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
And of course nobody has made that assertion. In fact, quite the opposite.
Gary, I don't disagree with anything you said in your last post. But saying people will stop spending tourist dollars if there are no National Parks is the same as saying people will stop eating if their local grocery store closes.
"So lets make this easy. If those parks didn't exist would those people play tourist elsewhere? Yes or No."
Now you're asking me to make assumptions?
Okay, I'll play along. If none of our National Parks existed, my assumption is: we'd get very little foreign tourism, much of our domestic tourism would be redirected to places outside the country, some of our domestic tourism would cease altogether, and some of it would take place elsewhere in the US (theme parks, state parks).
I think it's a safe assumption that without any of our National Parks, tourism within the US would take a very substantial hit.
ethelred "very little foreign tourism"? Do you have anything to substantiate your believe that the vast majority of our foreign tourism is driven by the Parks?
Would "some of our domestic tourism" go away. Perhaps. Would all of it go away? Not a chance in you know where.
National Parks steer tourism dollars to where the parks are located. Since lots of parks are in rural places where jobs are scarce, they are the main economic engine. NP are the ultimate renewable economic resource.
Justin, If that quote is supposed to prove that I said there is no incremental spending, you are sorely mistaken.
I made the point that the report assumes that people wouldn't spend at all. That every dollar in the park is incremental. Which is absurd.
I elaborated later that "Yes, there may be some incremental demand but to claim the entire spending as incremental is equally absurd" So contrary to your accusation I have never said there was no incremental spending - quite the opposite.
I am probably in the middle on this one. Without the NPS people would recreate elsewhere. But because they are there we need to show that they are an important tourist destination and worth investing tax dollars to keep them up. If growth in tourism happens in anyplace there will be a need to do upkeep and upgrades in roads, services, airports, etc... in my view that is the sum of the report.