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.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Lee i've seen Zion both with and without shuttles. The shuttle experience was so much better. The canyon is so much quieter, and the experience is greater with those quiet shuttles that travel the road every few minutes. It's not like bumper to bumper traffic or having a bunch of harley riders reving thier engines in some sort of crazed alpha male dominance display that it echoes throughout the entire canyon. That element is removed and you can actually hear the birds chirp, and the occasional laughter of a child having fun. It makes Zion canyon actually a more peaceful place than Yosemite Valley. I consider the Zion shuttle experience I had a pleasant time, when I used the shuttle to hike up the west rim. I consider the time I spent in Yosemite Valley not so pleasant the couple times I was there. The shuttle in Zion has been in place for a while now, and it has not seemed to have any single effect on tourism in that place. I think it truly is a model for the crowded spots in our parks. Denali also has a tram, and I think I read on here recently that Mesa Verde is considering that too.
Muddy,
Don't waste your time at Mt Rushmore, go to Crazy Horse instead and there are plenty of other great places in SD/ND that aren't National Parks.
Yellowstone is a must see - but then, it would be whether it was a National Park or not.
By the way am spending 2 days in Ft Collins with fishing and hiking in Poudre Canyon. Last minute, we decided we will drive home tomorrow through RMNP. Our RMNP incremental spending $0. Other outdoor recreation activities, hundred$.
EC: I plan on stopping at Crazy Horse too, but the majority of highlights in that region are NPS sites.
True that Yellowstone would be a must-see whether it's an NPS site or not. But if it wasn't an NPS site, it would be an overdeveloped hellhole like Niagara Falls. I went there once (in winter, even) and will never return.
When my wife and I went to ROMO we spent two days in Grand Lake and spent a fair amount of money in lodging and food. Although it was August we visited the park between about 6 am and 11 am, and again after about 5 pm. Crowds seemed minimal in those off-peak times, in spite of visitation stats, and we had the best experiences with wildlife we ever had in our 35 national park visits. It was an amazing experience, and I'm sure many who have lived it would agree. Since Grand Lake and Estes Park aren't wanting for tourism, it would seem ROMO draws a fair share of tourist dollars, and rightfully so.
There are plenty of other places everywhere that are great places. That's not the point here. Those places do not take away from our parks. In some cases they add to their appeal.
All are part of a vast network of interconnected strands in an international web of economic ecology and, as John Muir put it, "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe." That is as true of dollars as it is of butterflies.
Thus, if we destroy or damage any part of our parks, we risk harm to everyone and everything that may be dependent in some way upon them.
Extreme caution should always be the primary guiding principle.
I disagree.
I disagree. There are hunreds if not thousands of wonderful places in this country that aren't NPSs and haven't been over developed. I was in one today - the Poudre River Canyon. As pretty as any river in Yellowstone less perhaps a few waterfalls. Far mor accessable, inexpensive camping, no entrace fees and far less crowded. Oh, and dogs were welcome.
Badlands, Wind Cave, Devils Tower, Theodore Roosevelt, Mount Rushmore, etc. aren't the primary destinations in the western Dakotas region? What else do people go there for, to see the majestic oil spills from the recent fossil fuel boom in ND?
Although it may be sublime, Poudre River Canyon isn't on the lips of the traveling populace. If it was Poudre River Canyon National Park, perhaps moreso. Funny how Congress sticking "National Park" on the end of any phrase turns it into an economic powerhouse, no?
The only reason the more "minor" locations haven't been developed is because they don't harbor the vastly impressive and unique features of national parks and the appropriate formal designation. If Yellowstone was privatized tomorrow, it wouldn't be long before the whole area was paved with resorts, hotels, restaurants, casinos and kitsch a la Niagara Falls NY. If Poudre Canyon was designated a national park, it too would welcome an economic increase to the surrounding area. National park designation invites regional tourism while simultaneously protecting the areas themselves from development. It's a win-win.
Why visitation is down at CHNS.
It has little to do with NP ORV regs. Visitors plans are being disrupted by weather events and natural forces. They are being educated to vacation elsewhere.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/special-features/2014/07/140725-...