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
Gary, these closures are not just preventing ORV access but also to a lesser degree preventing pedestrians access. I believe that most of that loss of visitation is directly related to loosing beach access. Can you tell me what changed at CHNSRA during the past decade that would result in lower visitation?
Just came home from an incredibly crowded Zion and an equally incredibly crowded Springdale. You could hear Springdale's cash registers ringing from miles away.
Came home and found an incredibly crowded pile of postings here as a whole lot of effort is wasted -- again -- on trying valiantly to respond to some shoutings from under a bridge. Might the discussions here be of greater value if we could simply ignore the tantalizing tidbits floated out into the stream to entice us to respond?
Over at Great Basin, in the tiny town of Baker, three new businesses have opened just this year. Would they have done so if the park were not there? South of Cedar City there is a large billboard alongside I-15 inviting everyone to attend the Astronomy Festival at Great Basin on September 12 and 13 (I think it was).
Economic engines? Remember what happened when the Clowns of Congress closed the parks?
Nearly 1M national park visitors deliver $67M to Oregon (Photos)
http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/blog/2014/07/nearly-1m-national-park...
Yes, peope went elsewhere to recreate.
Count me as another anecdotal example of someone who would mostly just stay home if the parks were closed. I'd probably visit some nearby state parks and forests a little more instead, but they cost almost nothing to visit.
I wouldn't spend the considerable time and money to visit Utah, for example, for any other reason than to visit the amazing national parks and monuments there.
I also have this goal of eventually restoring a Jeep Wagoneer, buying an Airstream trailer, and spending weeks on a road trip to Mount Rushmore, Bandlands, Yellowstone, etc. a la the classic 1960s Americana vacation.
If those parks weren't there, that all goes away. It's not like I'm going to put tens of thousands of dollars into restoring a classic vehicle, buying a recreational trailer, gas, food, supplies,etc. to go visit...I dunno...the *cough* allure of Cheyenne Wyoming instead?
Are national parks economic engines for industrial tourism? Of course they are! Ask anyone who lives in Pigeon Forge, TN, Gatlinburg, TN, Cherokee, NC, West Yellowstone, WY, Jackson, WY, or Mariposa, CA.
On the other hand, experience traffic and crowded conditions in a park and potential repeat park visitors might instead choose to vacation elsewhere the next time around. But, propose a plan to enhance visitor experience and protect park resources that involves restrictions on vehicle use in the parks, such as removing private car access to Cades Cove or Yosemite Valley, and hearing protection will be needed to survive the shrill cries of opposition from those economically dependent on the steady flow of tourism.
Insensitivity to the economic importance of park visitation can be hazardous to one's NPS career. Some decades ago, a newly appointed superintendent to Yosemite National Park happened to oppose contruction of a Wells Fargo Bank in Yosemite Valley. That superintendent's tenure in Yosemite lasted six months, the shortest residency of any park superintendent in Yosemite's history.
Exactly, Owen. It's impossible to even guess accurately how much of the mess faced by many of our parks are the direct result of some kind of political pressure applied by people with large financial interests and their Congresspersons.
Zion last week was incredible. All parking inside the park full by 10 a.m.. Roadside parking in Springdale was solid for perhaps a quarter mile on both sides of the street. Can you imagine Zion if the shuttle system was not in use? The park's automobile entry fee is $25. The shuttle system is free.
Without the shuttle, I'm sure many people would make one trip and one trip only.
I spoke with a man who had just had his family at Yosemite. He said they stayed two days and left because of the congestion even though they had been planning to spend five days there. He sounded as if it will be his family's first and only visit to Yosemite.
While there may be deafeningly shrill cries from vested interests who fear any change, I'd be willing to bet that if reasonable limits were set up -- not only in YOSE, but other parks as well -- there might actually be an increase in visitation. And with it, an increase in income for the profiteers.
It's the old conundrum. "What I have now isn't really very good, but I'm familiar with it so why change?"