Top Interior Department and National Park Service officials used Earth Day to promote the National Park System as an economic engine with an annual output of $30 billion and which serves as a carbon sink with an additional value of nearly $600 million.
The report, released at 6 a.m. Eastern on Wednesday, comes at the mid-point of National Park Week and as the National Park Service builds on its campaign to mark its centennial in August 2016.
Along with touting the economic value of the park system, a clutch of accompanying reports pointed to $26 million in improvements to parks from coast to coast, the president's "Every Kid in a Park" initiative that will see 4th graders this fall receive an annual parks pass, and the "Find Your Park" campaign to connect all Americans to the country's system of public parks and recreation lands.
In 2014, the National Park System received over 292 million recreation visits. NPS visitors spent $15.7 billion in local gateway regions (defined as communities within 60 miles of a park). The contribution of this spending to the national economy was 277 thousand jobs, $10.3 billion in labor income, $17.1 billion in value added, and $29.7 billion in output. The lodging sector saw the highest direct contributions with 48 thousand jobs and $4.8 billion in output directly contributed to local gateway economies nationally. The sector with the next greatest direct contributions was restaurants and bars, with 60 thousand jobs and $3.2 billion in output directly contributed to local gateway economies nationally.
In a prepared statement, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said the economic data underscore that, 'Our national parks often serve as economic engines for local communities, drawing tourists from around the world who pump money into area stores, restaurants, hotels and more. At the same time, these treasured landscapes have shown they support strong public health by absorbing carbon pollution that contributes to climate change. When we invest in our parks, we're not only preserving our natural and historic sites, we're supporting strong economic growth and healthier communities.'
Gateway communities to the parks were a large benefactor of this spending, as motels and hotels in those communities received $9.5 billion in business from park visitors, while commercial campgrounds in those communities saw $922 million in business, according to the economic report.
The economic news was welcomed by the National Park Hospitality Association, which represents national park concessionaires.
'We applaud NPS efforts to describe the importance of park visits to regional and national economies ' it is significant, indeed," said Derrick Crandall, the association's counselor, in an email. "Even beyond the important figures contained in the report, national parks play an important role in prompting purchases of recreational equipment well beyond the 60-mile region around parks ' including major goods like RVs and boats and clothing. We also note that this report does not assess the value of our parks on inbound tourism to the United States ' a major and growing positive influence on our national economy.
'Best of all, the economic value of national parks to the nation can be enhanced without threats to the natural, cultural and historic resources of park units with management changes like longer operating hours and seasons and investment in appropriate visitor facilities designed to be low impact and efficient to operate.'
The news was also welcomed at the National Parks Conservation Association, where Craig Obey, the group's senior vice president for government, noted that, "It's clear that when our national parks are a priority, our economy benefits. The $3 billion increase in economic impact over 2013 is because more people visited parks, parks and communities didn't suffer the negative impact of a federal government shutdown, and the sequester cuts to parks were temporarily addressed.
'We had a record-breaking number of visits to national parks in 2014, and even more visits are likely with the approaching park centennial. This is the time to permanently end the sequester, reverse annual funding shortfalls, and fix park infrastructure with a pro-park transportation bill," he added in a prepared statement.
The report noted that its figures were best estimates based on various models, and that were likely over-estimated in some areas, and under-estimated in others.
As for parks serving as carbon dioxide sinks, the press release said, "Scientists found that 78 percent of the parks studied functioned as net carbon sinks, meaning that more CO2 is stored, or sequestered, than is released. Great Smoky Mountains National Park stored the largest amount of CO2, 1.6 million metric tons, valued at $64.4 million, each year."
"...in aggregate, NPS lands in the conterminous United States are a net carbon sink, sequestering more than 14.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. The associated societal value of this service is estimated at approximately $582.5 million per year," the report added.
Comments
I don't disagree with you on what you wrote here, Alfred, but I'm not sure sometimes just what you're getting at in some of your posts. This time, you were clear and it's just the same as what I've been pushing. Our parks are not the only places that need to be preserved -- it's the entire ball of water, rock, and air upon which we all live.
Diane Ackerman's book does NOT advocate saving only parks. It does an excellent job of pointing out ways in which we could help with the preservation of the entire planet -- and we humans who infest it. Have you read the book?
Lee, I have not yet read the book. I note that she has 23 books. I take 10 years to write one of mine. I looked in her table of contents, index, and bibliography for the topics and books that have always mattered to me. Not finding most of them I am left to wonder. What is so revolutionary about her thoughts? She is a popularizer. Fine. I get it. She pulls other books together and writes a book. Scholars are taught to be definitive. We don't get to pick and choose our sources.
So, what are the "ways in which we could help with the preservation of the entire planet" that so motivate you to love this book? I have loved many books, but only a few of them are brutally honest about this fact. If human population continues to increase, all of it is "over." The numbers will overwhelm us beyond the ability to "play with others," including a sandbox that is "green."
Is Ms. Ackerman saying that, or providing us with another "fix?" I see the fixes her sources have in mind, and yes, some of them may buy us a little time. But not if we don't address the numbers, because the numbers keep going up. And planet earth is fixed. As I speak, two neighboring houses are being turned into an apartment complex, while Seattle still lacks for decent streets. We've "desensified" and are saving farmland (allegedly), but life in the city is becoming a mess.
It's not in a book, Lee. It's all around us. There is nothing new to be said. "We have met the enemy, and he is us." But yes, I will read the book--as soon as I finish my current book review for Kurt.
Dr. Runte - Your rant or argument or whatever it is seems incredibly contrived. The report simply points out (and promotes) some data about the NPs being carbon sinks. Why should Sec Jewell have to "concede" anything about other lands? While I agree and understand that other lands can act as carbon sinks as well, I see nothing in this article that denies that or merits your response. Maybe I'm missing it? Also note that in the case of surrounding Nat Forest lands, as well as state parks or other state conservation lands, Sec Int has nothing to do with them anyway. I guess I understand some of your points, but I don't understand your attack.
There are extensive public lands that merit consideration for designation as carbon preserves under National Park Service protection. Today, they are releasing massive amounts of carbon due to industrial logging and other resource extraction. It is highly unlikely that these carbon forests will be protected anytime soon under their current development-oriented land agencies.
Examples that have carbon preserve National Park potential include:
• The ancient National Forests of the Pacific Northwest
• the Bureau of Land Managment's "O & C" forest lands in Oregon
• high-biomass-density National Forests in the East, such as the Allegheny (PA), Chequamegon-Nicolet (WI), Green Mountain (VT), Mississippi (MS), and Ottawa (MI)
• many of our National Grasslands, which are under Forest Service administration
• state lands with high carbon storage potential, such as the Quabbin in Massachusetts
Scott, You are obviously unaware that the Secretary of the Interior manages 267 million acres under BLM (Bureau of Land Management). Over there, Interior cannot part with those lands fast enough for large-scale wind and solar projects. In fact, Secretary Jewell just denied the Sage Grouse endangered status so more of those projects can move forward. She alleges it is because those populations are "recovering," but really, I think I smell another million acres of sagebrush and desert "wasteland" about to be coverted into something more "productive."
My rant, as you call it, is that. Yesterday (April 22) was Earth Day. Ms. Jewell is in charge of 350 million acres of the American Earth. In my opinion, it makes no sense to separate out the acres--or wildlife populations--she is willing to preserve. Her duty is to be preserving all of them, subject to economic allowances that make biological sense. Of course she is not "denying" that other lands act as carbon sinks, but there, the biology is being conveniently muzzled. It's a trick as old as the public lands. Point to what the public loves the most and say you love it, too, hoping the public will not ask what is happening to the rest of it. Remember James Watt? Oh, how he loved Yellowstone, while protesting that everything else under his charge was a waste.
Two percent of the American Earth is in national parks. Good for us, but what about the other 98 percent? On Earth Day, I want to see a news release talking about that for a change.
I ask the Wizard to show me everything behind the curtain. I will leave you with two specific examples of landscapes the country has lost, or remains about to lose. East of Searchlight, Nevada, on public lands managed by BLM, Duke Energy, et al., have planned a wind farm abutting Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Just over the hill, at Ivanpah, California/Nevada, a 390-megawatt thermal solar power plant is cooking next to the Mojave National Preserve, again, on lands managed by BLM.
How are these projects "good" for the desert, wildlife, natural beauty, and yes, the preservation of natural carbon sinks? And if they're not good for them, why did Interior approve those projects? I await Secretary Jewell telling me that. And until she tells me, I would just as soon she not deflect my attention by "reinventing" the national parks. This reinvention is bogus. The issue remains the land. Interior is not preserving it; under this administration they have rather been converting it. And it is time the public knew just how much.
I would feel a whole lot better about this "carbon dioxide sink" business if the President did not take Air Force One and a back up plane to Florida to make his speech. Air Force One burns 4 gallons for every mile flown. Just think about how much CO2 President Obama put into the atmosphere for his "Photo Op" moment at the Everglades. Perhaps a speech given from the Oval Office and broadcast to Florida might have been more appropriate for this occasion. What about it Mr. Obama?
Agreed, Alfred, WE are the enemy. And yes, overpopulation of the planet is our biggest threat. And yes, we are dithering instead of even trying to think of solutions. Books like Ackerman's are at least attempting to get the story out in understandable terms to average people. Unfortunately, average people are too busy being entertained to pay attention.
I'm glad I won't be here when the fit hits the shan, but I do worry about my grand and great grand kids. The future looks pretty bleak from where we now stand.
Dr. Runte - All the points you site in your response to my post are excellent, except for one: I am aware of Interior managing BLM lands. You are again doing precisely what I had a problem with in the first place. I specifically stated: "..in the case of surrounding NF lands..." which you then twisted into me being "obviously unaware...of BLM". I really just wish you would could get past this kind of stuff.
Anyway, all very good points, as are Michael Kellet's which are presented without any other distractions.
For the record, in my opinion places like Lake Mead suck anyway because those big fat reservoirs shouldn't be there in the first place. I'd like to see both the dam busted and the wind farm taken off the table.
I am in complete agreement that population explosion is #1 problem. But it's not going away any time soon so we are tasked with figuring out ways to handle it, unfortunately. At the same time we certainly should be trying to rein it in.