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
rmackie.
No Community Reinvestment Act, no Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, no Janet Reno suing banks for not making loans to people that couldn't afford them and the bubble and subsequent crash never would have happened.
ec - Your zero sum theory is an interesting one; it presumes that people are determined to spend a set amount on a vacation, and if one destination isn't available, they'll just find another place to spend the same amount. Perhaps so, maybe not. (You also suggest that people base their vacation spending on what they've budgeted for a trip. If that were the case, the credit card industry would be in trouble :-)
We can have fun speculating about such things, but it would be just that. I'd suggest, however, that an unknown percentage of visitors are willing to travel farther and therefore spend more to get to and enjoy a premier location such as Grand Canyon or Glacier NP. I was willing to shell out the dollars a few years ago to visit places like Denali and Glacier Bay because I was convinced the quality of the experience would be worth it. Had those parks not been there, would I have ventured to Alaska anyway? Probably not. I would have stayed a lot closer to home...and spent a lot less. The balance would have stayed in my savings account.
The previously cited examples of foreign visitors at our national parks are a good example. Would all of those people come to the U. S. anyway, or stayed as many days, even if we had no national parks like Grand Canyon or Yosemite? Who knows. Perhaps someone has done a study on that question :-)
But certainly not the NPS. Is there some incremental spending? Perhaps. But to claim it has "created" or "generated" the whole pie is just nonsense.
I agree (once again), Jim. My experience at NPAS (described in my first post) is similar to yours with Alaska. This summer, I have a conference at the University of Minnesota. Afterward, I'm heading up to Voyageurs NP, and I'll need a packraft, which will run me about $2000. This money would otherwise have stayed in my savings account. I'm certainly not looking for a reason to spend an extra $2000. Simply because I have money doesn't mean I'm going to spend it. (Not to mention that, without the park there, I would have simply turned around after the conference and come home.)
I've worked for the past 50 years and enjoy the fruits of my labor as much as the next fellow. Hell, I was even a conservative activist for some years, saw greed up close and personal, but decided to get out and grow a conscience instead. It is when pure selfishness is disguised in Randian rhetoric that this entire nonsense about the parks having to justify their existence in terms of dollars arises. When I went through Saugus Iron Works NHP and learned about that portion of our history, that had value. When I stand on Mt Rainier and look in any direction, that has value. When I see an immense bison stroll past in Yellowstone NP, that has value. I believe our nation must invest in those things that do NOT return a dollar value, in those things that may have intangible but valued return. It must preserve it's history, both natural and cultural. And in this I cannot cite a specific reference, I cannot quote numbers or dollars, I cannot comply with any of the cute little quirks of online debate patter. I merely state that it is my opinion, and do believe that there are others who share that opinion.
Believe it or not Rick, I don't believe parks need to justify themselves in terms of dollars either and I think they do themselves a disservice trying (falsely) to make that argument.
May I first begin by saying that this is my first time posting on the traveler. I am a Recreation, Parks and Tourism college senior and have found the information and opinions here to be extremely informative and helpful.
I wholeheartedly agree with ecbuck's comment "I don't believe parks need to justify themselves in terms of dollars either and I think they do themselves a disservice trying (falsely) to make that argument." National parks were created for the human enjoyment and recreation, conservation and preservation of wildlife and ecosystems. They are not, and never have been, solely "economic engines" for raising money for the government. I liken this situation to preventative medicine. Preventing illness saves billions of dollars, but the point is really to improve peoples lives and health, not to save money. But unfortunately it seems as though our "broke" government has to financially justify everything they spend money on, mostly to themselves, but also to those who don't want their tax dollars going to parks (just tanks and guns).
In regards to the cost of the government shutdown, I believe that the shutdown hurt concessionaires and local communities much more than the government. My husband and I work for a NPS concessionaire and strongly felt the impacts of that shutdown. It was worse, though, for the communities surrounding Yosemite, getting dealt a double blow of a shutdown and a massive wildfire. The politicians in Washington that caused the shutdown still received their salaries but we did not.
Agreed, Lee (and Rick). I'd add that these are values that can define the nation and distinguish it from both the state and global capitalism.