How far the national parks have come, from being described in the 19th century as unproductive wastelands in order to gain congressional approval to now being described as economic engines that are behind nearly $27 billion in business.
Within hours Monday of releasing a report on the value of parks to their surrounding communities in 2012 -- "... our national parks help propel our nation’s economy, drawing hundreds of millions of visitors every year who are the lifeblood of the hotels, restaurants, outfitters, and other local businesses that depend on a vibrant and reliable tourism and outdoor recreation industry supported by our public lands," pointed out Interior Secretary Sally Jewell -- the Internet was flush with links to news stories from across the nation regurgitating the report's findings.
Individual parks also sent out releases to proclaim the economic engines they were:
Tourism to Shenandoah National Park creates $76 million in Economic Benefit
Tourism to Olympic National Park Creates $220 Million in Economic Benefit; Report shows visitor spending supports 2,700 jobs in local economy
James A. Garfield National Historic Site Creates $1.1 Million in Local Economic Benefit
Glacier Creates $172 Million In Economic Benefit
Grand Teton National Park & John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway Generate Nearly $492 Million in Economic Benefit through Global Tourism
Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park Creates $113,376,400 in Local Economic Benefit
In total, the National Park System in 2012 was behind $26.75 billion in economic activity, Secretary Jewel and National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis said during a joint telephone conference call with reporters. Accompanying that sum were more than 220,000 jobs, they added. (In a change from previous economic reports, the Park Service in the 2012 analysis expanded the economic footprint to include communities within 60 miles of a park.)
To further highlight the value of the parks, the two pointed to the shutdown last October of most national parks that resulted from a congressional impasse on the federal budget.
"Overall, the16-day shutdown resulted in 7.88 million fewer national park visitors in October 2013 compared to a three-year average (October 2010-12), and an estimated loss of $414 million in visitor spending in gateway and local communities across the country when comparing October 2013 to a three-year average (October 2010-12)," an Interior Department release said.
(You can find the economic impact report here, and a report on the effects of the 2013 shutdown in October here.)
The greatest individual economic engine in the park system in 2012 was the 469-mile-long Blue Ridge Parkway, which was said to generate $902.5 million. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Saint Croix Island International Historic Site, a 45-acre island in the Saint Croix River on the Maine-Canadian border that interprets the "attempted French settlement of 1604, which led to the founding of New France," had no economic impact.
Comments
Well if that were my claim it would be doubtful, but that isn't my claim.
My claim is that most of these people come to the US for many reasons, not just to visit the parks. If the parks weren't here they would probably still come and probably spend the same amount of money - if not more. Yes the parks may benefit the gateway communities (as I indicated in my initial post) but their additive effect to the overall US economy is questionable.
No Rick, the report is trying to create the impression that the parks are creating/generating this activity and that this $27 billion in activity wouldn't exist without the parks. Its an attempt to sway additional investments in the parks using the false impression that there is an incremental return of substantial scope.
As I said in my first post, people vacation and recreate with or without the parks. Most of this money would be spent anyway.
The apparent lack of understanding of the "Velocity" of money amazes me. All spending has an additive impact on the economy as it moves the money faster through the economy. Claiming that people might spend as much if not more if not for the parks is a false argument as there is no actual evidence of this other than personal opinion. So unless someone has some insight on the speed of consumer spending that nobody else here can find, can we put this to rest.
I kind of sit in the middle on this one. I think it is good for the NPS to try and get news press about the dollars that are generated from these National Park communities. Maybe congress notices and helps fix the backlog of maintenance. I truly feel that people will spend money to recreate with or without the parks as ec said. But their are some like me that plan vacations around places that do have National Park in the title. So call it propaganda or lobbying, hopefully it will get noticed by the right people in congress.
It is sort of sadly amusing and absurd to see those who care only - or mostly, to be generous - about the glory of the profit motive to create a situation where reports like this are viewed as necessary, and then to have them pooh pooh the reports when they come out. Kobayashi maru indeed.
Kobayashi maru ? I got that one with no need for google --Midshipman Kirk's no win situation that he went to great lengths to make a winning situation.
Paul
Choosing between Disneyworld and a National Park does not have an additive impact. It has nothing to do with velocity of money.
For Rick,
I don't know that anyone deemed this report "necessary", certainly not me and if the report engages in bogus methodology and/or analysis then it deserves to be pooh poohed. Its blind acceptance of such shoddy work that leads so many to be so misled on so many issues. Its embarrassing that so many of you do so so willingly.
No one, or at least not me, is arguing that a park doesn't have have positive impact on the local community. The question is it additive to the overall economy. Perhaps some, but to in essence suggest that every dollar spent within 60 miles of a park are dollars that wouldn't have otherwise been spent is just absurd.