America's National Park System, you could say, is priceless. But if that's a bit too open-ended for you, an economic study released by the National Park Foundation puts a firmer, though conservative, dollar amount on the national parks' value: $92 billion. To put it another way, the park system is comparable in value to 92 B-2 Spirit bombers, or 34 Virginia class nuclear submarines.

Yet even that total falls short of the pure economic value of the parks, as figures remain to be calculated for the parks' ecosystem services (e.g., the value of wildlife, the benefits of watersheds the parks provide and preserve), the educational value, and even the intellectual property holdings of the National Park Service. But the $92 billion figure, atop the $32 billion in consumer spending the parks help generate annually, places a stronger context on the system's value and could help advocates convince Congress and philanthropists to invest more heavily in the parks.

The Park Service long has struggled to get adequate funding from Congress. Part of that struggle has led to a nearly $12 billion backlog in the agency's maintenance needs. We're talking pothole-chocked roads, creaky and leaky water systems (See: Grand Canyon's transcanyon pipeline woes), sewer system woes, buildings that could use more than a coat or two of paint. Imagine if your house was worth $92 billion. Do you think you could get away with $3.3 billion a year to maintain and operate it?

“I think one of our goals for this project and the release of this report is to get the recognition of the U.S. Congress and the appropriators that the Park Service needs more federal funding," Park Service Director Jon Jarvis said Thursday during a tele-conference to discuss the report, Total Economic Valuation of the National Park Service Lands and Programs.

"(W)e’re a perpetuity organization on an annual appropriation, and that is not sustainable," the director added. "It’s very, very difficult to really operate and run and meet our goals and reach new audiences and run youth programs and our education programs on this kind of funding.”

The authors of the report -- Professor John Loomis of Colorado State and one of his assistants, Michelle Haefele, and Professor Linda J. Bilmes of Harvard University -- followed the conference call with an afternoon spent on Capitol Hill to brief staffers on the numbers they came up with after surveying households across the country on the value of national parks.

That big number, $92 billion, was calculated by multiplying the Total Economic Value placed on National Park System acreage -- $2,967 per household -- and the TEV for all Park Service programs -- $1,445 -- by 21 million U.S. households. While there are many more households in the country, the authors based their math on the number of completed surveys they received. 

"Since we got an 18 percent survey response rate (which is on par for long, 12-page surveys), we felt our answers only represent 18 percent of the U.S. households (so roughly 21 million households)," explained Professor Loomis. "Thus, $4,412 times 21 million yields the $92 billion."

“We felt that it was important to understand the full value of the National Park Service, not just to people who visit the parks, but to all Americans who believe it is important to protect our country’s special places. We also agreed that there was a fundamental mismatch between the mission of the Park Service, which is to maintain these places forever, in perpetuity, and the way the parks are paid for in annual budget outlays," Professor Bilmes said during the call with reporters.

The $92 billion figure, she said, "represents how much U.S. households would pay not to lose national park units and programs."

A particularly interesting outcome of the survey, said Professor Bilmes, is that it underscored that "the public overwhelmingly supports the National Park Service, regardless of whether they actually visit. Ninety-five percent of all respondents said it was important to protect the parks, and 85 percent said that they themselves benefit directly from the existence of the parks, whether or not they visit."

The disparity between the overall value of the park system and its annual funding is staggering, she said.

"The economic value of the parks, $92 billion, is 30 times bigger than the annual budget of the parks. The government is spending about $3 billion per year on National Park Service funding, and funding is lower now than it was in 2001. This means that the parks are creating a huge value, far greater value than the amount we spend on them."

Some other interesting findings of the survey included:

* 94.9 percent of respondents said, "(I)t is important to me that historic sites are protected for current and future generations whether I visit them or not";

* Just 6.2 percent said the country should sell off some units of the National Park System;

* Just 22.2 percent thought "(P)rivate businesses could probably do a better job than the federal government at protecting local historic sites and buildings";

* 94.8 percent were of the opinion that, "(I)t is important to me that National Parks are preserved for current and future generations whether I visit them or not";

* Of those who identified their politican persuasion, 40.66 percent of the respondents said they either leaned Republican or were "mostly Republican," while 24.04 percent either leaned Democratic or were "mostly Democratic."

At the National Parks Conservation Association, President Theresa Pierno said Congress should take the report to heart and work harder to support the National Park System.

“For years, funding has been too small for the National Park Service, forcing parks to do more with less despite their enormous economic benefit and, more importantly, their invaluable role in protecting and telling America's story," she said in a release following the report's unveiling. “The spending bill expected to be considered in Congress soon better invests in the National Park Service, but undermines the protection of park resources by including policy amendments that would threaten park air, water, and wildlife. Americans deserve a spending bill that not only funds national parks, but also rejects proposals that threaten their underlying protections and resources."

But those on the conference call discussing the economic report -- which cost $300,000 to produce and was funded through donations from the S.D. Bechtel Jr. Foundation, the Turner Foundation, Cody J. Smith of the Summit Foundation, the National Park Foundation, and UPD Consulting, Inc. -- were of the opinion that federal funding alone won't sustain the parks.

“This suggests to me that the gap between the value and the funding is so big that we need to consider the role of private philanthropy, and alternative funding models alongside federal dollars if we are to sustain the National Park Service for the next century," Dr. Bilmes said of the report's findings. 

Director Jarvis added, "the (funding) gap cannot be filled with private philanthropy and corporate sponsorships. It’s going to be a new more robust, more sustainable financial model, one of which is the establishment of an endowment, and that is something we have before the U.S. Congress in the centennial legislation something that we would hope that could be built over time.”