An Economic Analysis of Zion National Park Scenarios
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
An Economic Analysis
Jennifer Leaver
Senior Research Analyst
Levi Pace
Senior Research Economist
of Zion National
Park Scenarios
Proposed developments at Zion National Park’s east
entrance include the construction of a new visitor
center, lodging, and hiking/biking trails along with the
deployment of an electric shuttle fleet. This study analyzes
the economic impacts of east park improvements on Kane
and Washington counties over 10 years by comparing this
high-investment scenario with a projected baseline scenario.
February 2021
411 East South Temple Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
I
801-585-5618 gardner.utah.eduAn Economic Analysis of Zion National Park Scenarios
Analysis in Brief
Utah’s “Crown Jewel” Zion National Park (Zion NP) experienced EVZion+ Total Economic Impacts, 2020–2030
a 47.5% increase in visitation from 2014 to 2019, accommodating (Average Annual Jobs)
an additional 1.7 million visitors over the course of five years. 6,000
Although park visitor spending supports jobs and generates tax 4,946 (+545)
5,000 4,400
revenue in the park’s surrounding counties, increased park 432
883 (+451)
4,000
visitation can have negative impacts on the Zion NP visitor
3,000
experience, local gateway communities, and the natural Sta
2,000 3,968 4,063(+94)
environment. As a result, park managers and community
stakeholders continue to consider ways to assuage visitation- 1,000
6,000
4,946 (+545)
related impacts, including limiting park visitation, implementing 0
5,000 4,400 Visiting
Baseline Forecast 883 (+451)
EVZion+ Scenario
a parkwide electric shuttle system to disperse park visitors, and 4,000 432
Washington County Kane County
expanding tourism infrastructure and recreational opportunities 3,000
Sta
near the park’s east entrance. In this report, the Gardner Institute Note: In parentheses are increments EVZion+ improvements add to baseline. Totals may
2,000 3,968 4,063(+94) 700
not match due to rounding.
projects a baseline scenario for Zion NP from 2020 to 2030 and Source:
1,000 Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of National Park Service data using REMI 600
Earnings
PI+ economic model $14.4 $16.5 $30.9
analyzes the economic and fiscal impacts of east park 0 500
Visiting
developments (EVZion+) in Kane and Washington counties. GDPBaseline Forecast
$26.0 $29.6 Scenario $55.6
EVZion+
Economic Impacts of EVZion+ by County, 2020–2030 400
Fiscal Impacts $6.7 Washington
$11.1 County Kane County
Key Findings (Average Annual Impacts; Millions of 2020 Dollars) 300
$4.4
700
n Zion NP Experienced Record Spending in 2019—In Kane County 200
$4.3 600
2019, Zion NP visitors spent a record $253.6 million in Earnings
Earnings $14.4 $131.7 $16.5 $30.9
$136.0
100
500
Kane and Washington counties, supporting 4,438 jobs, GDP $26.0 $29.6 $55.6
GDP $230.1 $237.4
$140.5 million in earnings, $235.3 million in GDP, and 400
Fiscal Impacts
Impacts $6.7 $7.3
Fiscal $11.1
$36.3 $37.4
$42.2 million in state and local tax revenue.1 $4.4 300
$1.1
n Zion is Utah’s Most Popular National Park—One-third Baseline EVZion+ 200
of all Utah national park spending was by Zion National Washington County 5.0
$4.3
Earnings $131.7 100
Park visitors, and over 40% of all Utah national park visitors $136.0 4.5
made a trip to Zion. GDP $230.1 $237.4 4.0
$7.3 3.5
n National Park Visitors are Big Spenders—Utah park Impacts $36.3 41.9%
Visitation
Fiscal $37.4 24.2% 15.5% 11.5% 6.9%
3.0
visitors are one of Utah’s top visitor spending groups, with Visitor Spending
$1.1
31.6% 27.2% 24.6% 11.0%5.6% 2.5
Baseline EVZion+
an estimated $1,133 spend per travel party per stay in 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 2.0
5.0
2019, and an estimated annual statewide spend of over Note: Horizontal axis scale tailored to each county. 1.5
4.5
Source: Kem C.Bryce
Zion Gardner Policy Institute
Canyon analysis of
Arches National
Capitol Park Service
Reef data using
Canyonlands
$434 million outside of the park and its surrounding 1.0
REMI PI+ economic model 4.0
0.5
gateway communities.2 3.5
Visitation 41.9% 24.2% 15.5% 11.5% 6.9% 0.0
n East Zion Developments (EVZion+) Would Create n EVZion+ Would Also Create Positive Economic Impacts 3.0
1920
Visitor
5.0 in Spending
Washington 31.6% 27.2%
County—Proposed 24.6%
east park 11.0%5.6% 2.5
Significant Economic Impacts in Kane County—Pro-
4.8 2.0
posed east park developments would support 451 new developments
0.0% would
20.0% support
40.0% 94 new
60.0%average
80.0%annual jobs
100.0%
4.6 1.5
average annual jobs from 2020 to 2030, along with $16.5 from
4.4 Zion 2020 to 2030,
Bryce Canyon
along
Arches
with $4.3 million
Capitol Reef
in additional
Canyonlands 5.0
1.0
4.8
million in additional earnings, $29.6 million in new GDP, 4.2 earnings, $7.3 million in new GDP, and $1.1 million in 0.5
4.6
and $4.4 million in added state and local tax revenue. 4.0 added state and local tax revenue. 4.4
0.0
3.8 4.2
1920
4.0
5.0
3.6 3.8
I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 1 3.4
4.8 gardner.utah.edu I February 2021 3.6
3.4
4.6
3.2 3.2
4.4
3.0 5.0
3.0Table of Contents
Section 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Figure 11: Kane and Washington County Total
1.1 Zion National Park Is Top Driver of Utah’s Travel Employment Impacts, EVZion+ Scenario, 2020–2030. . 11
and Tourism Industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Figure 12: Kane County Employment Impacts,
1.2 Analyzing Zion National Park Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 EVZion+ Scenario, 2020–2030. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Section 2. Baseline Scenario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 13: Industry Shares of Economic Impacts,
Section 3. EVZion+ Scenario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 EVZion+ Scenario, 2020–2030. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1 Infrastructure and Attractions: Shuttles, Figure 14: Average Annual Earnings per Job by
Visitor Center, and Trails. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Industry, EVZion+ Scenario, 2020–2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2 Visitor Accommodations: Commercial Figure 15: Ethnicity of National Park Visitors, 2006. . . . . . . . 16
Lodging and Rental Homes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 16: St. George-to-Kanab Transportation Plan. . . . . . 16
3.3 Local Economic Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4 Share of Local Economies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Tables
3.5 Economic Impacts in Kane and Table 1: Direct Visitor Spending and Spending Share
Washington Counties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 by National Park, 2019. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.6 Which Industries Benefit?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 2: Economic Impacts of Zion NP Visitor
3.7 Fiscal Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Spending, 2019. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Section 4. Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 3: Spending Per Travel Party Per Stay by
4.1 Zion National Park Capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Primary Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2 Red Emerald Initiative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 4: Average Annual Economic Impacts,
4.3 Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Baseline Scenario, 2020–2030. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.4 Comprehensive Transportation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Table 5: Retail Developments at Zion NP East
4.5 Climate Change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Entrance, 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.6 Study Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 6: Planned Commercial Lodging Near Zion NP
Section 5. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 East Entrance, 2025. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Section 6. Economic Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Table 7: Residential Developments Near Zion NP East
Section 7. Analysis Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Entrance, Planned Completion 2023–2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1 Assumptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 8: Average Annual Economic Impacts, EVZion+
7.2 Zion NP Visitation and Visitor Spending. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Scenario, 2020–2030. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.3 Economic Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 9: Local Government Revenue Generated by Baseline
7.4 Fiscal Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 and EVZion+ Economic Impacts, 2020–2030. . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 10: Average Annual Total Economic Impacts in
Kane and Washington Counties, EVZion+ Scenario,
Figures 2020–2030. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 1: Economic Impacts of Zion NP Visitor Table 11: Average Annual Total Economic Impacts in
Spending, 2019. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Kane County, EVZion+ Scenario, 2020–2030. . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 2: Share of Utah Visitors by Traveler Activity, 2019. . . . 4 Table 12: Average Annual Total Economic Impacts in
Figure 3: Zion NP Visitation by Month, 2019 vs. 2020 . . . . . . . 5 Washington County, EVZion+ Scenario, 2020–2030. . . 12
Figure 4: Zion NP Visitation, 1919–2020. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Table 13: Average Annual Employment Impacts by
Figure 5: Zion NP Visitation, Baseline Scenario, 2019–2030. . 6 Industry, EVZion+ Scenario, 2020–2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 6: Study Area Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Table 14: Average Annual Earnings Impacts by
Figure 7: Projected Zion NP Visitation, 2019–2030. . . . . . . . . 9 Industry, EVZion+ Scenario, 2020–2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 8: County Shares of Economic Impacts, Table 15: State and Local Government Revenue Generated
EVZion+ Scenario, 2020–2030. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 by Baseline Economic Impacts, 2020–2030. . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 9: Kane County Economic Impacts, EVZion+ Table 16: State and Local Government Revenue
Scenario, 2020–2030. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Generated by Total EVZion+ Scenario Economic
Figure 10: Washington County Economic Impacts, Impacts, 2020–2030. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
EVZion+ Scenario, 2020–2030. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 17: Race of Zion National Park Visitors, 2006. . . . . . . . 16
February 2021 I gardner.utah.edu 2 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM1,000
0
Visitin
Baseline Forecast EVZion+ Scenario
Section 1: Introduction Washington County Kane County
70
This report develops and compares a projected baseline Zion Table 1: Direct Visitor Spending and Spending Share by 60
Earnings $14.4 $16.5 $30.9
NP visitation scenario to an east park development scenario National Park, 2019 50
(EVZion+).3 The analysis first highlights the significance of Zion (Millions ofGDP
2020 Dollars$26.0
and Visitors) $29.6 $55.6
40
NP to Utah’s travel and tourism industry, locally, regionally, and Fiscal Impacts $6.7 $11.1
Direct Visitor Number of
30
statewide. Next, the report estimates the economic and fiscal National Park $4.4Spending Share Visitors Share
impacts of planned park and east entrance developments in Arches $203.5 24.6% 1.7 15.5% 20
comparison with baseline impacts in Kane and Washington Bryce Canyon $224.7 $4.3
27.2% 2.6 24.2%
Earnings 10
$131.7 $136.0
counties. Finally, to complete the study, the Gardner Institute Canyonlands $46.4 5.6% 0.7 6.9%
GDP $230.1 $237.4
considers emerging issues, including the self-limiting nature of Capitol Reef $90.8 11.0% 1.2 11.5%
$7.3
overtourism at Zion National Park, which could influence future Fiscal Impacts $36.3 $37.4
Zion $261.4 31.6% 4.5 41.9%
Total $1.1 $826.9 100.0% 10.7 100.0%
park visitation trends. Baseline EVZion+
Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of National Park Service data 5.0
1.1 Zion National Park Is Top Driver of Utah’s Travel and 4.5
Tourism Industry 4.0
Table 2: Economic Impacts of Zion NP Visitor Spending, 2019
Zion NP is a top driver of Utah’s travel and tourism economy. 3.5
Visitation
(Millions of 2020 Dollars )
41.9% 24.2% 15.5% 11.5% 6.9%
3.0
One hundred years after its 1919 designation, Zion ranked as
Visitor Spending 31.6% 27.2% 24.6% 11.0%5.6% 2.5
Kane Washington
the fourth most-visited of all 62 U.S. national parks. As an 2.0
Impact 0.0% County40.0%
20.0% County
60.0% 80.0% Total
100.0%
“anchor tenant” of Southwestern Utah, Zion NP generates 1.5
Visitors 673,240 3,680,379 4,353,619
about one-third of all Utah national park visitor spending and Zion Bryce Canyon Arches Capitol Reef Canyonlands 1.0
Direct Spending $39.2 $214.4 $253.6
over 40% of all park visitation (see Table 1). 0.5
Total Impacts: 0.0
In 2019, according to the National Park Service, Zion NP
visitors spent a record $261.4 million (an estimated $253.6 5.0Employment 471 3,967 4,438
million of it in Kane or Washington counties), generating a total 4.8Earnings $14.6 $125.8 $140.5
4.6
of 4,438 jobs, $140.5 million in earnings, $235.3 million in GDP, GDP $25.8 $209.5 $235.3
4.4 5.0
and $42.2 million in state and local tax revenue (see Table 2). 4.8
4.2Tax Revenues $6.6 $35.7 $42.2
4.6
These impacts represent 7.4% to 8.8% of all economic activity in 4.0 Total impacts include direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts based on the
Note: 4.4
nonlocal
3.8 portion (97.8%) of direct visitor spending. Totals may not match due to 4.2
Kane County and 3.1% to 3.9% of all economic activity in rounding. Tax revenues include total state and local tax revenues generated by total 4.0
3.6 3.8
Washington County (see Figure 1). economic impacts. Amounts do not include 134,648 Zion NP visitors spending $7.8
3.4 in Iron County. 3.6
million
In addition, Zion NP visitor spending in Kane County ($39.2 3.4
3.2 Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of National Park Service data using REMI
Source: 3.2
million) generated $3.6 million in local sales tax revenue or PI+
3.0and IMPLAN economic models 3.0
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
35.8% of Kane’s total local sales tax revenue. In Washington
Figure 1: Economic Impacts of Zion NP Visitor
County, $214.4 million in visitor spending generated $16.6 Baseline Forecast EVZion+ Scenario
Spending, 2019
million in local sales tax revenue or 21.0% of Washington 6,000
(Share of County Economy)
County’s local sales tax revenue.
More broadly, Zion NP visitors spend money both inside and 10.0% 5,000
8.8% 8.4%
outside of Utah gateway communities. For instance, the Utah 8.0% 7.4%
Office of Tourism’s marketing campaigns that highlight Zion 4,000
6.0%
NP—most notably its “Mighty 5®” marketing campaign—
3.9%
produce a “halo effect” by drawing visitors to parks and local 4.0% 3.3% 3.1%
3,000
gateway communities as well as generating additional visitor 2.0%
spending in Utah’s regional and statewide economies. A recent 0.0%
2,000
Longwoods International study of nine state tourism campaigns Kane County Washington County
showed that tourism advertising not only attracts visitors and Employment Earnings GDP
1,000
their money, it also “creates major positive lift on the destination’s Note: Shares represent total economic impacts as a percentage of total
image for economic development—as a place where people employment, earnings, or GDP in the counties.
Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of National Park Service data 0
want to live, work, buy a second home, retire, start a business, using REMI PI+ economic model
start a career, or go to college. Visiting a destination creates a
I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 3 gardner.utah.edu I February 2021Figure 2: Share of Utah Visitors by Traveler Activity, 2019 Additionally, studies have shown that communities with
recreation opportunities attract visitors who might one day
Cultural Interest 5%
return to permanently relocate. In 2019, a Headwaters
Entertainment 7%
Economics study (years 2010–2016) showed that rural
Historic Interest 7%
recreation communities attract more new residents and higher
State/National Parks 12%
incomes than rural non-recreation counties (Headwaters
Soft Adventure 14%
Economics, 2019). The study showed that positive net migration
Hard Adventure 15%
occurred in six of Utah’s 14 rural recreation counties.4 Also, the
Visiting Family & Friends 34%
average household income of new residents moving into a
Source: Omnitrak county was generally higher in Utah’s rural recreation counties
700,000 compared with its rural non-recreation counties. Likewise, the
+30.2%
Table 3: Spending Per Travel Party Per Stay by
fastest average earnings growth took place in these recreation
+4.7%
600,000
Primary Activity -28.6%
-15.9%
counties, including Kane County. Of Utah’s 14 rural recreation
500,000
-36.6%
(2020 Dollars)
counties, Kane had the second-greatest net migration per 1,000
+39.0%
$55.6
400,000
Activity-Driven Travel Spending per Stay residents and the second-highest growth in average earnings
+32.4%
-30.0%
300,000 per job.5 Similarly, an earlier U.S. Department of Agriculture
-66.4%
State and National Parks $1,133
+30.8%
+28.5%
Historic Interest
200,000 $873 study of 311 rural U.S. counties concluded that rural tourism
-89.2%
Hard Adventure
100,000
$871 and recreation development lead to higher employment
Entertainment $646 growth rates, positively affected income levels, lower local
0
237.4 Soft Adventure poverty rates, and improvements in local educational
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov $493
Dec
Cultural Interest $460 attainment and health (Reeder, 2005).
2019 2020
Visiting Family and Friends $428 Omnitrak’s Utah traveler survey data supports that Utah park
Source: Omnitrak
5.0
visitors are some of Utah’s biggest spenders. In 2019, travel
4.5 survey respondents who noted that they were motivated to
Flattening of visitation
similar
4.0 lift on these attributes” (Longwoods, 2015). Tourism travel to Utah for its state and national parks (12%) spent an
3.5
advertising’s “major positive lift” or “halo effect” takes place at average $1,133 per travel party per stay, compared with $428
%
3.0 per stay for travel parties visiting family/friends—Utah’s largest
the local, regional, and statewide level.
6% 2.5
According to SMARInsights, Mighty 5 advertisements visitation group (Omnitrak, 2020) (see Figure 2 and Table 3).
0.0% 2.0
featuring
1.5 Zion NP along with Utah’s four other national parks However, due to its popularity, Zion and its surrounding
s influenced
1.0 about 1.4 million Utah trips in 2019, resulting in communities have recently experienced tourism-related impacts
about $2.2 billion in statewide visitor spending (SMARInsights,
0.5 such as congestion, pollution, and overwhelmed infrastructure.
0.0
2019). Assuming that all Mighty 5 ad-influenced visits included As a result, Zion stakeholders, including park managers, local
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
a trip to one or more of Utah’s five national parks, where total business owners, nonprofit directors, and county leaders, have
2019 park spending was $826.9 million (2020 dollars) and not been discussing park management ideas, including park and trail
all Zion NP visitors were ad-influenced, then it can also be capacities, visitor dispersion, infrastructure improvements, and
5.0
assumed
4.8 that over $1.4 billion was spent by these same visitors other potential visitor experience enhancements.
4.6
in
4.4Utah, but outside of national park gateway communities. In this report, the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analyzes the
4.2
Based
4.0 on estimates that 31% of Utah national park spending economic and fiscal implications of proposed east entrance
3.8
was attributed to Zion NP visitors in 2019, it can be concluded investments (EVZion+) compared with a projected baseline
3.6
that
3.4 Zion NP visitors spent at least $434 million in Utah’s scenario over the next 10 years. This research was sponsored by
3.2
economy
3.0 that year. Kane County, Washington County, Utah Office of Tourism, Utah
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2030
Office of Outdoor Recreation, Utah Department of
Transportation, Zion Forever, Zion Mountain Ranch, and the
6,000 Zion Ponderosa Ranch Resort.
100.0% (4,946 jobs)
5,000
100.0% (4,400 jobs)
17.9% (883 jobs)
9.8% (432 jobs)
4,000
1%
3,000
82.1%
February
2,000 2021 I(3,968
90.2%
gardner.utah.edu
jobs) (4,063 jobs)
4 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TMEarnings 100,000
$131.7 $136.0
-8
Soft Adventure 14%
Hard Adventure 15%
$230.1 0
GDP $237.4
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
VisitingFiscal
Family & Friends $7.3 34%
Figure 3: Impacts
Zion NP $37.4
Visitation
$36.3 by Month, 2019 vs. 2020 Figure 4: Zion NP Visitation, 1919–2020
2019 2020
$1.1
(Park Visitors, Year-over-Year
BaselineChange)
EVZion+ (Millions of Visitors)
700,000 5.0
+30.2%
4.5
+4.7%
600,000 Flattening of visitation
-28.6%
4.0
-15.9%
500,000
-36.6%
3.5
Visitation 41.9% 24.2% 15.5% 11.5% 6.9%
+39.0%
5.6 3.0
400,000
Visitor Spending
+32.4%
31.6% 27.2% 24.6% 11.0%5.6% 2.5
-30.0%
300,000
-66.4%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 2.0
+30.8%
+28.5%
200,000 1.5
-89.2%
Zion Bryce Canyon Arches Capitol Reef Canyonlands 1.0
100,000
0.5
0 0.0
7.4
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
5.0
4.8 2019 2020
4.6 Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of National Park Service data
Source: Note: For forecast growth rates and annual visitation since 2000, see Table A3 in the Appendix.
Source:
5.0 National Park Service
5.04.4 4.8
4.54.2 4.6
4.0 Flattening of visitation 4.4
4.0
1.2
3.8Analyzing Zion National Park Scenarios 4.2This visitation variability and the unpredictability of the
3.5 4.0
The Gardner Institute worked with Zion NP managers and
3.6 COVID-19
3.8 pandemic and subsequent vaccine distribution
3.0 3.6
3.4
stakeholders to project the outlook of park visitation based on complicate park visitation forecasting. Although the pandemic
2.5 3.4
3.2 3.2 influenced greater domestic car travel and has enhanced
recent visitor counts, the self-limiting effects of park crowding,
2.0 has
0% 3.0 3.0
and the possible impacts of proposed east park developments.
1.5 travelers’ interest in outdoor recreation, it is hard to predict
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
In this report, the authors forecast 11 years (2020–2030) of
1.0 whether this trend will continue once vaccines are more widely
0.5 Baseline Forecast EVZion+ Scenario
visitation and spending for both a baseline “business as usual” available and life again resembles “pre-COVID times”. Despite
0.0 6,000
scenario and an “EVZion+” scenario, focusing on the park’s most the ever-changing state of the pandemic and traveler
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
prominent gateway communities, located in Kane and preferences, however, the authors believe that
100.0% thejobs)
(4,946 flattening
10.0% 5,000
Washington8.8% counties.
8.4% The report compares the forecasted out of visitation leading up to
100.0% (4,400 jobs) the pandemic best represents the
8.0% 7.4% 17.9% (883 jobs)
5.0baseline scenario with the EVZion+ scenario to better highlight park’s overall baseline heading into the next 10 years.
9.8% (432 jobs)
4.8 4,000
4.6potential
6.0% east entrance development impacts in Kane and
4.4Washington counties. 3.9%
4.2 4.0% 3.3% 3.1%
4.0 Notedly, the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted 2020 3,000
3.8 2.0%
3.6Zion NP visitation and spending. Figure 3 shows 2019 vs. 2020
3.4 0.0% 90.2% 82.1%
3.2monthly Zion Kane
visitation,
County which reflects Washington
pandemic-influenced 2,000
County (3,968 jobs) (4,063 jobs)
3.0park closures and shifting travel trends. Prior to the pandemic,
Employment Earnings GDP
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2030
2020 visitation was trending 30% above 2019 visitation. It then 1,000
began to drop in March with the arrival of COVID-19 and the
enactment of stay-at-home orders. Visitation came to a halt
6,000 0
Baseline Forecast EVZion+ Scenario
with national park closures in April and began to rebound as
100.0% (4,946 jobs) Washington County Kane County
the park reopened in May. Not only did Zion NP visitation return
5,000
100.0% (4,400 jobs)
to normal by early fall, but it was also up 30%
17.9%to(883
40% throughout
jobs)
the end of 9.8%year,
the (432setting
jobs) visitation records for the months of
4,000
September through December.
3,000
90.2% 82.1%
2,000
(3,968 jobs) (4,063 jobs)
1,000
0
Baseline Forecast EVZion+ Scenario
Washington County Kane County
I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 5 gardner.utah.edu I February 20210.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 2.0
1.5
Zion Bryce Canyon Arches Capitol Reef Canyonlands 1.0
Section 2. Baseline Scenario 0.5
0.0
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
5.0 Figure 5: Zion NP Visitation, Baseline Scenario, 2019–2030
In this study, the baseline scenario is the “business as usual” or
4.8
“status quo” park management scenario, which forecasts what (Millions of Visitors)
4.6
park
4.4 visitation and economic impacts might look like from 2021 5.0
4.8
to4.2
2030 with no capital investments or visitor capacity mandates. 4.6
4.0 4.4
This scenario considers the “self-limiting” aspect of park 4.2
3.8
overtourism reflected in the flattening out of park visitation in 4.0
3.6 3.8
the
3.4 years leading up to the pandemic. 3.6
3.4
3.2
Over the past 100 years, Zion NP visitation has fluctuated due 3.2
3.0 3.0
to a variety of social, economic, and environmental factors, but
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
has been on an overall upward trend. When depicted visually,
Baseline Forecast
there are two prominent EVZion+ Scenario
park visitation increases (see Figure 4). Note: Zion National Park forecast begins in 2021.
During the first surge, from 1982 to 1993, park visitation 6,000 Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of National Park Service data
Source:
increased 92%, or by 1.1 million visitors to a total of 2.4 million 100.0% (4,946 jobs)
10.0% The next identifiable surge took place from 2013 to
visitors. Table
5,000 4: Average Annual Economic Impacts,
8.8% 8.4% 100.0% (4,400 jobs)
2017,
8.0% when park visitation 7.4%increased 60%, welcoming an Baseline Scenario, 2020–2030 17.9% (883 jobs)
(Jobs 9.8% (432 jobs)
additional
6.0% 1.7 million visitors to a total of 4.5 million visitors. 4,000 and Millions of 2020 Dollars)
From 2016 to 2019, however, Zion NP experienced a leveling- Share of Share of
3.9%
4.0% 3.3% 3.1% Location & Type Amount Total Economy
off of visitation—something park managers and stakeholders 3,000
2.0% Kane County
attribute to overcrowding and the park reaching its maximum
Employment 90.2% 432 9.8%
82.1% 8.1%
0.0%
capacity. From 2017 to 2019, Zion NP was experiencing a –0.2% 2,000
Kane County Washington County Earnings (3,968 jobs) $14.4 9.9% jobs)
(4,063 8.3%
annual average year-over-year change, or very mild decline.
Employment Earnings GDP GDP $26.0 10.1% 7.4%
Additionally, travel experts believe the COVID-19 pandemic will 1,000
Washington County
continue to have a significant impact on international park
Employment 3,968 90.2% 3.9%
visitation for the next two to three years. According to past Zion 0
Earnings Baseline Forecast $131.7 90.1% Scenario
EVZion+ 3.4%
NP visitor studies, international visitors made up to a quarter of
GDP Washington $230.1
County 89.9%
Kane County 3.4%
park visitors during the high tourist season.
Total
After much consideration, the authors believe that Zion NP
Employment 4,400 100.0% 4.1%
will return to about 4.5 million visits in 2021 and then continue
Earnings $146.1 100.0% 3.6%
on its zero-growth, flattening-out path into the near future as
GDP $256.1 100.0% 3.6%
the park reaches capacity and crowding impacts detract from
Note: Impacts represent direct, indirect, and induced effects. Totals may not match due to
additional visitation.6 rounding. Shares of economy represent total economic impacts as a percentage of total
Baseline forecasts from 2020 to 2030 suggest that Zion NP employment, earnings, or GDP in the counties.
Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis using REMI PI+ economic model
visitor spending will support an average annual 4,400 jobs in
Kane and Washington counties, $146.1 million in earnings, and
$256.1 million per year in economic activity (GDP) (see Table 4).
Of the direct, indirect, and induced employment impacts, 9.8%
will fall within Kane County. The following EVZion+ section
provides additional baseline scenario economic impact
modeling.
February 2021 I gardner.utah.edu 6 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TMSection 3. EVZion+ Scenario
The “EVZion+” scenario considers increased investments, 4. Hiking/biking trails: 42 miles of designated trails/routes
including the purchase and operation of a new 100% electric near the East Zion Visitor Center/shuttle stop.
Zion NP shuttle fleet linking the south and east entrances, and 5. Commercial lodging: the construction of four
other tourism-related investments and developments at the commercial lodging facilities, including Zion Ponderosa
park’s east entrance. This scenario consists of six components in Lodge (30 rooms), Baby Ridge (50 rooms), Spirit Mountain
Kane and Washington counties (see Figure 6). (75 rooms), and Grand Mountain Lodge (182 rooms)
1. EVZion: the purchase and deployment of a fleet of (Zions Bank, 2020).
zero-emission, electric vehicles that transport visitors 6. Residential development: the construction of Buffalo
between Zion NP’s South Entrance Visitor Center, the Preserve (15 units), Peaches Subdivision (24 units), Zion
proposed East Entrance Visitor Center, and the city of Ridge (40 units), and Clear Creek Ranch/Zion Mountain
Kanab, passing through the Zion-Mount Carmel Tunnel; Partnership (215 units) (Zions Bank, 2020).
also included is the construction of a shuttle hub, shuttle
EVZion+ developments have been proposed to assuage park
stops, and all necessary EVSE (electric vehicle supply
overcrowding by allowing for greater dispersion of park visitors.
equipment) (Utah Clean Cities, 2019). The park’s current
Issues such as traffic jams, air pollution, lack of parking, long lines,
shuttle system only transports visitors up and down Zion
and crowded hiking trails can negatively impact the park visitor
Canyon.
experience. The EVZion+ scenario would offer additional visitor
2. Zion National Park Electric Shuttle Fleet Replacement: parking (East Zion Visitor Center) while at the same time offering
the purchase and deployment of 39 electric vehicles to alternatives to driving (see Figure 16 in Section 4.4 for the St.
replace Zion’s 39 propane shuttles; includes the George to Kanab City transit plan), the potential reduction of
construction of new shuttle charging stations. south entrance-to-east entrance traffic and wait times (Zion–Mt.
3. East Zion Visitor Center (formerly “Applecross to Salt Lake City Carmel Highway Tunnel passage), and the curtailment of overall
Station”): the construction of a new visitor centerCedar
at the carbon emissions. Likewise, the new East Zion Visitor Center and
y 89
park’s east entrance, which willIron
include a theater, café, east park trail system could help disperse park hikers and trail
Hw
City
County Hatch
retail space, and outfitter space (inside) and a shuttle stop, users by offeringCounty
more attractions and recreationalBasin
opportunities
State Park
farmer’s market space, and parking lot (outside). on the
Cedar Breaks less-visited east side of the park.
National Kodachrome
Monument
Figure 6: Study Area Map
to Cedar City Kolob to Panguitch
Canyons Bryce Canyon
East Entrance
National Park
5
I-1
Snow Canyon Zion
State Park Washington National
County Hw
Park y9 Orderville Kane
Gunlock
Quail County
State Park Creek Hwy 9
State Park Springdale
ige
South Entrance Coral Pink Sand Pa
to
Sand Hollow Dunes State Park
Hw Kanab
State Park y5 Hwy 89
St. George 9
to Las Vegas Arizona to Kanab
East Zion Residential Commercial EV Visitor Shuttles Trails
Visitor Center Developments Lodging EV connecting east 42 miles of
Four hotels with and south entrances new hiking
$15.5 million 150 homes ranging
337 rooms total with Kanab and biking
for construction in market value from
trails in
$0.6 to $1.8 million Room rates from EV replacing propane
Zion NP
$200+ per night shuttles on Zion Scenic Dr
Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute; Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center, SGID
I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 7 gardner.utah.edu I February 20213.1 Infrastructure and Attractions: Shuttles, Table 5: Retail Developments at Zion NP East Entrance, 2023
Visitor Center, and Trails
Taxable Value
Currently, there are three zero-emission shuttle project plans Development of Property Annual Sales
for Zion NP. For the first project, the NPS plans to upgrade the Apple Cross Junction store $500,000 $2,000,000
park’s 39 propane shuttles with an entirely electric shuttle fleet.7 Farmer’s Market $0 $500,000
As of September 2020, Zion NP estimated charging station and Total $500,000 $2,500,000
related construction spending at $5.0 million.8 The second Source: Zions Bank
project, referred to as “EVZion,” involves the implementation of
an electric shuttle fleet that will run a new route from the park’s Table 6: Planned Commercial Lodging Near Zion NP East
south entrance (via the Zion-Mt. Carmel Highwya Tunnel) to the Entrance, 2025
park’s east entrace/Kanab beginning in 2021 (Utah Clean Cities,
Occupancy
2019). The two EVZion pilot electric shuttles will cost $600,000, Nightly
Development Rooms Room Rate Share Days
plus $960,000 for the electric charging system and bus stop
Grand Mountain Lodge 182 $460 69.0% 252
construction (Utah Clean Cities, 2019). The third project will be
Spirit Mountain 75 $1,050 44.9% 164
to work with Kane County, Kanab City, UDOT, and Utah Clean
Baby Ridge 50 $530 54.8% 200
Cities to secure funding to expand the EVZion pilot project to a
Zion Ponderosa Lodge 30 $210 54.8% 200
full fleet with scheduled service connecting Kanab and other
Total 337 $580 60.3% 204
gateway communities to Zion.
Note: Occupancy rate forecasts are constant from 2025 to 2030 for the first three hotels.
The construction budget for the proposed East Zion Visitor At Grand Mountain Lodge, which opens two years earlier, expected occupancy rises from
Center is $12.5 million from Spring 2021 to Spring 2022 (Watts 58% in 2023 to 71% in 2025 and thereafter. Rounded to the nearest $10 in 2025, intended
room rates increase by 2.6% per year through 2030. Total row includes averages for
Construction, 2020).9 After opening, the Visitor Center will occupancy rate and room rate, weighted by the number of rooms per hotel.
employ an average of 20 seasonal workers and eight full-time Source: Zions Bank
staff. The two planned retail operations at the Visitor Center, a
store and a farmer’s market, will likely generate $2.5 million in Historical data for 38 commercial lodging properties in Kane
annual sales beginning in 2023 (see Table 5). County and Springdale (a town in Washington County, south of
Aside from replacing the Zion NP shuttle fleet, implementing Zion NP and near the Kane County border) suggest that average
EVZion, and constructing an East Zion Visitor Center, 42 miles of daily rates in the area are projected to rise from $183 in 2019, to
biking and hiking trails are planned to open in four phases, $210 in 2023, and $287 in 2030 (Smith Travel Research, 2020).
from 2021 to 2024.10 Trail construction will employ between The Gardner Institute’s economic impact analysis allows time
nine and 15 employees each year. After the trails open, ongoing for EVZion+ accommodations to affect tourism spending
maintenance will require an estimated three additional patterns, as current pricing gives way to the expected higher-
employees. end lodging rates in Table 6.
Besides commercial lodging, developers have planned four
3.2 Visitor Accommodations: Commercial Lodging and residential construction projects near Zion NP’s east entrance.
Rental Homes For two of the projects, developers intend to rent most of the
The construction and operation of four planned commercial new homes to visitors. Construction for 150 homes begins in
lodging developments, starting with the 182-room Grand 2023, with an expected average market value of $705,000 (see
Mountain Lodge, will have significant economic impacts in Table 7). Depending on market conditions, the 100 rental units
Kane County. Hotel construction will generate employment are likely to bring in an average of $560 per night in their first
primarily from 2022 to 2025, when the last of the four year. All 150 homes would be ready for residents and tourists by
developments opens. The combined 337 new rooms near the 2030. Residential development would continue until 2042 for
east entrance (see Table 6) represent a 29.4% increase in the completion of another 144 homes, 80 of which would be
capacity over the county’s 1,146 hotel rooms in 2019 (Smith rented. Economic impact results in this report do not include
Travel Research, 2020). Expected occupancy rates average planned investments that would accrue to Kane and
60.3% or 204 nights per year, which is consistent with Kane neighboring counties after the study period ends in 2030.
County’s historical average. In 2025, depending on market
conditions, target room rates will range from $210 to $1,050 (an
average of $580 per night) and increase with inflation thereafter.
February 2021 I gardner.utah.edu 8 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM40
Fiscal Impacts $6.7 $11.1
$4.4 30
20
Table 7: Residential Developments Near Zion NP East Entrance, Planned Completion 2023–2030
$4.3
Earnings $131.7 10
Number of Homes $136.0 Unit
Average per Housing
Development Completed Rented GDPMarket Value $230.1 Fee
Rental $237.4
Rental Occupancy
$7.3
Clear Creek Ranch/Zion Mountain partnership 71 64
Fiscal Impacts $36.3 $500,000
$37.4 $600 27.4%
Zion Ridge, phase 3 40 36 $1.1 $600,000 $500 27.4%
Baseline EVZion+
Peaches Subdivision 24 0 $800,000 NA NA
5.0
Buffalo Preserve 15 0 $1,800,000 NA NA
4.5
Total 150 100 $705,000 $560 27.4% 4.0
NA = not applicable 3.5
Visitation
Note: Occupancy rates, 100 nights out of 365, are constant for all years. Market value (rounded to the nearest 41.9%rental fees (rounded
$1,000) and single-day 24.2%to the15.5%
nearest 11.5%
$10) are6.9%
for 2023, 3.0
and expected to grow 3.0% and 2.5% per year, respectively. “Total” row includes averages for market values, rental fees, and occupancy rates, weighted by the number of units per
development. Visitor Spending 31.6% 27.2% 24.6% 11.0% 5.6% 2.5
Source: Zions Bank 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 2.0
1.5
Zion Bryce Canyon Arches Capitol Reef Canyonlands 1.0
3.3 Local Economic Impacts Figure 7: Projected Zion NP Visitation, 2019–2030 0.5
Ongoing visitor spending and planned investments in Kane (Millions of Visitors) 0.0
County’s tourism economy will bring additional future park
5.0
visitation and significant economic impacts to the county and 4.8
region. Figure 7 compares EVZion+ visitation trends with 4.6
4.4 5.0
baseline trends. East entrance investments are expected to 4.8
4.2 4.6
raise total spending by nonlocal Zion NP visitors by an average
4.0 4.4
of $21.7 million per year, 8.1% above the forecasted baseline 3.8 4.2
4.0
amount.11 This effect accompanies additional economic activity 3.6 3.8
3.4 3.6
from the construction and operation of the EVZion+ 3.4
3.2 3.2
components documented in Sections 3.1 and 3.2. 3.0 3.0
EVZion+ forecasts from 2020 to 2030 suggest that Zion NP
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
visitor spending will support 4,946 jobs in Kane and Washington
Baseline Forecast EVZion+ Scenario
counties, $166.9 million in annual earnings, and $293.0 million
6,000
per year in economic activity (GDP) (see Table 8). Of the direct, Note: Zion National Park forecasts begin in 2021.
Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of data from National Park Service, Zions
indirect, and induced employment impacts, 17.9% will fall Bank, and Smith Travel Research
10.0% 5,000
within Kane County. 8.8% 8.4%
8.0% 7.4%
Table 8: Average Annual Economic Impacts, EVZion+ Scenario, 2020–2030
6.0% 4,000
(Jobs and Millions of 2020 Dollars) 3.9%
4.0% 3.3% 3.1%
Share of 3,000
2.0%
Impact Baseline Forecast1 EVZion+ Change2 EVZion+ Total2 Two-County Total Share of Economy3
Kane County 0.0%
2,000
Kane County Washington County
Employment 432 451 883 17.9% 16.9%
Employment Earnings GDP
Earnings $14.4 $16.5 $30.9 18.5% 17.0% 1,000
GDP $26.0 $29.6 $55.6 19.0% 15.1%
Washington County
0
Employment 3,968 94 4,063 82.1% 3.7%
Earnings $131.7 $4.3 $136.0 81.5% 3.1%
GDP $230.1 $7.3 $237.4 81.0% 3.1%
Total
Employment 4,400 545 4,946 100.0% 4.3%
Earnings $146.1 $20.8 $166.9 100.0% 3.7%
GDP $256.1 $36.9 $293.0 100.0% 3.6%
Note: Impacts represent direct, indirect, and induced effects. Totals may not match due to rounding.
1. Baseline forecast represents ongoing economic activity from Zion National Park visitor spending without east entrance improvements.
2. EVZion+ scenario incorporates new economic activity from investments near the park’s east entrance.
3. Shares of economy represent total EVZion+ impacts as a percentage of total employment, earnings, or GDP in the counties.
Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis using REMI PI+ economic model
I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 9 gardner.utah.edu I February 20213.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2030
Figure 8: County Shares of Economic Impacts, EVZion+ Figure 9: Kane County Economic Impacts, EVZion+
Scenario, 2020–2030 Scenario, 2020–2030
(Average
6,000 Annual Employment) (Forecasted Share of Total GDP in the County)
100.0% (4,946 jobs) 20.0%
5,000 18.0% 16.9% Leisu
100.0% (4,400 jobs) 16.0%
17.9% (883 jobs)
14.0%
9.8% (432 jobs)
4,000 12.0%
10.0%
8.0% 6.1%
% 6.6%
3,000 6.0%
6.0%
4.0%
82.1% 2.0%
90.2%
2,000 0.0% Profe
(3,968 jobs) (4,063 jobs)
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Heal
1,000
Baseline Forecast EVZion+ Scenario
Note: EVZion+ unevenness reflects construction in 2023 and 2025. Bu
0 Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis using REMI PI+ economic model
Baseline Forecast EVZion+ Scenario
4.0% Trans
Washington County Kane County
3.5%
3.4
3.0%Share of Local Economies 2.8%
Note: Results include total direct, indirect, and induced impacts per year. EVZion+
2.5% O
scenario includes baseline forecast and additional impacts from new economic activity Kane County
2.5%
due to improvements near the east entrance of Zion National Park. Totals may not match 2.0%
due to rounding. In 2020, Zion NP visitor spending generated an estimated
1.5%
Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis using REMI PI+ economic model $19.7
1.0%
million of Kane County’s GDP, 6.0% of countywide
economic
0.5% activity (Figure 9). Due to pandemic disruptions to
Table 9: Local Government Revenue Generated by nonlocal
0.0% travel, this share was uncharacteristically low
compared with 2019 visitor spending (7.4% share). Current Leisu
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Baseline and EVZion+ Economic Impacts, 2020–2030
(Average Annual Revenue in Millions of 2020 Dollars) baseline trends suggest that, without additional investments,
Baseline Forecast EVZion+ Scenario
the percentage will rise to 7.6% in 2021 and then slowly decline
Kane Washington to 6.6% of Kane County GDP by 2030 ($26.6 million, inflation-
Impact County County Total Share
adjusted). These results reflect direct, indirect, and induced
Baseline Forecast $3.6 $16.8 $20.4 86.4% 6,000 Profe
GDP impacts. 5,383
5,029
EVZion+ Scenario $2.8 $0.4 $3.2 13.6% 5,000 807 Hea
EVZion+
3,455 developments will further align Kane County’s 703
Total $6.4 $17.2 $23.6 100.0%
economy
4,000 with Zion NP. By 2030,4,576the construction and operation
4,326
Share 27.1% 72.9% 100.0% Bu
of the 63,449
3,000 new East Zion Visitor Center, transit options and trails, Trans
Note: Results based on the total economic impacts of baseline Zion National Park visitor
spending and east entrance improvements. Totals may not match exactly due to rounding. housing
2,000 and commercial lodging, and baseline visitor spending
Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis using IMPLAN economic software and
would directly and indirectly support 16.9% of economic O
the Gardner Institute fiscal model 1,000
activity in the county ($68.5 million in GDP). These results do
0
EVZion+ will add an average of 451 jobs to Kane County’s not include all Zion NP-related economic activity in the region.
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
total economic impact through 2030. Regional economic gains, For example, these shares do not reflect economic impacts
from National Park Baseline Forecast (NPS) spending
Service EVZion+ Scenario
or that of NPS
545 jobs, also include 94 jobs added in Washington County.
Kane County’s share of the employment impacts from Zion NP employees living in Kane and neighboring counties. Zion
visitor spending and EVZion+ improvements is 17.9% of the Washington County: 1,047 Utah
two-county total (see Figure 8). This outcome reflects 1,100
EVZion+ will generate 1,060
additional economic activity
1,040 in
1,011 1,022
988 1,011 U.S.
sustainable growth within a framework of rural economic 1,000
Washington County related to Zion NP tourism. While EVZion+
877
development and clean-air energy sources. 900
developments center
770 on the east entrance in Kane County, they
Each year from 2020 to 2030, ongoing (baseline) Zion NP 800
are designed to improve the visitor experience broadly and
visitors’ spending in Utah will generate an estimated average of 700
accommodate increased visitation without further crowding
$20.4 million in local government revenue in Kane and 600
hot spots 527 in the park. According to baseline forecasts,
Washington counties (see Table 9). EVZion+ improvements will 500
Washington
361
County’s reliance on Zion NP tourism is likely to rise St. Ge
produce another $3.2 million for a total of $23.6 million per year. 400
from 2.5% of county GDP in 2020 to 3.2% the next year, before thro
300 Hurric
tapering to 2.8% in 2030 (see Figure 10). In inflation-adjusted
200
dollars, the 2020 baseline figure of $162.4 million will increase
100
0
February 2021 I gardner.utah.edu 10 I N F O2026
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 R M E2027
D D2028
E C I S2029
I O N2030
S TM
Electric Shuttles Residential16.0% Real estate
2.0% Retail trade 4.7% 21.3%
14.0% 2.9% 20.3%
0.0% Professional services
12.0% 3.4% 8.8%
Construction
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
10.0% 2.7% 11.8%
Health & education
8.0% 6.1%
Figure 10: Washington County Economic Impacts, 6.6% Table 10: Average Annual
Government 3.4%6.3%Total Economic Impacts in Kane
6.0% Baseline Forecast EVZion+ Scenario and Washington
Other services Counties,2.4% 10.9% EVZion+ Scenario, 2020–2030
EVZion+
4.0%
Scenario, 2020–2030
6.0% 3.2%
4.9%
Real estate
(Forecasted
2.0% Share of Total GDP in the County) (Average
BusinessAnnual
services Jobs2.1% and
4.7%Millions of 2020 dollars)
0.0% Professional services 2.9%
3.1%
4.0% Source of Impact
Transport. & utilities 1.7%
3.4% Employment Earnings GDP
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Health & education 1.9%
2.7%
3.5% Baseline Forecast 0.9%
Manufacturing 3.4%
3.0% Baseline Forecast EVZion+ Scenario 2.8% 1.6%
2.4%
Visitor Spending
Other services 4,400 $146.1 $256.1
2.5% Other industries 0.9%
3.2%
2.5% EVZion+ Scenario 1
2.1%
1.5%
2.0% Business services
Electric Shuttles2 0.0% 3.1%10.0% 20.0% 4 30.0% $0.240.0% 50.0%
$0.3
1.5%
4.0% Transport. & utilities 1.7%
East Zion Visitor Center1.9% Employment 35 $1.7
Earnings $2.5
1.0%
3.5%
Manufacturing 0.9%
0.5% 2.8% Trails 7 $0.3 $0.5
3.0% 1.6%
0.0%
2.5% Commercial Lodging 0.9%
Other industries 106 $4.8 $8.5
2.5% Leisure & hospitality 1.5% $25,500
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2.0% Residential Developments 68 $2.7 $5.3
Retail trade 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%
1.5% Additional Visitor Spending 3 $32,200
326 $11.2 $19.7
Baseline Forecast EVZion+ Scenario Construction Employment Earnings
1.0% Subtotal $41,700 545 $20.8 $36.9
0.5%Shares for 2030 are 2.76% (baseline) and 2.84% (EVZion+).
Note: Government $62,900
Total 4,946 $166.9 $293.0
Source:
0.0% Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis using REMI PI+ economic model Real estate $23,700
Leisure
Note: & hospitality
Impacts represent
services direct, indirect, $25,500
$39,700and induced effects. Totals may not match due to
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
6,000 Professional
5,383 rounding.
Figure
5,000 11: Kane Baseline
and Washington CountyEVZion+
Total Scenario 5,029
Employment 1. Health
EVZion+ &Retail trade
education
scenario incorporates$57,900 $32,200
new economic activity from improvements near the
3,455 Forecast 807 703 Construction
east entrance of Zion
Other services National Park.$41,700
For more detailed results by EVZion+ component,
Impacts,
4,000
EVZion+ Scenario, 2020–2030
4,576 4,326 see Tables
$45,100
A1 and A2 in the Appendix.
Government
Business services $62,900
$30,900
(Direct,6Indirect, and Induced Impacts) 2. Includes additional two EVZion shuttles and proposed replacement of propane shuttles.
3,000 3,449 IncludesReal
3.Transport. estatevisitor spending
additional
& utilities $23,700
$62,400 generated by east entrance investments, beyond
visitor spending
Professional in the baseline
services forecast and from itemized EVZion+ components.
$39,700
6,000
2,000 5,383 Source:Manufacturing
Kem C. Gardner Policy$59,800
Institute analysis using REMI PI+ economic model
5,029 Health & education $57,900
5,000
1,000 3,455 807 Other industries $59,700
703
Other services $45,100
4,0000 4,576 4,326 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
Business services $30,900
6
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Employment Impact (Jobs)
at 807 jobs in 2025 due to multiple construction projects. By
3,000 3,449 Transport. & utilities $62,400
2,000 Baseline Forecast EVZion+ Scenario
2030,Manufacturing
EVZion+ impacts moderate to 703 jobs, a 16.3% increase
$59,800
overOther
the 4,326-job
industries employment
$59,700
baseline.
1,000 Zion NP Visitors 2.7% 97.3%
Additional visitor spending generates nearly 60% of the 545
0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
1,047 average annual new
Utah Population 11.5%jobs from EVZion+88.5%investments (see Table
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Employment Impact (Jobs)
1,100 1,060
1,011 988 1,011
1,022 1,040 10). Commercial lodging expansion generates almost one-fifth
1,000 U.S. Population 14.8% 85.2%
Baseline Forecast EVZion+ Scenario (106) of these jobs, followed by residential housing construction
877
900 0% 10%
770are from baseline visitor spending forecasts and increased
Note: Economic impacts atZion
12.4%, 68 jobs.
NP Visitors 2.7%While20%the30% 40%Center,
Visitor 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
97.3%EV shuttles, and new
800 Hispanic
economic activity associated with east entrance investments. trails collectively add only 46 or Latino
jobs, they areSome othertoethnicity
central attracting
700 Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis using REMI PI+ economic model 1,047
Source: Utah Population 11.5% 88.5%
1,100 1,060 tourists to Zion NP’s east side.
600 1,011 1,022 1,040
527 988 1,011 In Population
U.S. Kane County alone, total employment
14.8% 85.2% impacts, which
1,000
500 877As other sectors of Washington
to900$245.6
361 million in 2030. include baseline0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%an
visitor
St. George to Springdale, spending,
Zion Nationalwill reach
Park estimated
70% 80%
Potential 90%1,047
expansion 100%
400 770 and Springdale
County’s
800 economy grow too, East Zion developments are not jobs by Washington,
through 2030, of which 637 jobs
Hispanic or Latino will stem from
to Moab, EVZion+
other
Some other ethnicity
four
300 Hurricane, and La Verkin Utah National Parks
expected
700 to significantly alter the role of Zion NP tourism improvements (see Figure 12). Of these impacts, new
200
spending
600 as a share of the county’s entire economy, which will commercial lodging, residential developments, and additional
100 527
still
500round to 2.8% after a 0.08% increase representing 545 jobs visitor spending will likely produce the largest economic
0 361 Zion National Park
in400
Washington St. George toHowever,
Springdale, any component’s impacts Potential
are expansion
2020 2021 County. With2024
2022 2023 EVZion+,
2025 growth in tourism-related
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 impacts. and Springdale unreliable
through Washington, to Moab, other four
economic
300 activity should disperse somewhat more evenly alone since
Hurricane, new
and La Verkin
Potential economic activity depends on the collective
Utah National Parks
Electric Shuttles Residential
between
200 Kane and Washington counties. However, at $252.7
Trails
draw ofexpansion
transit, trail, and visitor center amenities.
Commercial Lodging
to Las Vegas
million,
100 GDP
East impacts
Zion in 2030 would
Visitor Center remain (Additional)
Visitor Spending 3.7 times larger in Beyond baseline visitor spending, Kane County’s total
East Zion National
International
Washington
0 County than in Kane County.
Visitor Spending (Baseline) economic Park
impacts will support a forecasted average of 451 jobs to Kanab
Airport
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
each year from 2020 to 2030 (see Table 11). This substantial
3.5 Economic Impacts in KaneResidential
Electric Shuttles and Washington Counties Potential growth will generate an average of $16.5 million
employment
expansion
Trails
In Kane and Washington counties combined,
Commercial Lodging estimated total in annualto Lasearnings
Vegas and $29.6 million in annual GDP during
East Zion Visitor Center Visitor Spending (Additional) East Zion National
economic impacts from Zion NP visitor spending will rise from those 11 years. These amounts incorporate elements
International such as
Park to Kanab
Visitor Spending (Baseline) Airport
an estimated 3,455 jobs in 2020 to 5,029 in 2030 (see Figure 11). room rentals to park visitors and the local spending of visitor
Employment impacts from east entrance improvements peak center employees.
I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 11 gardner.utah.edu I February 20211,000 Other industries $59,700
0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Employment Impact (Jobs)
Figure 12: Kane County Employment Impacts, By generating additional visitation and positive spillover
Baseline Forecast EVZion+ Scenario
EVZion+ Scenario, 2020–2030 effects, EVZion+ investments will also significantly increase
(Direct, Indirect, and Induced Impacts by Source; Jobs) tourism activity2.7%
Zion NP Visitors in Washington County. 97.3%While the net effect
remains positive, as Zion NP’s east entrance improvements
1,047 Utah Population 11.5% 88.5%
1,100 1,060 1,040 distribute visitor traffic more evenly, some growth in economic
1,011 988 1,011 1,022
1,000 U.S. Population
activity 14.8%Washington County
will shift from 85.2%
to Kane County.12 For
877
900 example, from 0% 2020 to 2030,
10% 20% 30% 40% somewhat
50% 60% slower
70% 80% growth in
90% 100%
770
800 Washington County’s Hispaniccommercial lodgingSome
or Latino industry related to
other ethnicity
700 new east entrance alternatives will likely result in 151 fewer jobs
600
527 than the projected baseline growth (see Table 12). However,
500 increased countywide Zion visitor spending
National Park of 250 jobs will more
361 St. George to Springdale, Potential expansion
400 than offset this moderation in accommodations
and Springdale sector growth
through Washington, to Moab, other four
300 for a net and
Hurricane, effect of 94 jobs, including all EVZion+
La Verkin components.
Utah National Parks
200 Adding EVZion+ activity to the baseline forecast, Washington
100 County’s employment impacts will average 4,063 jobs from 2020
0 to 2030. Total impacts will also bring an average of $136.0 million
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
in earnings and $237.4 million in GDP in each of the 11 years.
Electric Shuttles Potential
Residential
expansion
Trails Commercial Lodging
3.6 Which
to LasIndustries
Vegas Benefit?
East Zion Visitor Center Visitor Spending (Additional) East Zion National
International
Visitor Spending (Baseline)
The industries that would benefit most from East
Park to Zion
Kanab
Airport
improvements are leisure and hospitality, retail trade,
Note: Economic impacts are from baseline visitor spending forecasts and increased construction, and government (see Figure 13). Over one-third
economic activity associated with east entrance improvements in the EVZion+ scenario.
Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis using REMI PI + economic model of earnings impacts and 45.1% of employment impacts in Kane
and Washington counties fall within the leisure and hospitality
industry (primarily accommodations). Other industries can
Table 11: Average Annual Total Economic Impacts in Kane Table 12: Average Annual Total Economic Impacts in
County, EVZion+ Scenario, 2020–2030 Washington County, EVZion+ Scenario, 2020–2030
(Jobs and Millions of 2020 Dollars) (Jobs and Millions of 2020 Dollars)
Source of Impact Employment Earnings GDP Source of Impact Employment Earnings GDP
Baseline Forecast: Baseline Forecast:
Visitor Spending 432 $14.4 $26.0 Visitor Spending 3,968 $131.7 $230.1
EVZion+ Scenario:1 EVZion+ Scenario:1
Electric Shuttles2 4 $0.1 $0.3 Electric Shuttles2 1 $0.0 $0.1
East Zion Visitor Center 32 $1.5 $2.3 East Zion Visitor Center 3 $0.1 $0.2
Trails 7 $0.2 $0.5 Trails 3
0 0.0 0.0
Commercial Lodging 256 $9.1 $16.3 Commercial Lodging –151 –$4.4 –$7.8
Residential Developments 77 $2.8 $5.6 Residential Developments –10 –$0.1 –$0.3
Additional Visitor Spending3 75 $2.6 $4.7 Additional Visitor Spending4 250 $8.7 $15.1
Subtotal 451 $16.5 $29.6 Subtotal 94 $4.3 $7.3
Total 883 $30.9 $55.6 Total 4,063 $136.0 $237.4
Note: Impacts represent direct, indirect, and induced effects. Totals may not match due to Note: Impacts represent direct, indirect, and induced effects. Totals may not match due to
rounding. rounding.
1. EVZion+ scenario incorporates new economic activity from improvements near the 1. EVZion+ scenario incorporates new economic activity from improvements near the
east entrance of Zion National Park. For more detailed results by EVZion+ component, east entrance of Zion National Park. For more detailed results by EVZion+ component,
see Tables A1 and A2 in the Appendix. see Tables A1 and A2 in the Appendix.
2. Includes additional shuttles for East Zion route and proposed replacement of propane 2. Includes additional two EVZion shuttles for East Zion route and proposed replacement
shuttles. See Appendix tables regarding the possibility of a smaller Kane County share of propane shuttles. The earnings impact is $34,000. See Appendix regarding the
of the electric shuttle impacts in Table 10. possibility of slightly larger Washington County electric shuttle impacts.
3. Includes additional visitor spending generated by east entrance investments, beyond 3. Trail-related impacts are 0.3 jobs, $15,000 in earnings, and $26,000 in GDP.
visitor spending in the baseline forecast and from itemized EVZion+ components. 4. Includes additional visitor spending generated by east entrance investments, beyond
Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis using REMI PI+ economic model visitor spending in the baseline forecast and from itemized EVZion+ components.
Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis using REMI PI+ economic model
February 2021 I gardner.utah.edu 12 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TMYou can also read
