Parks, forests, and nature, are economic powerhouses, actually.
If all you care about is the economics when it comes to parks and public lands, then you should want them, because setting aside and preserving nature is actually very good for The Economy.
I happen to like being out in forests and on lakes and ponds, watching wildlife and birds. I love it. And apparently that translates into economic activity as it happens. I would still want parks, forests, and our PA game lands even if it didn't, but if that's what you're worried about, the financial side of it – it's a win win actually.
SmartAsset - The Economics of National Parks Updated on September 6, 2023 Written by Amelia Josephson The economics of national parks isn’t just about the parks themselves. It’s also about the effects those parks have on the surrounding local economy. According to a 2014 National Park Service report on “National Park Visitor Spending Effects,” visitors to national parks spur billions in economic activity and support hundreds of thousands of jobs across the nation. In 2021, the National Park System received over 297 million recreational visits, which is still lower than pre-pandemic levels but at the height of the 2014-2015 season. The National Parks Service estimates that visitors spent “$20.5 billion in local gateway regions while visiting National Park Service lands across the country.” And “these expenditures supported a total of 323 thousand jobs, $14.6 billion in labor income, $24.3 billion in value added, and $42.5 billion in economic output in the national economy.”
When I worked for a government parks department over a decade ago, I wound up coming across in the archives various economics papers and studies dating back decades on the park system and the economic generation boon that comes from state parks to the local economy. At the time was just after the Great Recession and a career change because of that from advertising, and I'd read a bunch of books on economics and the financial crash to try and figure out what happened to my career. So when I found these economics papers with regards to parks, some dating from the 1960s, I was fascinated because I hadn't really ever thought about that part – I just love parks and forests!
But it makes sense, doesn't it? It should be obvious that of course parks contribute to the economic ecosystem of a society, it's part of society, it's part of civilization, it's part of our lives. It’s a boon to public health and the economy.
So I suggest that anyone who wants to destroy, downsize, harm, or otherwise diminish parks and forests and public lands in order to supposedly "cut costs" is either a fool or a liar.
My letter to reps:
It's been shown that parks are an important essential powerhouse of the economy in our society. So any cuts to the national parks system will harm the economy, so if anyone says it's for economic reasons I know they're just not being honest. There should be NO cuts to national parks, and no cutting down of the forests. I like parks and forests, I enjoy camping, I like trees, I like natural nature. So I'm opposed to anything that diminishes our parks. And you should oppose harming parks too.
Please feel free to copy or repurpose the contents of my letter for your own letters to reps.
I'm just glad that a great deal of public land in Pennsylvania is Pennsylvania state land, and thanks to Gifford Pinchot (who I've spent time reading and writing about), a lot of park stuff is in the Pennsylvania state constitution, including stipulating that there are no entrance fees for Pennsylvania state parks. I can’t tell you what that has meant to me especially when money has been tight.
The advocacy for Pennsylvania public lands has always been high from across the political spectrum in Pennsylvania because around here, outdoor recreation is something people like whether they're left or right. I would've thought the same would be true all over the nation, but apparently some people have been tricked into turning against their own communities and even their own family members, which is so corrosive, tragic, and quite frankly kind of cringe.
Thrust into unemployment, axed federal workers face relatives who celebrate their firing By MATT SEDENSKY Updated 6:12 PM EDT, March 7, 2025 “My life is disintegrating because I can’t work in my chosen field,” says Jenn, 47, from Austin, Texas. “Lump on top of that no support from family – it hits you very hard.” The strife has extended to Jenn’s mother, a former federal employee herself. When she has criticized the administration’s actions, her mother simply says she supports the president. “She has somehow been convinced that public servants are a parasite and unproductive even though she was a public servant,” says Jenn.
U.S. Department of the Interior - National Park Visitation Sets New Record as Economic Engines Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 Annual appropriations for the National Park Service totaled $3.3 billion in fiscal year 2022, effectively turning a $1 investment in national parks into a more than $10 boost to the nation’s economy. The latest report is informed by new socioeconomic monitoring survey data, which greatly increases the accuracy of spending estimates for each park and helps the National Park Service learn more about park visitors. This advanced monitoring also delivers a more accurate estimate of the economic contributions of parks to communities. Results from the Visitor Spending Effects report series are available online via an interactive tool. Users can view year-by-year trend data and explore current year visitor spending, jobs, labor income, value-added, and economic output effects by sector for national, state and local economies.