1

Michael A. Schuett, Xiangping “Coco” Gao and Darrell Fannin*

Recreational visits to national parks declined over the last decade (Pergams and Zaradic, 2008; Shultis, 2009) (Fig. 1). In 2008, approximately 275 million recreational visits were recorded in all national park units, compared with a national high of 281 million in 1986. The 13 national park units in Texas had 5.8 million recreational visits in 2008, which is also down from previous years (Fig. 2). Although this represents a slight overall recovery from the declines of the early 2000s, some Texas parks have seen visits drop in the last 18 years. It is important to consider the factors that might be influencing recreational visits to specific parks.

There may be several reasons why fewer people (especially young people) are visiting national parks. Some studies have suggested that geo-graphical population shifts, nature deficit disorder, increased use of electronic media, and changes in family travel patterns all have an effect (Pergams and Zaradic, 2006; Schuett, Scott and O’Leary, 2008). These complex factors are difficult to mea-sure over time. But we looked at one important

National Park Visitation Trends in Texas (1990-2008)

E-2546/10

Number of visits

Year

Annual recreational visits

290,000,000

280,000,000

270,000,000

260,000,000

250,000,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Number of visits

Year

Annual recreational visits

7,500,000

6,500,000

5,500,000

4,500,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Figure 1. Total annual recreational visits to U.S. national park units (1990−2008).Source: National Park Service, Office of Public Use Statistics (2009).

Figure 2. Total annual recreational visits to Texas national park units (1990-2008).Source: National Park Service, Office of Public Use Statistics (2009).

*Associate Professor and Extension Specialist, The Texas A&M System; Doctoral Student, Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M University; and Computer Systems Analyst, Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M University.

2

variable for Texas national parks—population shifts in nearby metropolitan and micropoli-tan areas. If communities near national parks have population growth, does that translate into increased park visitation? Do decreases in popula-tion near parks cause park visitation to decline?

NP = National ParkNS = National SeashoreNRA = National Recreational AreaNHP = National Historical ParkNMEM = National MemorialNPRES = National PreserveW&SR = National Wild & Scenic River

Palo Alto Battlefield NHSSan Antonio Missions NHP - Concepcion Padre Island NS

Table 1. National parks in Texas.Parks Abbreviated

namesDates of authorization

and establishmentAmistad National Recreation Area AMIS Authorized Nov. 28, 1990Lake Meredith National Recreation Area LAMR Authorized Mar. 15, 1965

Renamed Oct. 16, 1972Redesignated Nov. 28, 1990

San Antonio Missions National Historical Park SAAN Authorized Nov. 10, 1978Established April 1, 1983

Padre Island National Seashore PAIS Authorized Sept. 28, 1962Established April 6, 1968

Big Bend National Park BIBE Authorized June 20, 1935Established June 12, 1944

Chamizal National Memorial CHAM Authorized June 30, 1966Established Feb. 4, 1974

Guadalupe Mountains National Park GUMO Authorized Oct. 15, 1966Established Sept. 30, 1972

Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park LYJO Authorized Dec. 2, 1969Redesignated Dec. 28, 1980

Big Thicket National Preserve BITH Authorized Oct. 11, 1974Fort Davis National Historic Site FODA Authorized Sept. 8, 1961

Established July 4, 1963Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site PAAL Authorized Nov. 10, 1978Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument ALFL Authorized Aug. 21, 1965

Renamed Nov. 10, 1978Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River RIGR Authorized Nov. 10, 1978Source: National Park Service, Office of Public Use Statistics (2009).

3

Number of visits

Year

Big Bend NPChamizal NMEMLyndon B. Johnson NHPPalo Alto Battle�eld NHS

Big Thicket NPRESGuadalupe Mountains NPFor Davis NHS

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

Figure 4. Total annual recreational visits to selected Texas national park units (1990−2008), Part 2.Source: National Park Service, Office of Public Use Statistics (2009).

Number of visits

Year

Amistad NRA

Padre Island NS

Lake Meredith NRA

San Antonio Missions NHP

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

Figure 3. Total annual recreational visits to selected Texas national park units (1990−2008), Part 1.Source: National Park Service, Office of Public Use Statistics (2009).

Visitation Trends Figures 3 through 5 group Texas national park visits by volume and show that visitation trends fluctuate considerably among the 13 national park units. The four most visited parks (Fig. 3) are Amistad NRA, Lake Meredith NRA, San Antonio Missions NHP, and Padre Island NS. Of these four, visitation has grown only at Amistad NRA.

The next group in terms of volume (Fig. 4) shows either steady or declining visitation, though Palo Alto Battlefield NHS has had an increasing num-ber of visits since it opened in 2003.

The two parks in Figure 5 have the smallest number of annual visits. Alibates Flint Quarries NM has had 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.

San Antonio Missions NHP - San JuanAlibates Flint Quarries NM Big Bend NP

Number of visits

Year

Alibates Flint Quarries NM Rio Grande W&SR

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

Figure 5. Total annual recreational visits to selected Texas national park units (1990−2008), Part 3.Source: National Park Service, Office of Public Use Statistics (2009).

4

Lyndon B. Johnson NHPAlibates Flint Quarries NM Big Bend NP

A map showing the locations of the Texas national parks illustrates geographical park visitation trends (Fig. 6). Parks with similar visitation trends appear to be somewhat near each other. Explana-tions for sharp visitation increases or decreases in certain years can vary; sometimes roads are closed or visitor centers are being renovated. The reasons for gradual increases or decreases in visitation over time are more difficult to ascertain.

NPS parks

Interstate

State boundary

Rapidly decreasing visitation

Slowly decreasing visitation

Rapidly increasing visitation

Slowly increasing visitation

Stable visitation

Palo Alto Battle�eld NHS

Padre Island NS

San Antonio Missions NHP

Lyndon B. Johnson NHP

Big Thicket NPRES

Amistad NRARio Grande

W&SR

Big Bend NP

Chamizal NMEM Guadalupe Mountains NP

Fort Davis NHS

Lake Meredith NRA

Amarillo

Lubbock

Ft WorthDallas

Austin

San AntonioHouston

El Paso

Alibates Flint Quarries NM

Legend

Figure 6. Visitation trends of Texas national parks (1990−2008).

Visitation Trends and Local PopulationTo explore the possible relationship between park visitation and population shifts in nearby areas, we studied population change for Core Based Statis-tical Areas (CBSAs) within 50 miles of the park 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 micropolitan statistical area with a population of at least 10,000 people.)

Using GIS techniques, a 50-mile zone was mapped around each national park. Data in Table 2 show visita-tion figures from 1990 and 2008 and corresponding CBSA population figures for those years. Seven of the national parks had increased visitation, while two of the CBSA populations decreased between 1990 and 2008. The relationship between visitation and population change is shown as posi-tive (+) if both increased or decreased, and negative (-) if they did not move in the

5

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 of the national parks (9 of 13 have + signs) the relationship was positive and for 31 percent it was negative. Two park units—Big Bend NP and Rio Grande W&SR—are in very remote areas and do not have CBSAs within 50 miles.

Population growth appears to be linked to increases in park visitation. Figure 7 depicts park

locations and neighboring CBSAs. Three national parks—Amistad NRA, Padre Island NS and San Antonio Missions NHP—have benefited from the population growth in peripheral CBSAs with large populations (Austin, Houston and San Antonio, respectively). The increased visitation at Palo Alto Battlefield NHS also seems logical, based on the growth in neighboring urban areas such as Corpus Christi and Harlingen. A third example is the Big

Amistad NRAGuadalupe Mountains NP Fort Davis NHS

6

Thicket NPRES, a relatively remote park that has medium-level visitation but is accessible by people in the Houston-Galveston Metropolitan Area. Continuing population growth in metropolitan areas may support the gradual growth of park visitation for these park units.

In contrast, Fort Davis NHS and Guadalupe Mountains NP are not a very close drive from any growing CBSAs and visits to these parks have declined. Population decline appears to be linked to decreases in park visitation, though this is merely conjecture.

Guadalupe Mountains NPBig Bend NP Big Thicket NPRES

Cities

NPS parks

Interstate

CBSAs

State boundary

NPS park 50 mile bu�er

Lake Meredith Alibates Flint Quarries

Guadalupe MountainsChamizal

Fort Davis

Big Bend

Rio Grande

Amistad

Lyndon B. Johnson

San Antonio Missions

Padre Island

Palo Alto Battle�eld

Big Thicket

DallasFt Worth

El Paso

Houston

Austin

San Antonio

Legend

Figure 7. Texas national parks and CBSAs within 50 miles.Source: National Park Service (2009), U.S. Census Bureau (2009).

The four national parks show-ing negative relationships with respect to park visitation and CBSA population do not follow the same logical pattern. Lake Meredith NRA was the most frequently visited national park in Texas in the 1990s, with more than 1 million recreational vis-its. But the park lost about 35.6 percent of its visitation from 1990 to 2008 even though the populations of CBSAs around it have increased. The Lyndon B. Johnson NHP had a similar visitation loss from 1990 to 2008 even though it is near the rap-idly growing metropolitan areas of Austin and San Antonio. Chamizal NMEM experienced a very slight visitation decrease from 1990 to 2008, but its sur-rounding CBSAs have had a 25

percent population increase. Alibates Flint Quarries NM had a visitation decrease similar to that of Lake Meredith NRA.

ImplicationsThis exploratory analysis of national park visitation and population change should raise the awareness of national park managers, tourism officials and community leaders. Although there may be national or statewide trends, individual parks may not fol-low these trends. There are many factors that might

7

cause park visitation to fluctuate, including closed/new exhibits, construction, fees, special events, availability of hospitality facilities nearby, transpor-tation costs, and other service issues. Specific types of parks may attract certain demographic groups (e.g., senior citizens or families) and social/economic factors related to these groups may also affect visita-tion (Schuett, Le and Hollenhorst, 2010). It would be simplistic to assume that population growth always leads to more park visits. However, as this study of Texas parks has shown, population trends may be an important factor.

The National Park Service, the tourism industry, and regional/community development organi-zations should look more closely at population trends in the areas around parks to determine whether the population is becoming more diverse or older, whether family size has changed, and whether income or educational levels have changed. Understanding what is taking place with out-of-state and international visitors is important as well. Park managers may want to pay close attention to what is occurring outside their park boundaries because ultimately it will affect who is visiting the park. Collecting more information about where visitors are coming from will give managers a better idea of the distances people are traveling to reach parks.

Where visitation is declining, park managers can implement changes to better serve visitors and meet the needs of a changing Texas population. Such changes might include modifying interpreta-tive programs or creating new ones, designing new park attractions, and/or providing different types of activities, exhibits and special events.

ReferencesPergams, O.R.W. and P.A. Zaradic. (2008). Evi-

dence for a fundamental and pervasive shift away from nature-based recreation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105:2757-2358.

Schuett, M.A., L. Le and S.J. Hollenhorst. (Forth-coming, 2010). Who visits U.S. national parks: An analysis of park visitors and visitation 1990-2008. World Leisure Journal.

Schuett, M.A., D. Scott and J. O’Leary. (2008). Fac-tors impacting participation in hunting, fishing, and wildlife-associated recreation. In M. Man-fredo. Pathways to success: Integrating human dimensions into fisheries and wildlife management (pp. 18-30). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Shultis, J. (2009). Declining park visitation? Com-paring Parks Canada, National Park Service and BC parks responses. Paper presented at the George Wright Society Biennial Conference. Portland, OR.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). http://www.census.gov/.U.S. National Park Service, Office of Public Use Sta-

tistics. (2009). http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/.

Additional Resources For more information on national park visitation please visit http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/.

For more information on the Center for Socio-economic Research and Education at Texas A&M University, its projects and the technical assistance it can provide, visit http://csreweb.rpts.tamu.edu/.

Rio Grande W&SR Padre Island NS Fort Davis NHS

8

AcknowledgementsWe 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.