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
I'm in favor of turning all 400+ units into National Parks and be done with it.
It may have the effect of driving up visitation to certain locations, but it may also spread out the finite number of visitors across a much larger destination pool, effectively reducing crowding.
Plus, the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase experiences have shown that National Monument starus protections can be temporary.
I'm just glad I was able to see some of the parks before they were destroyed by the hordes of people. When you put economic gain before beauty, which man is known to do these days, future generations suffer. People these days have to be entertained wherever they go instead of just enjoying nature for what it is. To change a monument just for money sake is truly a sad day for all of us
I agree that making Gateway Arch a national park was a bad decision and do not think it rises to the standard of a national park. There may be an economic gain to the surrounding communities but at what cost? It costs a great deal to change signs, brochures, etc. from a monument to a park. The money could be better spent working on the enormous maintenance backlog in our current national parks. We need to take better care of what we have before adding more stress to the system. As an avid park fan and "collector" I would urge Congress to fund and staff the parks at an appropriate level. It has been apparent in recent years the parks are unable to provide the same top quality educational programs and supervision that they have in the past.
Julia & Craig (& Marlene)--
I offer for your consideration Hot Springs National Park, a small developed town in Arkansas. It became a Federal Rervation in 1832, long before Yellowstone, and was designated as the 18th National Park in 1921. Total area 2.2km^2, less than a square mile, Federal area just under 2km^2. I'm not denigrating Hot Springs NP; I'm pointing out that from almost the beginning of NPS, "National Park" has applied to other than large scenic natural parks. With the major exception of "National Preserve" and minor exceptions for "National Recreation Area" and the various versions of "Wild (& Scenic) River", management is the same independent of the designation. In general, management is driven by the enabling legislation or Presidential proclamation.
As for visitation numbers and durations and spending amounts in surrounding areas, that's still driven much more by distance from large cities or major freeways, unit size, and things like campgrounds than by designation per se, although Headwaters Economics didn't bother with the multiple regression to partially tease apart the effects of those factors.
I hate to propose this, but I feel that EVERY National Park Unit that is NOT a National Park, should be changed to a National Park. This is not based on resource values or the increased economic value to adjoining coummunities. Instead I make this appeal based on the fact that it would be harder than HELL for politicians to Modify or Remove a National Park from the National Park System and I'm afraid I see DARKNESS in the future for Heritage Lands that are not politically protected...
I'm a retired NPS Ranger with 30+ years in the service.
Your point about Hot Springs is well taken. We have been there and quite honestly couldn't figure out why it was a national park. There are a couple others that we have also wondered about. (We've been to 53 of the now 61.) When you look at the park service's explanation of the various designations they seem to be more than a bit imprecise but one of the things it says is that national parks "are generally large, diverse areas with outstanding natural features and ecological resources." My biggest concern for our parks in general is appropriate funding to be able to maintain and preserve.
Manchin and a WV delegation also want New River Gorge to be redesiganted as a NP. They emphasize the "economic benefit" to the local communities that redesignation will carry. Yes, because that's the most important thing right Manchin?
At this point, might as well make every NPS unit a NP and just be done with it. It's getting ridiculous. The NP brand has been watered down and cheapened. Gateway Arch was the latest embarassment. Economic benefits were also cited in that designation too.
Just call them all NPs. Let's have them on every street corner.