In 2023, there were 415,400 jobs in local economies supported by National Park visitors, generating $19.4 billion in wages and salaries. California had the most jobs (39,678), and North Carolina was close behind at 38,828 jobs.
Note that these jobs are not tracking federal employment for the park service, but rather jobs in the surrounding economic areas. Nearly 60% of these directly supported park visitors, while the remaining 40% were secondary effect jobs created by the local economy. In this context, a secondary effect job results from people living and working in a NPS economy. For example, a local tour guide (a direct job) spends money at a nearby pub, helping sustain a waitstaff position (a secondary effect job).
Here’s some background on how the National Park Service (NPS) calculates this:
>The NPS tracks visitor spending by eight categories: Camping fees in national and non-national parks; gas; groceries; lodging at hotels, motels, and other specialty lodging; recreation including equipment rental, tourist activities, and tour/guide fees (this does not include NPS entrance fees); restaurants; retail shopping, including souvenirs; and local transportation expenses.
>In 2023, about 37.5% of park visitor spending was for lodging, totaling $9.9 billion. People spent more on lodging than anything else. Visitors spent the second most on restaurants, which accounted for 19.5% of visitor spending. Spending on gas, recreation, and retail were between $2.1 billion and $2.8 billion each. The lowest spending was on groceries ($1.7 billion) and camping ($560 million).
>Based on this visitor spending, the NPS can calculate four economic effects:
>**Economic output:** The total value of goods and services produced thanks to visitor spending. It includes both business-to-business sales and sales directly to consumers.
>**Value added to GDP:** The boost visitor spending contributes to a region’s GDP. The value added is the difference between what an industry sells a product for and how much it costs to make it. Value added to GPD is a subset of economic output.
>**Jobs:** Full and part-time jobs supported by visitor spending. (And what this maps shows)
>**Labor income:** Employee and sole proprietor wages, salaries, and payroll benefits that are supported by visitor spending.
For those wondering, this includes all NPS sites, such as National Monuments and National Historic Sites, not just National Parks
I would be curious to see this put per capita. Sure, California has the most, but it also has a hella lot more people than North Carolina.
I think proportional effects are the most interesting here, given those states with the highest proportion of those affected, would be the most likely to see electoral swings (at least, that would be my hypothesis).
I would normalize by state population. I would also use “earthy” tones (brown/green) as those are the colors of the Parks Service. Purple just doesn’t scream National Parks to me…
Good work north Carolina bury yourselves
Just like where people work (city centers vs suburbs) impacts the local economy greater than just their immediate job duties, government services have a positive impact as well.
Missouri is really interesting because more than half of that is just the gateway arch. (Ozark NSR is a big contributor too.)
News here in Utah has been absolutely screaming because the parks can’t. Right now they’re not allowed to hire seasonal workers for the summer. This explains why it’s such a big deal to our state. Parks are going to be a shit show this summer
Assuming VA includes all the monuments in DC. I can’t imagine Shenandoah gets that many visitors.
I’m curious about the percentage of the state’s total jobs that are supported by the NPS. I feel that Montana and Wyoming might get a larger boost from their smaller number of jobs than comparing it to California, which has a much higher population and work force.
NH out here running their parks with fewer people than a busy McDonald’s employs.
Trump’s gonna look at this map, self high-five, and say “Ha! Screw those 61 hippie Vermonters, those are some really bad liberals up there, very mean to me”.
Completely neglecting all the states and governors who support him.
This also assumes he knows what a Vermont is and where he might find one.
The problem for GOP is these support small businesses, primarily. You don’t get a lot of ~~bribes~~ campaign contributions from small business. The GOP wants to see huge businesses where a CEO can just dole out big ~~bribes~~ contributions.
The very idea that the park service should be run as a business is just outright, I’m sorry, retarded.
![Jobs supported by National Park visitor spending [OC]](https://www.europesays.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/t8ig5j5saple1-1080x1024.png)
15 comments
Source: [National Park Service](https://www.nps.gov/nature/customcf/NPS_Data_Visualization/docs/NPS_2023_Visitor_Spending_Effects.pdf) (PDF warning)
Tools: Datawrapper, Illustrator
Note: This NPS data does not track federal employment for the park service but rather jobs in the surrounding economic areas.
More data [here](https://usafacts.org/articles/how-do-national-parks-affect-the-economy/)
In 2023, there were 415,400 jobs in local economies supported by National Park visitors, generating $19.4 billion in wages and salaries. California had the most jobs (39,678), and North Carolina was close behind at 38,828 jobs.
Note that these jobs are not tracking federal employment for the park service, but rather jobs in the surrounding economic areas. Nearly 60% of these directly supported park visitors, while the remaining 40% were secondary effect jobs created by the local economy. In this context, a secondary effect job results from people living and working in a NPS economy. For example, a local tour guide (a direct job) spends money at a nearby pub, helping sustain a waitstaff position (a secondary effect job).
Here’s some background on how the National Park Service (NPS) calculates this:
>The NPS tracks visitor spending by eight categories: Camping fees in national and non-national parks; gas; groceries; lodging at hotels, motels, and other specialty lodging; recreation including equipment rental, tourist activities, and tour/guide fees (this does not include NPS entrance fees); restaurants; retail shopping, including souvenirs; and local transportation expenses.
>In 2023, about 37.5% of park visitor spending was for lodging, totaling $9.9 billion. People spent more on lodging than anything else. Visitors spent the second most on restaurants, which accounted for 19.5% of visitor spending. Spending on gas, recreation, and retail were between $2.1 billion and $2.8 billion each. The lowest spending was on groceries ($1.7 billion) and camping ($560 million).
>Based on this visitor spending, the NPS can calculate four economic effects:
>**Economic output:** The total value of goods and services produced thanks to visitor spending. It includes both business-to-business sales and sales directly to consumers.
>**Value added to GDP:** The boost visitor spending contributes to a region’s GDP. The value added is the difference between what an industry sells a product for and how much it costs to make it. Value added to GPD is a subset of economic output.
>**Jobs:** Full and part-time jobs supported by visitor spending. (And what this maps shows)
>**Labor income:** Employee and sole proprietor wages, salaries, and payroll benefits that are supported by visitor spending.
More data and charts [here](https://usafacts.org/articles/how-do-national-parks-affect-the-economy/), including a fuller breakdown of the economic impact of national parks. Â
For those wondering, this includes all NPS sites, such as National Monuments and National Historic Sites, not just National Parks
I would be curious to see this put per capita. Sure, California has the most, but it also has a hella lot more people than North Carolina.
I think proportional effects are the most interesting here, given those states with the highest proportion of those affected, would be the most likely to see electoral swings (at least, that would be my hypothesis).
I would normalize by state population. I would also use “earthy” tones (brown/green) as those are the colors of the Parks Service. Purple just doesn’t scream National Parks to me…
Good work north Carolina bury yourselves
Just like where people work (city centers vs suburbs) impacts the local economy greater than just their immediate job duties, government services have a positive impact as well.
Missouri is really interesting because more than half of that is just the gateway arch. (Ozark NSR is a big contributor too.)
News here in Utah has been absolutely screaming because the parks can’t. Right now they’re not allowed to hire seasonal workers for the summer. This explains why it’s such a big deal to our state. Parks are going to be a shit show this summer
Assuming VA includes all the monuments in DC. I can’t imagine Shenandoah gets that many visitors.
I’m curious about the percentage of the state’s total jobs that are supported by the NPS. I feel that Montana and Wyoming might get a larger boost from their smaller number of jobs than comparing it to California, which has a much higher population and work force.
NH out here running their parks with fewer people than a busy McDonald’s employs.
Trump’s gonna look at this map, self high-five, and say “Ha! Screw those 61 hippie Vermonters, those are some really bad liberals up there, very mean to me”.
Completely neglecting all the states and governors who support him.
This also assumes he knows what a Vermont is and where he might find one.
The problem for GOP is these support small businesses, primarily. You don’t get a lot of ~~bribes~~ campaign contributions from small business. The GOP wants to see huge businesses where a CEO can just dole out big ~~bribes~~ contributions.
The very idea that the park service should be run as a business is just outright, I’m sorry, retarded.
Comments are closed.