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
I had a conference at the Univeristy of Minnesota in June and made reservations to stay at the Arrowhead Lodge and the Kettle Falls Inn at Voyageurs NP. Due to severe flooding, NPS was forced to cancel my backcountry permit, so I skipped the park and just flew home after the conference, never spending any money at either business.
My wife and I are about to meet her family for a week-long vacation in Edisto, S.C. She's never been to Shenadoah NP, so instead of driving straight through to Edisto, or maybe staying a single night somewhere, we're going to spend two nights at the Skyland Resort in Shenandoah.
In September, my wife has a conference in San Antonio. Instead of flying home right after the conference, we're renting a car and driving to Big Bend NP, where we will be hiring a shuttle and renting watercraft from a local outfitter in order to float down the Rio Grande for two days.
The list goes on and on. And in each case, without the National Parks, our money would otherwise be just sitting in our bank account rather than circulating through the economy.
True, but the wealthy definitely drive those small mountain town resort economies and keep them somewhat afloat. Otherwise, they will just become another one of those rural impoverished areas where many residents dont even have running water to their homes.
ecbuck...I see your point. What your saying is if for every dollar invested in something else besides the National Park System we may get more than $10 in return. But than we would have crappy parks.
No David, I think you are still missing the point. My point is that people recreate. Even if no National Parks existed, they would recreate, I do a camping/sightseeing road trip every summer. Sometimes I go to National Parks, sometimes I go elsewhere. If the NPs didn't exist, I wouldn't stop going on my road trips. I would still make those trips and still spend that money. The NPs haven't generated anything in my case. In fact, because it is far cheaper to stay in a NP campsite than a motel, I probably spend less when a NP is involved.
Is the NP contribution to the economy zero? No. There probably is some stimulation in demand but you can't count every dollar loosly connected to a National Park as an incremental contribution.
Kinda like if the USFS didn't allow for the operation of a ski resort around Aspen, Telluride, Brekenridge, etc while maintaining large tracks of public lands around these areas, those poor real estate title exchangers wouldn't be able to reap in larger profits for overinflated prices for the private lands around these spots. Mainly, because the wealthy would spend their money elsewhere since many of these places would be of less value, especially if these mountains were turned over to mining companies, and thousands of subidivided lots, but hey.... Some just don't see the reality of any current situation, now do they? West Virginia is a good example of this compared to what you find in many areas of Colorado and Western Montana.
"It is full of assumptions. The most blatant and erroneous of which is that people would not spend the money elsewhere if parks didn't exist."
Many people wouldn't spend the money elsewhere in the United States. The report makes it clear that the parks are a large driver of tourism, both foreign and domestic. If we didn't have the sort of flagship parks that draw in foreign visitors, they would not be spending their money in the United States. And if we did not have parks like Virgin Islands National Park, for example, many domestic tourists might be spending their money in the British Virgin Islands instead.
The tourism of the parks facilitates travel. They're not the only reason people travel within the country, but they are a big driver. Domestically if people weren't traveling, that is money that would not go to lodging (they'd be home), or restaurants (they can cook at home). And foreign tourist money just wouldn't enter our economy at all.
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.
ecbuck, I get your point. But fact is the parks are trying to show their worth through a little propaganda. They are competing for recreating dollars spent by vacationers and at the same time 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. I would bet Disney talks about their tax contribution when they need better roads or services. Anyway my point is it may be important to NPS to use the propaganda to get what they need.