .007 .003 5.383 .020 1.007 

Visitor status .368 .103 12.266 .000 1.445 

Constant -1.891 .356 28.195 .000 .151 

Model Chi-square: 139.316*** 

-2 Log Likelihood: 2713.675 

Cox & Snell R Square: .059 Nagelkerke R Square: .083 

C. Multivariate Logistical Regression Analysis 

Regression analysis allows researchers to probe the nature of relationships between causes and 

effects, also known as independent and dependent variables. For this analysis, the high fees 

question was collapsed into a variable reflecting whether people agree or disagree that entrance 

fees are too high. Only the variables that have already been shown to be significantly associated 

with the dependent variable of “agreement that entrance fees are too high” are included in this 

analysis. The independent variables included in this analysis are income, education, ethnicity, 

race (dummy-coded for whites and African Americans), age, and visitor status. 

In the equation, race/w,10 education, income, age, and visitor status make significant 

contributions to variation in agreement that entrance fees are too high (see Table 7). 

 

Income is significantly related to the perception that entrance fees are too high; however, the beta 

for income is less than 0.001, meaning that income makes a weak contribution to concern about 

entrance fees. The more important finding from this analysis is that the contribution of the five 

significant demographic variables to explaining concern for high entrance fees is very small. R 

square reflects the percent contribution to the independent variable. In this analysis, the Cox & 

Snell R Square is 0.059 and the Nagelkerke R Square is 0.083. The demographic variables 

explain between six and just over eight percent of the variance in the perception that fees are a 

barrier to visitation. Other factors must be making significant contributions to concern over high 

entrance fees. 

 

10 “Race/w” refers to people labeling themselves as white and/or Hispanic. 
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

23 Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 

Table 8: Factor Analysis of Potential Barriers to Visitation: 

Factor and Factor Weights 

1 2 3 4 

Entrance fees are too high .881 .101 .136 .080 

Service fees are too high .877 .079 .178 .040 

Hotel/food costs are too high .602 .219 -.004 .312 

NPS units are not safe places to visit .023 .249 .415 .291 

Takes too long to get to NPS unit .088 .140 .080 .687 

NPS units are too crowded .046 .805 .077 -.033 

It is difficult to find parking .079 .720 .170 .101 

Units are not accessible to individuals 

w/ disabilities 

.082 .212 .550 .071 

Respondent doesn’t know much 

about units 

.103 -.004 .048 .736 

Reservations must be made too far in 

advance .209 .700 .068 .084 

NPS employees give poor service .188 .004 .746 .028 

Units are uncomfortable for people of 

my race/ethnicity/gender .012 .046 .689 .108 

There isn’t much info on what to do 

D. Alternative Explanations 

An examination of the impact of entrance fees on visitation leads to the conclusion that while 

there is weak evidence that some population subgroups are more likely to perceive that entrance 

fees are too high, this perception is not a function of respondent demographics. Twenty-seven 

percent of all respondents indicated that they think entrance fees are too high. The next challenge 

is to understand why some respondents hold this perception. One approach to this task involves 

looking at the relationship between the perception that entrance fees are too high and agreement 

about other concerns identified within the survey. Factor analysis is a statistical technique that 

allows for the modeling of underlying dimensions within a data set. The test allows for an 

understanding of whether specific pieces of information contained within variables are 

meaningfully related to other pieces of data. For this analysis, a factor analysis was conducted 

with the total list of 13 statements about potential barriers presented to respondents. The results 

of the factor analysis are found in Table 8. 

The findings have direct relevance for the question being investigated. The strongest underlying 

dimension within the data is manifest in Factor 1. Agreement with the statement “entrance fees 

are too high” clusters with agreement that “hotel and food costs are too high,” as well as 

agreement with the statement “service fees are too high.” This dimension within the data can be 

best thought of in terms of a broad perception that it is costly to visit National Park System units. 

This suggests that it is the perception that the cost of the entire package, rather than any one 

specific cost, is too high that creates a barrier to more frequent visitation of park units. 
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 24

E. Conclusion 

The central question behind the multivariate analysis section of this report is: “Do fees limit 

visitation and/or more frequent visitation of National Park System units?” The answer to this 

question needs to be set against a background of the number of units people actually have to pay 

an entrance fee to enter and the number of survey respondents who recall paying money to enter 

an unit. First, at least 151 National Park System units require an entrance fee. Second, there are 

limitations on collecting information from people who pay a fee to enter a park in a survey 

instrument such as was used in this research. According to the survey, 51 percent of recent 

visitors paid a daily or weekly entrance fee during their last visit to a unit. Another nine percent 

of visitors recall paying for an annual or lifetime pass during their last visit to a unit. The survey 

data do not record information about people who purchased an annual or lifetime pass during a 

visit previous to their last visit. Nor do the survey data say anything about people who entered a 

unit with someone else who actually paid the entrance fee. Finally, survey data do not speak to 

fees paid in “major” units versus fees paid in “minor” units. Hypothetically, perceptual 

differences could occur relative to the type of unit a visitor was visiting. 

Recognizing these limitations, it is important to highlight that only 11 percent of people paying a 

daily or weekly entrance fee and four percent of people who purchased an annual or lifetime pass 

think they paid too much for the experience they received during this visit. Most people who 

paid fees on their last visit think fee levels are just about right for the value received. 

As the review of data makes clear, the perception that entrance fees are too high are shared by 

some non-visitors and some visitors. In an open-ended question format, non-visitors tend to list 

personal factors such as not having enough time or having to drive too far as the most important 

reasons why they do not visit National Park System units. High entrance fees fall much further 

down the list. When prompted directly to say whether or not high entrance fees are too high, 

about one-quarter (27%) of all respondents agree with this statement. Again, this concern is 

supported by fewer people than express concern for other potential barriers to more frequent 

visitation. 

The multivariate analysis shows that perceptions of entrance fees being too high are somewhat 

associated with some population subgroups, including people with lower household incomes and 

people with lower education levels. Some associations with population subgroups are statistically 

significant and, in some cases, the strength of these relationships reaches moderate proportions. 

However, the regression analysis shows that demographics are weakly related to the perception 

that entrance fees are too high. The perception that entrance fees are too high is linked to a 

broader perception among the public that other costs associated with visiting National Park 

System units are also too high. Agreement that entrance fees are too high, food and hotel costs 

are too high, and fees for additional services once inside the park system are too high combine in 

people’s minds as a broader concern. Fifteen percent of all respondents agree that all three types 

of expenses are too high. 

It can be concluded that high entrance fees themselves are not strongly associated with any 

single population subgroup. While there is some evidence that elements of the initial hypothesis 

about the relationship between income and concern for high entrance fees holds true, this 
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

25 Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 

relationship does not prove to be a significantly limiting factor. The broader perception of the 

cost of the package of fees associated with a visit, including the cost of entering a unit, the cost 

of additional services once inside a park, and the costs of food and lodging combine in people’s 

minds. It seems likely that these overall trip costs are a more important barrier to visits than 

entrance fees by themselves. 

APPENDIX A 

A. Overview 

The National Park Service commissioned the Social Research Laboratory at Northern Arizona 

University to conduct the bureau’s first comprehensive survey of the American public. Findings 

from this survey are reported in the 2000 National Park Service Comprehensive Survey of the 

American Public Technical Report. Survey data were collected from a random sample of 

respondents to provide a national perspective of people’s relationships with the National Park 

Service and National Park System units. Two data sets were developed from the collected 

information. The two data sets include a data set reflecting attitudes, opinions, and behaviors of 

the adult population of the United States and a regional set that allows for comparisons of 

information across the seven National Park System regions. For purposes of this research, a 

National Park System visitor is defined as an individual who has entered a National Park System 

unit within the previous 24 months of being contacted for this survey and is able to accurately 

identify the unit entered. Unit names were verified against a list of units provided by the National 

Park Service. National Park Service employees and members of their immediate family were 

screened out of the survey. 

Survey data were obtained by interviewing adult members of 3,515 households in the United 

States. Respondents were randomly selected within the households using the most recent 

birthday method of respondent selection. The original sample frame was purchased from 

Genesys Marketing Systems of Fort Washington, Pennsylvania. The sample frame was 

constructed using standard Random Digit Dialing (RDD) procedures and purged for nonworking 

telephones and business lines. Data collection was completed between February 21, 2000, and 

May 21, 2000. 

B. Survey Limitations 

All survey research statistics are subject to sampling error as well as non-sampling error, such as 

survey design flaws, reporting errors, data processing mistakes, and under-coverage. The Social 

Research Laboratory has taken steps to minimize errors by implementing quality control and edit 

procedures to reduce errors made by respondents, interviewers, and coders. Ratio-estimation to 

independent age-gender-race-ethnicity population controls partially corrects for bias attributable 

to survey under-coverage. However, biases in the estimates are unavoidable when missed people 

have characteristics different from those of interviewed people in the same age-gender-raceethnicity group. 
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 26

Table I-3: Regional Data Set 

NCR NER SER MWR IMR PWR AKR 

Unweighted 500 501 501 501 502 502 508 

Weighted 511 485 510 505 517 503 509 

Table I-2: 

National Data Set 

National 

Unweighted 3515 

Weighted 3515 

Table I-1 reports completion rates for the survey in each of the seven National Park Service 

regions. Cooperation rates for this survey range from 73 percent to 95 percent. These figures are 

substantial for a survey of this scope and magnitude, and suggest high reliability of survey 

results. Tables I-2 and I-3 report the number of unweighted and weighted surveys completed for 

each data set. Weighted survey totals are derived after the ratio-estimation model is applied to 

the data. Because different ratio-estimation models have been applied to the national and 

regional data sets, the total number of weighted cases varies between the two sets. 

Table I-1: Cooperation Rates 

NCR NER SER MWR IMR PWR AKR Average 

Cooperation Rates 73% 85% 90% 86% 90% 95% 95% 88% 

The margin of error associated with national-level data in this study is +/- 1.7 percent at a 95 

percent confidence level. The margin of error associated with data from each of the National 

Park System regions in this study is +/- 4.5 percent at a 95 percent confidence level. “Margin of 

error” is a statistical term that describes the probable difference between interviewing everyone 

in a given population and interviewing a sample drawn from that population. The percentages 

obtained in telephone surveys are estimates of what the percentage would be if the entire 

population had been surveyed. Thus, if 50 percent of those in the sample are found to agree with 

a particular statement and the associated margin of error is +/- 4.5 percent, the actual percentage 

of agreement in the population from which the sample is drawn would be between 45.5 percent 

and 54.5 percent (50% +/- 4.5%). The 95 percent confidence level means that this +/- 4.5 percent 

“margin of error” would occur in 95 out of 100 samples of this size drawn. Sampling error 

increases as sample size is reduced. This must be kept in mind when comparing the responses of 

subgroups within the sample (e.g., men vs. women). Smaller numbers of respondents on any 

question translate into higher margins of error. 

For this survey, a comprehensive list of National Park System units was provided by the National 

Park Service and used to verify that respondents actually visited a National Park System unit 

within the past two years. Fourteen units were inadvertently omitted from this list. After 

thorough review, these missing units were determined to be low-visitation units. The impact of 

their omission is insignificant to the larger goal of determining the proportion of the American 
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

27 Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 

public that had visited a National Park System unit within the previous two years. In addition, a 

small number of units listed by respondents were later determined to be park headquarters or 

offices. Thirteen respondents out of 3,515 named these units as the location of their last visit. 

The impact of their classification as visitors is also insignificant to the larger goals of the 

research project. 

One final limitation to note is that as a comprehensive survey of the American public, this survey 

does not include the viewpoints of international tourists who may make up a relatively large 

proportion of visitors to some National Park System units. 

C. Multivariate Analysis 

Regression analysis allows researchers to further probe the nature of relationships between 

dependent and independent variables. Regression analysis is most effective when both the 

dependent and independent variables are in interval level format. A logistical regression analysis 

provides the robust analytical power of regression analysis for a dichotomous dependent 

variable. For this analysis, the high fees question was collapsed into a dichotomous variable 

reflecting whether people agree or disagree that fees are a barrier to participation. Only the 

variables that have already been shown to be significantly associated with the dependent variable 

of concern for high fees are included in this analysis. The independent variables included in this 

analysis are income, education, ethnicity, race (dummy-coded for whites and African 

Americans), age, and visitor status (visitor or non-visitor). 
National Park Service, Comprehensive Survey of the American Public, Fees Report 

Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University 28

About the NPS Social Science Program— 

The role and function of the NPS Social Program are to: 

• provide leadership and direction to the social science activities of the NPS, 

• coordinate social science activities with other programs of the NPS, 

• act as liaison with the USGS Biological Resources Division and other federal 

agencies on social science activities, 

• provide technical support to parks, park clusters, support offices and regional 

offices, and 

• support a program of applied social science research related to national 

research needs of the NPS. 

For more information, contact 

Dr. Jim Gramann 

Visiting Chief Social Scientist 

National Park Service 

1849 C Street, NW (2300) 

Washington, DC 20240 

Telephone: (202) 513-7189 

Email: James_Gramann@partner.nps.gov 

http://www.nps.gov/socialscience