You are here

National Parks Generate Billions In Economic Activity

Share

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

"If" this, "in essence" that - that's a lot of conjecture and wild-ass-guessing, that you then go on to act as if you've actually proven those things and try to sell it as fact. That's the sort of thing that Wall Street did that crashed the economy.


EC Buck is correct. This big NPS PR blitz was capped off the other day when Jewell came to the Smokies and dayhiked a trail rehabbed by volunteer monies. She and local fraud and Senator Lamar Alexander grandstanded before a room of carefully chosen syncophants to tout the benefit of economic partnerships with the park, eg concessionaires. (There is a growing controversy here about the park's plan to build new horse stables in Smokemont so they need to stack the deck in order to divert more taxpayer money to do so.)
One story that didn't get covered by the pro park local media was that when Sen. Alexander's entourage pulled into the Marathon gas station in Townsend following that dog and pony show, he was refused service because of his support of the backcountry fee and recent vote to reduce veteran's benefits by store manager, Col Paul Sprayberry. The backcountry fee reduced visitation to the backcountry by %30 and I suppose he voted with his finger as he gave the senator a one digit salute and told him to buy his gas elsewhere.



While we may quibble about the accuracy of the stated numbers, there seems to be general agreement that parks bring dollars into local economies. Local business interests and politicians must agree, based on the continuing clamor to add new areas to the NPS, and "upgrade" existing ones to "full national park status" so they'll draw even more tourists to the area.

 Largely overlooked in the discussion is the fact that the NPS feels compelled to issue such reports at all, which seem to be spurred primarily by the intense competition among federal agencies for appropriated funds.

It's unfortunate that the value of places like the Grand Canyon, Yosemite and Glacier can be justified in so many minds only in terms of how much they can add to the GNP. These days, it's apparently no longer sufficient to show  that  parks "produce" enough economic benefit to justify their existence; now the pressure is on to show an increasingly positive cost-benefit ratio—and hence we get reports like the ones under discussion.


here seems to be general agreement that parks bring dollars into local economies.

And nobody is saying anything otherwise here. Unfortunately, they take them away from other economies.

NPS feels compelled to issue such reports at all, which seem to be spurred primarily by the intense competition among federal agencies for appropriated funds.

Feeling "compelled" is not a good reason to mislead the public. But at least you see that the purpose of the report is to lobby for Fed dollars. Rick B is too blinded by his Wall Street fantasy that he can't see that nor does he understand it was government interference in the markets not Wall Street, that crashed the economy. Perhaps he should go back to his library job and read a few books. He could start with The Great American Bank Robbery.


Ec, am familiar with Mr. Paul Sperry, he is a conservative pundit, investigative journalist for the New York Post and Stanford University Hoover Institute Media fellow. He strongly favors the neo-liberalism viewpoint, hey thats OK, thats his thing. On the other hand Andrew Sorkin, "To Big To Fail" is an interesting read and presents another viewpoint. Further an excellent article in this weeks "Nation" magazine on the Federal Reserve is worth reading. There all those that feel exactly the opposite of your statement that it was governmental interference, not Wall Street, that crashed the economy. All this off topic "Traveler", please excuse.


Agreed, Jim. From the article's opening statement--"from being described in the 19th century as unproductive wastelands in order to gain congressional approval"--to Rep. Hastings's infamous comment that the parks aren't "moneymakers," there is an abiding and unfortunate critique that parks must produce economic activity in order to be of value.


Unfortunately, they take them away from other economies.(referring to money generated for local economies by park visitors)

Not  sure I follow that logic, or see how it's a problem. Sounds like a value judgment that money spent by park visitors at a local motel, restaurant or canoe outfitter would be better spent elsewhere.

Feeling "compelled" is not a good reason to mislead the public.

You can question the numbers cited, but until someone provides hard evidence based on similar studies that the numbers are wrong, we're just bouncing opinions back and forth. Are the numbers overstated? Perhaps.  I'm not an economist or a statistician, so I don't know, but I think "mislead the public" is a bit of a reach. Frankly, I tend to be a bit skeptical of all such studies that tout the economic impact of any activity, whether it be a bicycle race, a winter olympics, a Super Bowl or pick you own favorite "economic engine."


Sounds like a value judgment that money spent by park visitors at a local motel, restaurant or canoe outfitter would be better spent elsewhere.

Not at all Jim. I am not making a value judgement between the two. I am just pointing out that that it is largely a zero sum game. In simplest terms, I decide to take a vacation and budget $2,000. I could go to Disneyland or to a National Park. If there were no NP, I would go to Disneyland and spend $2,000 there. If there is a NP I could still decide to go to Disneyland and spend the $2,000. Or I might go the the National Park. NP area gains 2 grand but the Disneyland area loses it. The NP didn't create $2,000 of activity, my decision to vacation did and the money would have been spent whether there was a NP or not.


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.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

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

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.