You are here

Economic Study Looks At Value Of Renaming National Monuments As National Parks

Share

Published Date

April 15, 2019
Bandelier National Monument entrance sign in winter/NPS

Redesignating Bandelier National Monument as a national park would produce an economic boost, according to a study/NPS

More and more efforts are underway across the National Park System to rebrand some units as "national parks," in large part -- if not entirely -- for the cachet of being called a national park, and the accompanying economic benefits, as opposed to being known as a national monument or national lakeshore.

Of course, reasonable people who hold differing standards and visions for what constitutes a "national park" can and will disagree with some of those rebrandings. But recent economic studies seem to show it's a good move.

Recently, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore was transformed into Indiana Dunes National Park, Jefferson National Expansion Memorial began Gateway Arch National Park, Pinnacles National Park not too long ago was a national monument, and there is talk of turning both White Sands National Monument and Bandelier National Monument, both in New Mexico, into "national parks."

There have been success stories. Arches, Death Valley, Saguaro, and Great Sand Dunes all started out as national monuments and have since been redesignated as national parks. "National parks" resonate in our consciousness. How many times have you been asked, "How many national parks have you visited," as opposed to "How many national monuments have you visited?"

But there also are problems on the ground level, as the popularity of "national parks" in recent years has drawn at-times stifling crowds. Acadia, Zion, and Arches national parks, just to name three, have been grappling in recent years for ways to best manage congestion and its impacts on natural resources and the park experience. 

Local chambers of commerce view the "national park" brand as a moneymaker, the sometimes elusive but always sought golden goose. And Headwaters Economics, a Montana-based firm that focuses on studies "to improve community development and land management decisions," notes that "national parks" have greater visitation and economic impacts than national monuments. And the differences between the two designations that the firm highlighted seem compelling:

* In the Intermountain West, from 2000 to 2017, recreation visits to national parks increased 55 percent while visits to national monuments increased 2 percent.

* Currently, most national monuments are not overnight destinations, substantially lessening their economic impact,

* National Parks can be sources of pride for communities, who become actively involved in promoting more visitation.

Headwaters Economics produced the data for a study looking at the impact of redesignating Bandelier National Monument in New Mexico as a "national park."

"Depending on how local communities advertise a new national park, redesignation of Bandelier National Monument may result in between $2.1 million and $2.5 million in new spending, 29 to 36 new jobs, and between $917,000 and $1.1 million in labor income," the economists predicted.

How long-lasting might such a prediction hold?

"The period from 2013 to 2017 was remarkable for the National Park Service. Visitation to national parks has accelerated rapidly since the end of the Great Recession (which lasted officially from 2007 to 2009)," noted Headwaters Economics. "From 2013 to 2017, visitation to national parks has increased nationally by 21 percent. Each of the case studies profiled showed a rapid increase in visitation from 2013 to 2017, with a corresponding rise in jobs and personal income that resulted from visitor expenditures. Even in Bandelier National Monument, visitation and local economic impacts increased rapidly since 2013.

"Americans obviously love to visit national park units, and we can expect the trend to continue to grow as long as the national economy grows also," it concluded.

Comments

If economic success is the criterion, than why not turn these wonders of Nature into theme parks, complete with roller coaster and water slide?  Really, should not "unique natural beauty" be the overriding factor?  I think Pinnacles may have been a mistake, since Chiricahua, at least to me, is more pinnacle-y.  I even suspect that some of this may be political, "rewarding" favored states with a "National Park."   And before we get carried away with this craze, think of the big -negative- effect on us "park collectors," having to start our collection over again.  Just when you think you've seen them all...


I think the gateway arch becoming a national park was terrible.  That is CLEARLY a national monument not park and I'm really upset they allowed that.  As for Indiana dunes, white sands, bandelier and pinnacles....I'm fine with all of those.  The made or will make great additions.


A more pressing issue, at least in my opinion, is updating one and all to better handle all of the people coming through the parks. Campgrounds built in the 1950s do not accommodate a lot of campers of today. The parks are missing out on millions in revenue and with the amount of land that has been set aside for these parks there is no excuse not to expand. 


I agree with you Julia, terrible decision!


I know of no quicker and more effective way to destroy these special places than to designate them national parks.  The subsequent hoards of people have totally trashed Yosemite and Zion with many more to follow. 


I would think our purpose should be to hold these treasures for the generations, and the National Monument status does just that.  Turning them into National Parks endangers them just for purposes of economic gain.  It seems backwards.  Sure, Bandelier is unique enough, but we already have Mesa Verde, Canyon de Chelley, Tuzigoot, Walnut Canyon, Pecos,  Taos and Chaco Canyon.  Only ne is a NP.  If all we care about is money, then put some advertising and promotion into them individually, or in total for "National Monument collectors."  So far, we've seen all the Parks, and all of the above list.


I believe that national park status denotes a certain granduer and size.  The St. Louis arch, while special in it's own right, does not meet the standard set by Yellowstone.  Just because we call it a national park does not mean that it meets the standard of Yellowstone or RMNP.  We are diluting the title of national park.


Senator Martin Heinrich is the person pushing to "upgrade" Bandelier to a NP. He is a good senator and he has two motivations here. First, he wants to open part of Bandelier to hunting as part of the NP proposal. As an avid hunter this has been a focus of his and hunting groups for years now. Many people oppose this move. Second, Heinrich believes he can help New Mexico's troubled economy by creating new national parks. Heinrich voted for David Bernhardt for Interior Secretary and some of us suspect he may have made a deal with Bernhardt to help him with these park upgrades in return for his vote. In any case, Bandelier is understaffed and already struggles with the hoards of tourists that come in the summer and fall. They depend on volunteers for much of their visitor center staffing, have minimal law enforcement, have minimal interpretive programs, and the park is getting run down by so many people breaking the rules without supervision. Without extra money, the national park upgrade will definitly hurt the park resource badly. 


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Your support helps the National Parks Traveler increase awareness of the wonders and issues confronting national parks and protected areas.

Support Our Mission

INN Member

The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.