Camera Clicks for Conservation: Park Tourists will Pay up to Protect Land for Wildlife

Source article: Flint, H., Enriquez, A., Bennett, D., Richardson, L., Middleton, A. (2025). Tradeoffs and win‐wins between large landscape conservation and wildlife viewing in protected areas. Conservation Science and Practice. 7. 10.1111/csp2.70051.
Supplementary Sources:

1. National Park Service Visitation Numbers, https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/visitation-numbers.htm
2. Living Planet Report (WWF), https://livingplanet.panda.org/en-US

Featured image caption: Eager tourists watch for wildlife in Yellowstone National Park’s Lamar Valley with Yellowstone Forever. Researchers investigated whether tourists would be willing to pay for land conservation benefitting wildlife. (Source: NPS/Jacob W. Frank, 2017; public domain)

Studying Wildlife Spectators

Wildlife watching is a booming industry worth millions of dollars, but will tourists cough up cash to protect lands that sustain species?

In Wyoming, Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks welcome over 7 million visitors each year. Many tourists come to photograph and view large, charismatic animals like grizzly bears, wolves and pronghorn. 

However, for these animals to thrive, they need land outside these core park habitats. Wildlife travel long distances and do not stay within park boundaries, often moving into unprotected areas where they are threatened by shrinking habitat and conflicts with humans.

To find out if tourists could help conserve wildlife habitat across the landscape, a team of researchers led by the University of Wyoming conducted a study within the two national parks. They investigated tourists’ willingness to pay for land conservation outside the parks that would benefit wildlife and how declining wildlife populations would affect visitation.

Pay to Play at Parks 

Researchers surveyed 991 park visitors about their visit habits and interest in viewing common “wide-ranging” wildlife species. 

Respondents were then asked if they would visit Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks less frequently if there were fewer wildlife to observe.

The survey also evaluated respondents’ level of support for three payment methods for visitor-funded conservation in the parks: a mandatory entrance fee, a voluntary donation fund, and a tax on park goods and services.

In addition, researchers calculated the value of wildlife viewing trips to the parks using the “travel cost method.” 

This method estimates the demand for recreation trips to a site based on how much travelers spend on items like gas, which economists call the consumer surplus (or net economic value) of traveling to a given place. Generally, people take fewer trips to destinations farther from them — unless there’s a higher-quality experience far away (like unbeatable wildlife viewing) that justifies a visit. 

Researchers then compared the economic outcomes of declining wildlife populations and a park entrance fee increase. They calculated the loss in park revenue from fewer wildlife by multiplying the number of unpaid visits by the current park entrance fee cost. 

What is Wildlife Worth?

The study’s findings were promising for conservationists.

Visitors supported paying additional fees that benefit land conservation, regardless of the fee system. Household income did not affect support for a mandatory fee or voluntary fund.

Most (77%) respondents said viewing wildlife was a primary reason they traveled to the parks, with grizzly bears and wolves as the biggest draws: Tourists hoping to see large carnivores were willing to pay 50% more than other wildlife viewers to visit the parks. In total, the researchers estimated the parks saw an annual consumer surplus of $753 million from eager wildlife watchers.

However, nearly half (48%) of survey respondents said they would take fewer trips to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks if there were fewer wide-ranging wildlife to view, which could decrease park visits by over 1 million people, or 16%, each year.

Under this scenario of declining wildlife, park revenue could decrease by $3.9 million over 3 years – and that figure is likely an underestimate since researchers used only entrance fees (not in-park purchases) in the calculation. 

But researchers found if the parks charged just a $5 conservation fee, they could raise $2.7 million annually for conservation while only losing 1% of park visitation. However, authors emphasized that lower-income visitors would be harder hit and suggest the parks could find a fair system to reduce the impact on those unable to pay more.   

Overall, the survey and travel cost calculation show the benefits of visitor-funded conservation outweigh the costs of adding a fee to protect the landscape. 

Protecting the Big Picture 

Protected areas like Grand Teton and Yellowstone are popular places for people to witness extraordinary wildlife and the landscapes they depend on. 

But outside park boundaries, wildlife habitat is increasingly destroyed and fragmented. Without connected, safe places to roam outside the parks, wildlife populations – many of which are already in freefall – could decline further. 

Effective conservation requires more than small pockets of protected areas like national parks.  Sustaining wildlife populations requires large-scale, collaborative conservation efforts — and visitors can play a role.

If tourists chip in financially, visitor-funded conservation would protect the landscape, wildlife, and national park experience — what researchers described as a “win-win.” Plus, the economic boost from wildlife tourism can also increase the value of wild animals in the eyes of community members who benefit from tourists dining, shopping and lodging nearby. 

Drawing from this study, other tourist hotspots can similarly ask their visitors to help preserve the natural and cultural features that drew them to the location so that people and wildlife can enjoy these global treasures for years to come.

Reviewed by: