I plotted the visitor data from the hottest national park, doesn’t seem to slow anyone as it got hotter this last century. In fact, there seems to be a “pause” in the last decade…after peaking in 1998…
Source data: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/Annual%20Park%20Recreation%20Visitation%20%281904%20-%20Last%20Calendar%20Year%29?Park=DEVA
The temperature:
From the department of hot sweaty tourists and the Death Valley National Monument Department:
Future visitation may decrease at US national parks warming over 80 degrees Fahrenheit
Visitation at U.S. National Parks may potentially increase with increasing temperature in temperate areas, but may decrease with temperatures rising over 80 degrees Fahrenheit, according to a study using future climate and visitation modeling scenarios published June 17 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE by Nicholas Fisichelli and colleagues from U.S. National Park Service.
Climate change may affect not only natural and cultural resources within protected areas, but also park tourism. To assess the relationship between climate and park visitation, the authors of this study evaluated historical monthly mean air temperature and Park service visitation data (1979-2013) at 340 parks, ranging from Guam to Alaska, and projected potential future visitation (2041-2060) based on two warming-climate scenarios and two visitation-growth scenarios.
Of the original 340 parks assessed, over 80percent showed strong relationships between visitation and temperature. Visitation generally increased with increasing average monthly temperature, but decreased strongly with temperatures over 77 degrees Fahrenheit (25 degrees Celcius). Future visitation varied across parks, but the authors found that many high-latitude and high-elevation parks showed increases in potential visitation, especially during the spring and fall seasons. Parks with historically warm temperatures showed a potential future decrease in visitation during the hottest months, and tropical parks with small temperature variation throughout the year showed no relationship to temperature. Although very warm months at some parks may see decreases in future visitation, this potential change represents a relatively small proportion of visitation across the national park system. The authors suggest that protected areas that develop adaptation strategies for these changes may be able to both capitalize on opportunities and minimize detriment related to changing visitation.
###
Citation: Fisichelli NA, Schuurman GW, Monahan WB, Ziesler PS (2015) Protected area tourism in a changing climate: will visitation at us national parks warm up or overheat? PLOS ONE 10(6): e0128226. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0128226
Abstract
Climate change will affect not only natural and cultural resources within protected areas but also tourism and visitation patterns. The U.S. National Park Service systematically collects data regarding its 270+ million annual recreation visits, and therefore provides an opportunity to examine how human visitation may respond to climate change from the tropics to the polar regions. To assess the relationship between climate and park visitation, we evaluated historical monthly mean air temperature and visitation data (1979–2013) at 340 parks and projected potential future visitation (2041–2060) based on two warming-climate scenarios and two visitation-growth scenarios. For the entire park system a third-order polynomial temperature model explained 69% of the variation in historical visitation trends. Visitation generally increased with increasing average monthly temperature, but decreased strongly with temperatures > 25°C. Linear to polynomial monthly temperature models also explained historical visitation at individual parks (R2 0.12-0.99, mean = 0.79, median = 0.87). Future visitation at almost all parks (95%) may change based on historical temperature, historical visitation, and future temperature projections. Warming-mediated increases in potential visitation are projected for most months in most parks (67–77% of months; range across future scenarios), resulting in future increases in total annual visits across the park system (8–23%) and expansion of the visitation season at individual parks (13–31 days). Although very warm months at some parks may see decreases in future visitation, this potential change represents a relatively small proportion of visitation across the national park system. A changing climate is likely to have cascading and complex effects on protected area visitation, management, and local economies. Results suggest that protected areas and neighboring communities that develop adaptation strategies for these changes may be able to both capitalize on opportunities and minimize detriment related to changing visitation.
The freely available paper: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128226
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The temperature trend curve clearly show the falacy in the temperature data in the initial period. This may be associated with the unit of measurements prior to 1956 and after 1956. With that the temperature follow more of a flat pattern along with year to year variation.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Needles, CA. July 23, 1981: Temperature here is 114F. Real difficult wolfing down the 1/2 pound burger with tomato, bacon and cheese. The onion rings are just not enjoyable in this kind of heat. I’ll never be coming back, they’re predicting that by the year 2030 daytime temps could hit 116F, that completely screws the mid-summer-hanging-out-in-a-desert-wasteland experience.
raises a smile. Thanks Mark
ooks like the graph tracks the economy a lot closer than it tracks temperatures. It clearly shows the 1973-1975 recession (arab oil embargo), the Reagan recession and the recent recession with a low in 2008-2009. The idea that 80F is going to stop people visiting NPs doesn’t appear to be credible but people not visiting because they don’t have money to travel might have something to do with it. However we should note that they are using a model so failure to reproduce past history does not invalidate their assumptions for the future.
Anthony,
Sorry to be so trivial but I just love your posts that include, “Oh noes”. We Australians don’t say that.
Carbon taxes will have that effect
Even if the story were true, why would it be an issue? It would be an example of negative feedback- higher temperature implies less fossil fuel use for vacations.
“according to a study using future climate and visitation modeling scenarios”
Well if it’s a model who can argue with that? I think we all know about models.
What about a place like Devils Postpile National Monument? The Park doesn’t open until the road in is clear of snow and this usually does not occur until June. One year I was there, it didn’t open until July. http://www.nps.gov/depo/planyourvisit/index.htm
Ditto for Crater Lake National Park.
Oh, silly me, I forgot that snow is a thing of the past.
My backyard abuts one of the Park in Northeast Ohio http://www.nps.gov/cuva/index.htm , While there might be fewer visitors in the peak of summer, the rest of the year warmer would bring out more people.
And most of the visitors are locals, so if they’re not going to the park because of heat, they’re staying at home in the Air Conditioning.
http://s1120.photobucket.com/user/IristheVirus17/media/oh-noes-everybody-panic.gif.html</image)
It looks like I do not know how to insert an image. D’oh.
Here’s the link you meant to post
http://s1120.photobucket.com/user/IristheVirus17/media/oh-noes-everybody-panic.gif.html
Right-click image then copy image location.
Paste
http://i1120.photobucket.com/albums/l488/IristheVirus17/oh-noes-everybody-panic.gif
It’s just possible that tourist patterns in National Parks more closely match the academic year than any other factor.
I have a very strong suspicion that this paper is utterly wrong. It’s almost like the qualification exam for becoming a climatologist. You have to pick a single factor which plays little or no role in the variation in your target statistic, generate some low quality correlation with your target and then extrapolate to absurdity.
People do not go to National Parks etc because they’ve studied the climatological data for the park and it suits their requirements. They go to the park to see what it has on offer. They go mostly when the mean temperature in the park is just over 20°C because that’s the mean temperature of the parks etc in the US in the summer when most people go on vacation and visit the parks. If the temperature over the whole of the US goes up on average, so will the temperature at the peak in the visitor curve because the visitors won’t change when they go just because it’s got a little warmer.
This paper is nonsense. Fits well with the other peer-reviewed stuff in climatology.
What else could it be besides global warming? They’ve ruled out everything else like the economy. ( sarc)
The three major downturns in visitor numbers wouldn’t have anything to do with some other minor incidents would they? You know, WWII, the oil crisis, the GFC.
I thought the greenies wanted fewer people to visit the parks, anyway. Keep them free from human contamination.
Just spent 5 days in the Great Smokey Mountain National Park, the most visited par in the USA (according to the Park Service. I certainly prefer to walk the trails and view the plant and animal life when it is warm. More to see and no frostbite.
On Thursday I was up at Hurricane Ridge in the Olympic National Park, Washington State, US. In the Visitor’s Center many of the placards went on about “climate change” and greenhouse gasses.
One display showed the various stages of the glacier on Mt Olympus, and how it has receded since 1880. In their dishonesty, they failed to show intermediate images, which would likely show that the vast majority of the recession of the glacier occurred before 1950. But showing that would dilute the message, and wouldn’t be good for “The Cause”.
It’s a pity, because the view was fantastic.