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
Ethelred, the chart on page 5 may interest (but disappont) you:
http://www.nationalparksonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/OTTI-Inter...
Of the overseas visitors in 2009, less than 20% visted a National Park and of course that would include things like the National Mall or Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island which would be visted no matter what their status.
80% didn't visit any National Park and who knows how many of the 20% came primarily for a park rather than going to a park tangentially.
Did some come because of the Parks. Probably. Was it the overwhelming majority, absolutely not. So your contention, "we'd get very little foreign tourism" is absolutely wrong.
No one can fault Jarvis for trying to promote the parks, after all that is part of his job. If his point is to sucure additional funding then I see this as the same argument professional sports teams use to justify asking taxpayers to buy them new sports complexes or business uses to ask for land and subsidies. If in fact every dollar spent returns 10 as Jarvis states or is good for the local economy as is the justification in the other cases, then we should be able to lower taxes shouldn't we? Yet it always results in a tax increase.
Were the national parks ever intended to be economic engines? Or where they to preserve slices of American grandeur? I think the latter.
I also think it would be just as, if not more, valuable to point out the role national parks play in filtering air and water, providing habitat for species, helping to keep some species off the Endangered Species List while helping others rebound from being listed.
There is an impressive aspect to the ecological role that the parks play that should be promoted just as vigorously, if not more so, than the economic component.
So, it looks like we're now in agreement that 1) there is incremental spending (of course we don't know what defines or how to capture "incremental spending"), and 2) that some people might spend comparable money elsewhere in lieu of a visitation to a national park.
I agree, Kurt. The article invites a more interesting conversation about the parks as preserving value that hasn't been capitalized. (And since these places are so uniquely American, it's a nice way to think about American exceptionalism in the context of economic globalization. That's my Rooseveltism speaking.)
Kurt nicely said, I also was disappointed in the NPS Director not pointing out the enormous ecological value of the parks, along with the recreational and economic benefits. Agree completely.
From a 2008 article (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0330canyonvisits0330.html). All the evidence on this seems to be anecdotal--and therefore probably no way to resolve the arguments above. But it's interesting to consider--would 40% of visitors to the Grand Canyon have come to America if it didn't exist? Or would they have gone on safari in Kenya, to the rainforests of Central America, the Canadian Rockies, the islands of Greece?
But I like Kurt's question better.
Justin, your post sums it up well. These places are INTERNATIONAL destinations. Without the designation of a National Park, they will not be on the map of most international tourists. Countries that have preserved large scale national parks like South Africa, Kenya, Zimbabwe, the United States, Canada, Brazil, Peru, etc ARE in that ecotourism driven game because they have preserved nature that attract a certain breed of visitor. Some people in our country recongnize this. We are international community, and not just exactly a county, or a state anymore. It's an international community, and places like Yosemite, Grand Canyon, Great Smokies, Kruger, Banff, Torres del Paine, Serengeti, Manu, Yellowstone can be held in the same breath.
Time is short on this planet, so some of us don't plan on wasting those dollars chasing theme parks riding roller coasters. To me it's chasing National Parks, and experiencing some of the best that the Earth has to offer. That's what drives my tourist dollars. In fact next week, i'm off for a 2 week adventure doing just that in the Northern Rockies again. . . Not a theme park involved.