National parks generated $26.5 billion in economic activity last year. Zion National Park contributed $185.5 million/Deby Dixon photo of Zion Canyon
"This property is of no value to the Government."
"...if it cannot be occupied and cultivated, why should we make a public park of it? If it cannot be occupied by man, why protect it from occupation? I see no reason in that."
How times have changed.
Those two statements, the first from U.S. Sen. John Conness in 1864 as he urged the chamber to protect the Yosemite Valley, and the second from Sen. Cornelius Cole in 1872 in opposing legislation to create Yellowstone National Park, painted two of the more glorious units of today's National Park System as worthless tracts of land. Today they are viewed as part of a $26.5 billion economic engine that supports 240,000 jobs and countless businesses, large and small.
While Sen. Conness had to persuade his colleagues that Yosemite was worthless, and Sen. Cole believed Yellowstone to be worthless, today the National Park Service points to the economic worth of the parks.
'National parks are often the primary economic engines of many park gateway communities,' Park Service Director Jon Jarvis said last week in announcing the fiscal impacts of the park system. 'While park rangers provide interpretation of the iconic natural, cultural and historic landscapes, nearby communities provide our visitors with services that support hundreds of thousands of mostly local jobs.
"... The big picture of national parks and their importance to the economy is clear,' the director added. 'Every tax dollar invested in the National Park Service returns $10 to the U.S. economy because of visitor spending in gateway communities near the 401 parks of the National Park System.'
Lodging is the biggest business in the park system, generating $4.4 billion in economic activity last year, notes the report, 2013 National Park Visitor Spending Effects, Economic Contributions to Local Communities, States, and the Nation. Next in line, not too surprisingly, is dining and drinking (yes, bar drinking), which contributed $2.9 billion.
In 2013, NPS visitors spent a total of $14.6 billion in local gateway communities while visiting NPS lands. These expenditures directly supported over 143 thousand jobs, $4.2 billion in labor income, $6.9 billion in value added, and $11.2 billion in output in the national economy. The secondary effects of visitor spending supported an additional 94 thousand jobs, $5.0 billion in labor income, $8.8 billion in value added, and $15.3 billion in output in the national economy. Combined, NPS visitor spending supported a total of 238 thousand jobs, $9.2 billion in labor income, $15.6 billion in value added, and $26.5 billion in output in the national economy.
Which park system unit contributed the most to that total? The Blue Ridge Parkway, which generated nearly $1 billion ($999.3 million) in business last year, according to the report, followed closely by Great Smoky Mountains National Park with $943.2 million.
The report also noted that overall visitation to the parks was down in 2013, in large part due to the partial government shutdown in October, and due to ongoing impacts from Hurricane Sandy, which swept up the Eastern Seaboard in October 2012.
What was not part of the report, but which would be equally important in assessing the overall value of the National Park System, would be an analysis of the ecological worth of the parks. What value are the forests that act as air and water filters? How important to the nation are the flora and fauna protected by the parks? Let's measure the ecological, and economic, value of coastal wetlands and barrier islands at places such as Everglades National Park, Gulf Islands National Seashore, and Assateague Island National Seashore, that not only provide critical habitat for shorebirds, waterfowl, and fish, but also serve as storm buffers.
If the Park Service feels it must tout the dollar-impact of the parks to generate Congressional and public support, it could similarly bolster that argument by defining the "natural capital" that resides in the park system.
"Nature has provided ecosystems and their benefits to us for free. However, perhaps because this capital has been provided freely to us, we humans have tended to view it as limitless, abundant, and always available for our use, exploitation, and conversion. The concept of an ecosystem as natural capital can help us analyze the economic behavior that has led to the overuse of so much ecological wealth. If we can understand this behavior better, then perhaps we can find ways to manage and enhance what is left of our natural endowment. -- Edward B. Barbier, Capitalizing on Nature, Ecosystems as Natural Assets.
Comments
"You are assuming that if there were no NPs people wouldn't engage in tourism, travel or eat out. That assumption is absurd. Yes, there may be some incremental demand but to claim the entire spending as incremental is equally absurd."
I claimed no such thing; only a willful misreading of what I wrote could lead you to such a statement. The line immediately preceding what you quoted had me saying this: "They're not the only reason people travel within the country, but they are a big driver."
So no, I am hardly assuming that if there were no National Parks people wouldn't engage in tourism. I quite specifically said that there are other reasons to travel. But the National Parks are a significant driver of tourism, as clearly demonstrated by the millions of visitors certain parks get and the spending they engage in for food and lodging and alcohol in those locations.
If that were true I would say "So what?". But living and being involved in one of those communities I know that it isn't true. The vast driver of economics in Breckenridge is the tourist. The non-wealthy family from Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnisota.... Their sales taxes and lodging taxes provide by far the largest portion of the towns operating budget and generate the vast majority of the employment and income for the town and County.
That's a good point, ethelred. I forgot about the millions of foreign visitors to the parks each year. Whenever I speak with them, it's interesting how much of their trip to the states is organized around the parks. It's pretty implict that their trip through the U.S. would be abridged if the parks didn't exist. In National Park of American Samoa, everyone we encountered was from another country, traveling through the South Pacific islands, and not a single one would have stopped in Pago (pretty obviously (and unfortunately) if you've been there) or made it to Ofu (no easy way to get there) without the park.
Again you assume the driver to tour is the park. In some cases that may be true. But I find it incredible that the majority of those people would stay at home and sit on their hands if there wasn't a NP to go to.
["The parks] are competing for ...tax dollars. If anything, they at least deserve more money for maintainance of the parks and show on paper that a dollar spent returns 10."
You're right, David, and I believe that's the primary reason for these reports. Right or wrong, a key measuring stick for many in Congress when it comes to appropriating tax dollars seems to be whether an agency or program contributes to the GNP.
"Again you assume the driver to tour is the park. In some cases that may be true."
I don't have to assume that. The visitation numbers speak for themselves. Places like Great Smoky, Yosemite, Virgin Islands, Shenandoah -- they are drivers of tourism, which we know because tourists are going there. This requires no assuming on my part. And since, in this study, local tourists were filtered out, the report can pretty clearly show the impact on lodging/food services that tourists to the parks have had.
200 years ago, the state of Pennsylvania nearly tore down Independence Hall. Now between 3 and 4 million people a year are visiting that. That is a concrete driver of tourism.
Now, maybe if that building hadn't been saved, those 3 to 4 million people would still be visiting. And maybe if we had chopped down the redwoods, and hadn't protected Yosemite Valley, and hadn't protected Yellowstone, maybe there would be virtually no impact to the amount of travel done within the United States. There's been no study to support such an assumption, though.
"But I find it incredible that the majority of those people would stay at home and sit on their hands if there wasn't a NP to go to."
Sounds like you're the one making assumptions, then, not the report. You're assuming that if we didn't have any of our National Parks, there'd be little fluctuation in tourism. Sounds like a shaky assumption.
So lets make this easy. If those parks didn't exist would those people play tourist elsewhere? Yes or No.
Thanks for righting the ship, Jim. From the opening quote, the thrust of the article is about the economic activity promoted by the parks. Would some of that economic activity exist without the parks? Obviously. Would most of it? Maybe. But to assert that the same level of activity would exist without the national parks is pretty ridiculous.